Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on September 26, 2014, 01:40:06 PM
-
http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/09/09/healing-the-rift-between-police-and-the-public/
Some good thoughts. One thing he alludes to but does not delve into is the issue of perception. Yes, wearing .mil uniforms and shamaghs and plate carriers etc does no intrinsic harm in and of itself. But there's a reason cops (and the .mil for that matter) wear uniforms, and they really do matter.
-
Read it the other night. Not going to happen. Not even much of a start to change things.
-
Guys, imagine an America where cops wear regular uniforms with body cameras and don’t jack with people for smoking a joint. Imagine how we’d be viewed if we’d only arrest bad guys for hurting others, instead of throwing people in jail for the type of cigarette they smoke.
It's easy if you try. :lol:
-
Read it the other night. Not going to happen. Not even much of a start to change things.
Meh, it's a societal issue. It'll happen when people want it to.
-
Some cops are just authoritarian dicks.
I had an experience a few years ago where I invited a friend and his brother in law out out shooting. We had a lot of fun, but my friend later told me that his BIL, a big city cop, who works in the rougher neighborhoods "was shocked at the guns I brought," and "those guns should only be in the hands of police and military." (I brought a few AR-15s, an M1 Garand, and a WWII era sniper rifle).
My friend worked on him for a long time, and eventually he came around to having a much more libertarian viewpoint- maybe just a function of maturing.
A really good experience I've had was at a weekend long carbine class I took last year- the trainers were swat cops, several of the students were swat cops, including the commander of a large local department's swat... A few of them did dress up in helmets and plate carriers and brought thier full auto department issued toys- but everyone of them were A-OK good guys. No 'attitudes' towards us 'civilians', loved to talk about guns and gun rights during lunch breaks.
-
No 'attitudes' towards us 'civilians', loved to talk about guns and gun rights during lunch breaks.
One of the (dwindling number of) good cops here in town thinks that a CHL should be treated as a "priority customer" card, because the holder has already done all they can to avoid being a victim. Unfortunately, I think he's starting to burn out as the rest of the force is slowly making Gecko 45 look like Andy Griffith by comparison.
-
Some cops people are just authoritarian dicks.
FIFY
The real issue is the system that empowers and protects the bad actors.
-
FIFY
The real issue is the system that empowers and protects the bad actors.
^^
This
-
You're forced to pay them, you cannot bring a competing organization, they are very hard to fire individually, they are not usually prosecuted for perjury, they get away with other stuff that would see non-cops in jail and their policies serve them and not the public at large.
This is a recipe for misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance.
You can't change outcomes just by changing uniforms. You have to change incentives. And you can't get to there via a governmental (read socialistic) system.
I would disband police departments and let folks hire what physical security or investigative services they think they need on a case-by-case basis.
People would carry arms, higher hire guards, be insured by companies that would hire investigators, and if someone needed tracking down there will be bounty hunters aplenty to do the job.
You'd get competition, lower costs, higher value, and incompetence and corruption could not last among observant customers.
I would also go to an all-torts system of retributive/restorative justice. No victim, no case.
Also no prisons or jails. The truly murderous or rape or arson inclined would find themselves being taken care of... in a far less time consuming and costly way.
-
People would carry arms, higher guards, be insured by companies that would hire investigators, and if someone needed tracking down there will be bounty hunters aplenty to do the job.
"higher?" Do you mean "hire" as you stated eight words later? ;)
-
I MIGHT subcribe to your newletter. If you could pointbto an example of your imaginary system working
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
"higher?" Do you mean "hire" as you stated eight words later? ;)
Fixed!
-
I MIGHT subcribe to your newletter. If you could pointbto an example of your imaginary system working
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Removed by staff
It's Armed POLITE Society.
-
So thats a no?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
The real issue is the system that empowers and protects the bad actors.
Pretty much.
-
So thats a no?
You are not worth debating. You are a worthless troll who should have been kicked off this site years ago. If there was an "ignore" option I would have used it on you. Since there isn't I'll just be skipping by anything you write in this thread as I do for all of your posts.
