I may not like the police, but I support them

[DGS49]

People become cops for a lot of different reasons, one of them being - unfortunately - they are bullies.

Psych testing tries to weed out such applicants, but doesn't always succeed.

The definition of a "hero" is someone who voluntarily places his own safety and wellbeing at risk for the benefit of his fellow man. Cops do this routinely, every single day. Hence, in any dispute between a citizen and a cop, the cop should get "the benefit of any doubt." This places the burden of proof on anyone claiming that the cops have wronged him. But it must be so. Otherwise, no sane person will ever be a cop.

 

[SavannahMann]

People become cops for a lot of different reasons, one of them being - unfortunately - they are bullies.

Psych testing tries to weed out such applicants, but doesn't always succeed.

The definition of a "hero" is someone who voluntarily places his own safety and wellbeing at risk for the benefit of his fellow man. Cops do this routinely, every single day. Hence, in any dispute between a citizen and a cop, the cop should get "the benefit of any doubt." This places the burden of proof on anyone claiming that the cops have wronged him. But it must be so. Otherwise, no sane person will ever be a cop.

Pfui

 

[MikeK]

[...]

In this case, the bigger danger is criminals. Personally, I'm neither criminal nor police! And that applies to most of us. But in this particular battle, I take the side of the police.

"Criminals," per se, is rather vague reference in this particular discussion because someone who is found with a small amount of marijuana is technically a criminal -- and thousands of such individuals are arrested by police every year in the U.S. Whether or not such individuals go to prison is secondary to the fact that their lives are ruined by their "drug arrest" records. And if you watch the tv "ride-along" documentaries, COPS or Live PD, you will see that minor drug arrests account for more than 50% of all police activity.

That clarification aside, I agree with your support of the police where real criminals are concerned, those who harm others in some way, whether murdering, assaulting, robbing or raping them, or burglarizing their homes, businesses or cars, etc. These are the criminals I like to see the police take charge of -- not some poor wretch who is found with drugs on his person or in his car but who is harming or bothering no one.

I am old enough to remember a time in America when police focused their attention on real crime and avoided wasting their time on the kind of nonsense today's cops are preoccupied with. Back then cops patrolled on foot (walked "beats"), hot and cold, rain or snow and they had no radios. They carried .38 revolvers and "nightsticks." They knew the local people and we knew them by their first names. Today the cops are strangers who ride around in air-conditioned cars with computers, they carry 17-shot automatic pistols and portable radios. The differences came about gradually but they are striking and have dramatically altered the relationship between the general public and the police.

Back then the police were citizens with special authority. Today the police are not thought of as citizens -- but something other.

 

[SavannahMann]

[...]

In this case, the bigger danger is criminals. Personally, I'm neither criminal nor police! And that applies to most of us. But in this particular battle, I take the side of the police.

"Criminals," per se, is rather vague reference in this particular discussion because someone who is found with a small amount of marijuana is technically a criminal -- and thousands of such individuals are arrested by police every year in the U.S. Whether or not such individuals go to prison is secondary to the fact that their lives are ruined by their "drug arrest" records. And if you watch the tv "ride-along" documentaries, COPS or Live PD, you will see that minor drug arrests account for more than 50% of all police activity.

That clarification aside, I agree with your support of the police where real criminals are concerned, those who harm others in some way, whether murdering, assaulting, robbing or raping them, or burglarizing their homes, businesses or cars, etc. These are the criminals I like to see the police take charge of -- not some poor wretch who is found with drugs on his person or in his car but who is harming or bothering no one.

I am old enough to remember a time in America when police focused their attention on real crime and avoided wasting their time on the kind of nonsense today's cops are preoccupied with. Back then cops patrolled on foot (walked "beats"), hot and cold, rain or snow and they had no radios. They carried .38 revolvers and "nightsticks." They knew the local people and we knew them by their first names. Today the cops are strangers who ride around in air-conditioned cars with computers, they carry 17-shot automatic pistols and portable radios. The differences came about gradually but they are striking and have dramatically altered the relationship between the general public and the police.

Back then the police were citizens with special authority. Today the police are not thought of as citizens -- but something other.

I'll go this far. Generally speaking the image of the police in the past was of a sheepdog protecting the flock. They never were that in reality, but the image stuck.

The illusion of the old west Sheriff who took down murderers and horse thieves. The reality was Wyatt Earp who bushwhacked people and carried out the fued with the Clantons safe behind his badge. Oh he may have done some good, but he did just as much bad.

Then the twentieth century where police beat confessions out of people. In time those pesky liberals put a stop to it and the police railed against it claiming if they could not encourage people to confess the guilty would go free.

Then the cops adapted and lied to people to get them to confess. Then the pesky liberals stepped in again and we got Miranda. The police were furious. It was outrageous that they had to tell people they had the right to stop talking. How could they twist the words to make up a confession? It just wasn't fair.

These were not good guys standing sentinel against the forces of evil. They were abusing their power even then, and fought diligently to protect their privileges.