-
In real life I've seen coal camp cops. And then there are the warlords. But I've never seen a decent example of the system you imagine. At one time I believe they did something like it with fire depts in New York with mixed success .
Surely some place has a working large scale system? Or not?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Here's a modern one you might like
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765620851/Arizona-AG-probing-police-in-FLDS-towns.html?pg=all&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
And this one was special too
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/10/09/controversial-private-police-force-quits-effort-to-take-over-montana-jail/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
So I’m not always on a cop’s side. Law enforcement isn’t a gang. Loyalty doesn’t override principle.
He lost me right there. Too many police departments do operate like gangs, and more often than not loyalty does override principle.
And he didn't just gloss over, he completely avoided the crux of the problem: The ubiquitous "I am the aw-thaw-ri-tay, you must comply with my commands" attitude that is being taught at police academies all across the country. It's impossible to respect someone who doesn't respect you -- that's basic psychology. And cops aren't going to be respected if they immediately resort to "command voice" mode (repeating the same commands in an ever-louder tone of voice) rather than engage in civil interaction. Sure, when a subject is acting violently or assaulting someone (cop or third party) then the gloves come off. But when it's a mother with kids in the car at a traffic stop -- what's the point of going all Sergeant Hartman on the poor woman?
And then there's the whole issue of using SWAT teams to "serve" search warrants for minor infractions, and treating every search warrant (no matter that the searchee has no criminal history and isn't known to be violent) as an excuse to conduct a no-knock raid.
-
He lost me right there. Too many police departments do operate like gangs, and more often than not loyalty does override principle.
And he didn't just gloss over, he completely avoided the crux of the problem: The ubiquitous "I am the aw-thaw-ri-tay, you must comply with my commands" attitude that is being taught at police academies all across the country. It's impossible to respect someone who doesn't respect you -- that's basic psychology. And cops aren't going to be respected if they immediately resort to "command voice" mode (repeating the same commands in an ever-louder tone of voice) rather than engage in civil interaction. Sure, when a subject is acting violently or assaulting someone (cop or third party) then the gloves come off. But when it's a mother with kids in the car at a traffic stop -- what's the point of going all Sergeant Hartman on the poor woman?
And then there's the whole issue of using SWAT teams to "serve" search warrants for minor infractions, and treating every search warrant (no matter that the searchee has no criminal history and isn't known to be violent) as an excuse to conduct a no-knock raid.
I agree wholeheartedly on the no knock thing. But I havent seen the instant resorting to "command voice" that you describe, not only in any of MY interactions with cops, but in the cops i call friends. I suspect part of that is me not being a fuckface to begin with, and the other part is the relative rarity of that actual tactic compared to folks who complain about it.
It's certainly a problem, i'm just not convinced that it's the problem that folks think it is
-
Removed by staff
Wow. No.
-
Just a reminder - attacking an argument is fine, attacking a member is not (and that goes for baiting a member into it). Most of the thread has not been going there, so it won't be locked yet, but any more attacks and it will be locked.
-
I agree wholeheartedly on the no knock thing. But I havent seen the instant resorting to "command voice" that you describe, not only in any of MY interactions with cops, but in the cops i call friends. I suspect part of that is me not being a fuckface to begin with, and the other part is the relative rarity of that actual tactic compared to folks who complain about it.
It's certainly a problem, i'm just not convinced that it's the problem that folks think it is
Unfortunately, I have. Twice, in simple traffic stops where, each time, the command voice and vitriol started in as soon as the window was rolled down. But there have been a couple of other stops where civility was the order of the day.
-
I MIGHT subcribe to your newletter. If you could pointbto an example of your imaginary system working
The real system that we have sure as hell isn't working =(
-
I agree wholeheartedly on the no knock thing. But I havent seen the instant resorting to "command voice" that you describe, not only in any of MY interactions with cops, but in the cops i call friends. I suspect part of that is me not being a fuckface to begin with, and the other part is the relative rarity of that actual tactic compared to folks who complain about it.
It's certainly a problem, i'm just not convinced that it's the problem that folks think it is
It has nothing to do with being a "*expletive deleted* ck face." It has everything to do with cops on power trips. I'm about as law-abiding as anyone you'll ever meet, and I've encountered it numerous times. Two examples that I always remember because they were so egregious:
First: On my way home from a Wal-Mart. My route takes me down a divided, limited access highway for several miles. The highway runs beside a river and the first couple of miles are very serpentine. As I started to turn onto the entrance ramp, I saw that traffic was stopped ... and backed up for as far as the eye could see. There are other routes I could take, so I checked my mirror, saw nobody in back of me, and started to back off the ramp. A state trooper came running down the ramp, yelling and waving his arms. He told me if I backed up he would arrest me. (Not ticket -- "arrest"). I tried to explain that there was no purpose to be served by forcing me to add one more vehicle to the backup, but he insisted -- using "command voice." So I had to go up the ramp and sit in traffic for an hour and a half while they cleaned up the mess made by a truck that had dumped its load all over both southbound lanes. God forbid this cretin could station himself at the bottom of the ramp and wave people off so they wouldn't add to the mess. Nope -- he waited up the ramp and forced everyone to join the traffic jam.
Second: I had a routine question to ask of one of the administrative departments of the state police. A female trooper answered the call. I started to ask my question, and she interrupted me:
FT: Name, social security number, and date of birth.
Me: Huh?
FT: I need your name, social security number and date of birth.
Me: But I'm not calling to make a complaint or report a crime, I just ...
FT: I NEED your name, social security number, and date of birth.
Me: But I'm not calling in any official capacity, I just ...
FT: I NEED YOUR NAME, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, AND DATE OF BIRTH. (Command voice at work)
Me: No, you don't <click>
I called back ten minutes later and got the sergeant in charge of that unit (whom I did not and do not know). He answered my question, we had a friendly chat for about ten minutes, and he never even asked for my name, social security number, or date of birth.
They are teaching this command voice crap in the academies. The theory is, I suppose, that no matter how mindless the command is, if it's repeated often enough and loudly enough it will result in "compliance." And that's what modern policing is all about. It's not about serving and protecting, it's about compliance.
-
Im sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the f*kface comment was directed to you. Merely that every instance i've heard of through friends of cops being power trippy was a direct result of my friends being jerks. Apologies. It was not meant as a dig
-
Backing up on a ramp can get you jailed here. Thankfully I was a passenger. It was considered reckless driving
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I MIGHT subcribe to your newletter. If you could point to an example of your imaginary system working
In a less sarcastic way, c&sd has it quite right that we ought to use human experience as a guide for policy recommendations and not just use utopian theories. (Which, unfortunately, many anarcho-capitalist ideas are.)
As Balog pointed out, many current systems protect and reward bad actors because there is little accountability to the public at large.
This is, in turn, an effect of the cause of many of our other problems: centralization of authority. The further authority is from the governed, the less accountable it is to the governed. So, elected sheriffs tend to be better than hired departments. (As many here have often said.)
The smaller the county, the more accountable the department. So, I would say too many of the police are too disconnected from the people, just as a function of department and city/County size. This is, of course, ignoring the departments that hire officers mostly from outside the policed area.
So, best option? More and smaller departments that are directly accountable to the public.
Of course this will not solve every problem, but nothing will. It is likely to be an improvement.
-
After seeing private communities unable to maintain their roads and infra structure , up to and including a dam that would create a serious problem if it failed I am real skeptical about the whole privatization thing. And this is a neighborhood of 1/2 mill houses on 30-50 acre lots. The absence of a way to tax business makes it hard to achieve the cash flow to support infrastructure. Plus you are still stuck with property taxes in a deal like that.
If you have ever been on the board of an hoa or had dealings with one you have an idea of what privatization would be like.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
^^^^ The county is unable to maintain our roads, but technically it's illegal to fix them yourself :facepalm:
-
Or, as a notion, we might accept the fact that not all crime can be solved, and not every aqct of terrorism or horrific crime must result in expanded police authority.
The question is not how to treat our cops.