Today we have smarter cops, and they turned their attention to legislators. Most states have a Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. Laws granting special rights to the brotherhood of the badge. Rights they always enjoyed as an understood benefit of the job before.

The people wearing the badge today are no different than the old west Sheriff of legend. They do whatever they want and expect to get away with it.

One of the lessons I've learned is that people use words to hide weakness. As an example, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Soviets were the leash holders. The nations of Eastern Europe were merely Vassals. There was no Republic as the government was not chosen by the people.

The stronger the assertion the less truth inside. The United Kingdom was hardly United. Not even today is it United.

So when police swear they are diligent defenders of the public, I see a lie. When the cop swears he was afraid for his life, I smell a rat. Especially when they say it a thousand times a year just in the cases of people they kill.

It is a routine lie, one they are told to use. One they are trained to present as a justification blanket. Like when they shout stop resisting to an unconscious man as they continue beating him.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Today we have smarter cops, and they turned their attention to legislators. Most states have a Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. Laws granting special rights to the brotherhood of the badge. Rights they always enjoyed as an understood benefit of the job before.

[...]

Well said! Your entire contribution is spot on, with special emphasis on the legislated rights put forth for the Brotherhood of The Badge, a development which has transformed the citizens' relationship with police into a them vs us reality.

Your observation re: the "Stop Resisting" gimmick suggests that you watch the tv "ride-along" documentary, COPS. Have you caught any of the new, Live PD, episodes? Interestingly, I've been reading reviews of both "reality" documentaries which, not surprisingly, reveal not only the popularity of these "ride-alongs" but find most viewers cheering the cops on -- even those overtly sadistic authoritarians who coldly and efficiently, even deriving obvious pleasure in some examples, go about initiating punishment for passively miserable, victimless "offenders." The fact that so many ordinary citizens unquestioningly approve of such counterproductive and morally wrongful waste of law-enforcement resources is evidence of the subtle but insidious indoctrination our general population has been subjected to over the years, a brainwash which has engendered unquestioning worship of uniforms and badges -- the symbols of "official" authority.

 

[MikeK]

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Police have their purpose which is to find out what went wrong when a person who illegal breaks into another's property ends up dead because the owner happened to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Also the police are supposed to be there to uphold the law, but as we have seen, there have been a few bad eggs, that give the rest of the police a bad name.

But the big problem occurs in the form of the Thin Blue Line," which consists of good cops who diligently defend bad cops no matter how badly the bad cops behave. That simple fact signifies complicity, meaning no matter how good a good cop may be defending the actions of a bad cop makes the good cop just as bad.

The bottom line to that reasoning is no matter how much we'd rather it not be true just about all of our cops are implicitly bad. And that's the way it will be until the good cops stop defending the bad ones.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I know this is hard for some of you to understand, but you can actually support or take the side of something or someone that you don't like, merely because there might be a bigger danger.

In this case, the bigger danger is criminals. Personally, I'm neither criminal nor police! And that applies to most of us. But in this particular battle, I take the side of the police.

I support the men in blue when they do their jobs in the manner that they should be done, but I will never support misbehavior just because they are wearing blue.

So you support obnoxious citizens instead



√








.

Better than sadistic thugs.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I know this is hard for some of you to understand, but you can actually support or take the side of something or someone that you don't like, merely because there might be a bigger danger.

In this case, the bigger danger is criminals. Personally, I'm neither criminal nor police! And that applies to most of us. But in this particular battle, I take the side of the police.

I support the men in blue when they do their jobs in the manner that they should be done, but I will never support misbehavior just because they are wearing blue.

So you support obnoxious citizens instead



√








.

Not what I said, but being obnoxious is legal. Cops aren't supposed to beat or kill anyone just for their attitude.

Any smart person would save it for the court room



.

If they live long enough..........

 

[Wyatt earp]

I know this is hard for some of you to understand, but you can actually support or take the side of something or someone that you don't like, merely because there might be a bigger danger.

In this case, the bigger danger is criminals. Personally, I'm neither criminal nor police! And that applies to most of us. But in this particular battle, I take the side of the police.

I support the men in blue when they do their jobs in the manner that they should be done, but I will never support misbehavior just because they are wearing blue.

So you support obnoxious citizens instead



√








.

Not what I said, but being obnoxious is legal. Cops aren't supposed to beat or kill anyone just for their attitude.

Any smart person would save it for the court room



.

If they live long enough..........

Your still alive, how did you do it?


.

 

[POdLibertarian]

No I am a realist.. I am not going to sugar coat this, you don't want to get your ass kicked you don't want to get shot?

Show the cops God damn respect and don't act like a obnoxious Jack ass.

.then you will live to see another day.

i'm betting that you applaud those cops that get in a citizens face and yell straight at them, even though the only thing that the citizen was doing was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights by carrying a firearm openly and the cop got pissed that said citizen wouldn't produce ID, having committed no crime. Is that the kind of 'do as you're told' that you want done on the streets and handled in the courtroom?

 

[Buck111]

"I may not like the police, but I support them"

Wow. What did you drink to get you that fucked up in the head?