The attitude - prevailing among the public - that the response to every big-headline news story is to expand police authority or presence, or perhaps to issue police more powerful weapons (and implied authority to use them).
Rather than argue about private vs. public police (my town, where I live now, has private police, and they work reasonably well), the question to be what our attitude to danger is.
If we feel as a society that even the lowest level of crime is unacceptable - because even one murder or child abduction is too much - we will be forever expanding police, either physically (by hiring more of them) or conceptually - by giving them more powers and weapons.
Civil libertarians like to imagine that we can reduce police presence and authority without reducing crime (or, if they're more perceptive, without reducing the sorts of crime that people care most about). Sadly that's probably untrue.
Regardless if you want to have less police abuses, and less horror stories where a person is unfairly arrested/imprisoned for life/shot/anally probed for 12 hours the answer is to:
1. Issue police less authority (legislatively roll back fruit-of-the-poisoned-tree legislation, reduce the authority for non-knock warrants, reduce forfeiture, and some more controversial things too).
2. Legalize as many victimless activities as possible.
3. Reduce the amount of police and the weapons they are permitted to use. Where possible (college campi, schools), abolish police departments entirely, replacing them by armed guards without arrest powers. (This is entirely possible. In Israel, in fact, it's illegal for police to enter the campus of Tel-Aviv University unless either the invitation of the University has been extended, or a life-threatening emergency is going on.)
-
^^^^ The county is unable to maintain our roads, but technically it's illegal to fix them yourself :facepalm:
Or technically for us to plow our own snow to get out
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Meh, it's a societal issue. It'll happen when people want it to.
This. C&SD said recently that police are just doing their jobs. I think, in most cases, this is true. They're doing the job the way our culture has told them to do it, using the powers and methods and tools we've granted them. The public has to change their ideas about what they expect from police, and demand that their local authorities change with them.
-
Much of the public is changing it's ideas. See the spread of (as we say) high SPF folks that distrust, and are unhappy with LE, Cato's website, the whole no-knock thing, many folks reaction to Boston PD's bomber overreaction. Heck, the burgeoning market for body armor. I doubt much of that is going to inner city gangs.
And so far LE's response has been to double down, ask for new laws banning the behavior (See body armor again), try to bully companies in the media (Apple and Google.) and buy more weapons (Because they are 'outgunned').
Perhaps we haven't hit some critical mass to cause LE (and for that matter .gov) to rethink their policies, but it sure seems like many agencies are going to keep on their path despite citizens angst.
Heck, look at the MJ legalization votes around the country. More and more states are clearly voting that they think that particular drug should be legal. Regardless of the actual moral, legal and ethical issues. (maybe the legalize folks are stupid, maybe not) If the popular vote says to legalize, where does the fed.gov get off telling the citizens "No"?
-
Civil libertarians like to imagine that we can reduce police presence and authority without reducing crime ...
Is there any evidence that police actually reduce crime ???
Wasn't there a situation some years ago in Albuquerque where the police went on strike and crime actually went down dramatically because the crooks were afraid of being shot by citizens? :P
Our neighborhood absent any consequences from the law could take care of most any crime problem. The sheriff is little or no help and in some cases a hindrance >:D
-
I thought the Albuquerque deal was there was no one taking crime reports when they were on strike
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Out here where I live we have very little LE presence and very little crime.
Worst thing that has happened recently is somebody stealing (county) gas/diesel from the tanks at the fire hall. And the sheriff hasn't caught them yet either :P
After the second time, the commissioners finally approved some money for security cameras ;/
-
Backing up on a ramp can get you jailed here. Thankfully I was a passenger. It was considered reckless driving
Understood. It is here, too -- under normal circumstances. This was not an ordinary situation. And it would have been so much more helpful if the trooper had just stationed himself at the bottom of the ramp so he could wave people off, but no ... he preferred to wait near the top of the ramp and then use the "no backing up in traffic" rule to force more and more people to add to the mess.
In contrast, a couple or three years later, about ten miles south on the same highway, I came up on another huge backup. This time, two enterprising local cops decided to be smart and helpful. One blocked the bottom of the entrance ramp so nobody could turn onto it. The other went to the highway end, parked his cruiser, and started directing people to leave the highway by driving the wrong way down the entrance ramp. His partner at the bottom told people which way to turn and how to go around the mess and get back on the highway.
And the latter two didn't even need to use "command voice." ;)
The comparison between these two incidents is a classic example of situational ethics. The first trooper blindly enforced the law ... and made the situation worse. The two local cops technically had people break the law, but they made the situation better.
Who was right?
-
The comparison between these two incidents is a classic example of situational ethics. The first trooper blindly enforced the law ... and made the situation worse. The two local cops technically had people break the law, but they made the situation better.
Who was right?
The helpful cops of course, but they weren't making people break the law. In just about any case, if a cop directs traffic then their directions overrule existing street signs, road markings, lights, etc. In that situation, obeying the signs would be breaking the law. Your point is well taken, though. There is more to just and good law than the letter.
-
Out here where I live we have very little LE presence and very little crime.
:rofl: Uh, you realize that you live in the middle of nowhere with more horsies than people, right? That might be the explanation. :rofl:
-
:rofl: Uh, you realize that you live in the middle of nowhere with more horsies than people, right? That might be the explanation. :rofl:
And everybody out here has guns and backhoes =D
-
The real system that we have sure as hell isn't working =(
Which in no way implies that some other system available to us does.
-
Which in no way implies that some other system available to us does.
There was a time that there would only be one sheriff or "constable" in an entire district. People generally looked after themselves and their own property and only called the law to officiate after the culprit was apprehended.
You can say people are "different" now and they sure as heck are which is part of the problem.
Outsourcing personal responsibility never works out.
-
I thought the Albuquerque deal was there was no one taking crime reports when they were on strike
Well, there certainly wouldn't have been anybody generating "crime" reports for victimless crimes. That would tend to lower the numbers a lot. Pretty sure they had some arrangements made to take reports at another level.
-
Pretty good Sheriff's dept here- we are a rural county, going suburban, and the cops are stretched pretty thin. But not much "serious" crime. Of course a local paper just reported we have a 50% rate of CCW's among the adult population......
-
Pretty good Sheriff's dept here- .....
Ours is "mostly harmless" and despite the incompetence and general lack of usefulness have been pretty careful about citizens' rights.
I've open carried in front of our outgoing sheriff and he never said a word about it, and a couple times I have almost had to drag a deputy inside the house to talk on a below zero night.
We got four guys running for sheriff right now =|
-
:rofl: Uh, you realize that you live in the middle of nowhere with more horsies than people, right? That might be the explanation. :rofl:
Without the sheriff's dept, you might see equine gangs knocking down barn doors to get after bales of marijuana alfalfa, running donuts in people's drives, and getting tanked on fermented oats.
=================
As for the column linked in the OP, +1. Good luck making it happen without threats of drastic budget cuts and/or violence.
-
Without the sheriff's dept, you might see equine gangs knocking down barn doors to get after bales of marijuana alfalfa, running donuts in people's drives, and getting tanked on fermented oats.
Funny thing is all that is actually legal since Montana is an open range state =D
You are supposed to fence in uncut stallions :police:
-
In DC they call it "mission creep". You as an agency find ways to expand your duties and your budget will follow. More budget = more power and you as the department head become more powerful. Police agencies do it, too. Federal funds and grants and free toys make it even more possible.
Personal Responsibility for crime prevention endangers budgets and power.
-
In DC they call it "mission creep". You as an agency find ways to expand your duties and your budget will follow. More budget = more power and you as the department head become more powerful. Police agencies do it, too. Federal funds and grants and free toys make it even more possible.
Personal Responsibility for crime prevention endangers budgets and power.
So sadly true =(
And there is often no correlation between power/budget and crime - er, the safety of individual citizens.
-
There was a time that there would only be one sheriff or "constable" in an entire district. People generally looked after themselves and their own property and only called the law to officiate after the culprit was apprehended.
You can say people are "different" now and they sure as heck are which is part of the problem.
Outsourcing personal responsibility never works out.
Yeah, but back then self defense was allowed and expected and given a lot of leeway. Vigilantism existed and was tolerated. People were armed. There were far fewer laws and those laws were applied differently. IMO, little of that is the fault of police.
-
Speaking of private police, that is more or less what sheriffs and police originally were. We didn't have federal cops beyond marshals.
I really think at the core of it, the police are only following the example of Govt. getting bigger, more powerful, and more intrusive. The number and complexity of laws in the last 100 years is huge. I recall hearing that the first AntiTrust law was one page. That same law would today be 2000 pages.
-
The other problem with the "rift" is that often incidents in which the officer(s) acted appropriately are blown out of proportion and the officers are accused of crimes they are not guilty of. Full video and audio will help that, but not eliminate it. There will always be those willing to believe that stuff.
There was an incident in Houston where 3 or 4 cops caught a fleeing thief and struggled with him on the ground. A short snippet of video was released which made it look like they were beating the hell out of him. The city fired the cops and tried to prosecute one of them. The jury found him not guilty. They still haven't tried to prosecute the others yet. The thief was black if you didn't know.
I would refer to the recent incident up near fistful, but that is in another thread.
-
The other problem with the "rift" is that often incidents in which the officer(s) acted appropriately are blown out of proportion and the officers are accused of crimes they are not guilty of. Full video and audio will help that, but not eliminate it. There will always be those willing to believe that stuff.
There was an incident in Houston where 3 or 4 cops caught a fleeing thief and struggled with him on the ground. A short snippet of video was released which made it look like they were beating the hell out of him. The city fired the cops and tried to prosecute one of them. The jury found him not guilty. They still haven't tried to prosecute the others yet. The thief was black if you didn't know.
I would refer to the recent incident up near fistful, but that is in another thread.
The usual suspects like to have one of these to keep alive the Narrative. They keep churning through these as so many suffer Narrative Collapse.
06 — Narrative collapse. I coined a new phrase this week, one I'm rather pleased with: "narrative collapse."
By "narrative" I mean the set of preconceived ideas into which mainstream media reporters try to squinch news stories, especially stories involving race. So if a white cop shoots a black civilian, that's racist white power acting on crude stereotypes about threatening black males to keep the black man in his place. Or if a black woman claims to have been raped by a college lacrosse team, that's white plantation owners having their way down in the slave quarters — a thing which, by the way, on the historical evidence, didn't actually happen much.
Any time one of these stories comes up, the first mainstream-media news reports all sculpt it to fit the narrative. Then as time goes on and more and more facts come out, it turns out the story doesn't fit the narrative at all. The baby-faced kid with the bag of Skittles turns out to be a violent young punk, while the racist vigilante who shot him turns out to be a Hispanic registered Democrat who'd mentored black youths in his spare time. This is "narrative collapse."
-
With permission I would like to use narrative collapse in the future. It describes the syndrome well
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
With permission I would like to use narrative collapse in the future. It describes the syndrome well
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Not my invention. I am sure the author would be please to see it go far and wide, though.
-
I really think at the core of it, the police are only following the example of Govt. getting bigger, more powerful, and more intrusive. The number and complexity of laws in the last 100 years is huge. I recall hearing that the first AntiTrust law was one page. That same law would today be 2000 pages.
Exactly. We have the police we deserve. And we deserve to get it good and hard. On the roadside in New Mexico.
-
The other problem with the "rift" is that often incidents in which the officer(s) acted appropriately are blown out of proportion and the officers are accused of crimes they are not guilty of. Full video and audio will help that, but not eliminate it.
Not having convenient "camera failures" or "equipment purchased months ago but not yet up and running" would do a lot more to boost the cops' credibility. It's the same as the missing emails; when evidence would normally exist in abundance, but doesn't for some reason, those in a position to have been that reason are rightly suspected of all sorts of things.
-
"In a surprise move, the LAPD has hired Lois Lerner to head up their recordkeeping department."
-
"In a surprise move, the LAPD has hired Lois Lerner to head up their recordkeeping department."
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You sir, win the interwebz of the day !!!
-
I guess it goes back to what they always try to tell us: "If you are not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
Seems that cuts both ways.
-
Just some thoughts. None of it will ever happen.
Not going to happen. Most if not all currently employed in LE would need to be fired, never again be able to be employed in LE. The attitude is so cemented in LE today, it will be very difficult to find anyone wearing a badge that can be trusted. The only reasons we are seeing departments / DAs actually charging LEOs who should be charged, instead of internal discipline (or whatever), is they know they are at a very dangerous tipping point. We need to see this point met.
Second is there is way too much money involved for this to change. War on drugs, asset forfeiture etc...has created a very lucrative system to make money. This has birthed a self sustaining beast. There is no way change will happen on its own or peacefully. This is why we are seeing some in LE who claim to be "good cops" talk about healing. Why? They know the jig is up and citizens are pissed. So like politics, talk about the problem, admit the wrong to some extent, talk about changes and solutions......while intending to not do a god damn thing.
Things we could do to start a change: LET ME BE CLEAR. THE THINGS I SUGGEST WILL NEVER HAPPEN. BUT I CAN DREAM.
1. Get rid if all but the most basic form of immunity (e.g. If you break a rib doing CPR, no foul). All other instances where a non badge wearing citizen gets arrested and put through the system, LEOs do to.
2. Make it mandatory, no latitude, no discretion, that DA/PA must bring charges against LEOs in instances set about in #1.
3. Police chiefs will be accountable to the people. Chiefs will be elected as sheriffs are.
4. End the war on drugs. End all military equipment going to civilian LE. End all, ALL, Federal funds to state and local LE. If your agency can't afford to purchase it, sucks to be you.
5. (YES, flame on). No hiring of former , military personnel that were former SF of any flavor. [this can change later, maybe. But civilian LEs purpose and a SF soldiers purpose are directly opposite.]
6. No more paid leave. If you are suspended, tough *expletive deleted*it. Go flip burgers. If you get absolved of the charges, back pay is yours.
7. No more internal discipline (military style NJP). Punishment is out of the agencies hands. See #s 1 and 2.
This is merely a start. Much more to a list.
LE is not trusted. They cannot be trusted to police themselves nor offer any solution to healing any rifts. We, the citizens, do not trust you. And you, LE, have earned every inch of that lack of trust.
-
That's a good start. I'll add my favorite to the list.
In cases of prosecutorial misconduct such as with holding exculpatory evidence, falsified evidence, perjury and such all LE and prosecutors, judges, clerks, etc. involved get the maximum possible sentence that they could have imposed on their intended victim of persecution, up to and including the death penalty.
Imagine Nifong serving half a dozen consecutive 20 year sentences for rape.
-
One more LE is subject to all firearms controls. No fa, no 50s in ca, etc. [popcorn] ah and get ready for the smart guns. >:D
-
BMoZ- I like your ideas.
However, once you realize that the police is the enforcement arm of government, all of their actions make sense.
They are not here to protect 'citizens,' they are in place to keep citizens in line. If they can solve a crime or two after it occurs all the merrier and stronger the illusion.
-
Overall I'd say that the prosecutors are a bigger problem than cops, its just that they destroy innocent people's lives with boring paperwork behind closed doors instead of choke slamming people to death on camera.
-
Overall I'd say that the prosecutors are a bigger problem than cops, its just that they destroy innocent people's lives with boring paperwork behind closed doors instead of choke slamming people to death on camera.
Not a bigger problem. All part of the issue that seems to be coming to a head.
-
Two weekends ago the Aurora Sportsmen's Club had its annual Zombie(Tactitard)shoot. This is where the neckbeards who spend their days drooling over the crap in the Cheaper then Dirt Catalog actually come out from Mom's basement find out if all the accessories they've purchased sine last year's events have given them "madskilz".
The belle of the ball every year is the Kane County Sheriff's Department and the toys they bring:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2904/14275849171_0f834909b8.jpg)
Because what every hostage/bank robbery/No-knock raid needs is MOAR FIRIN' PORTS !!!
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7438/9526867550_515f6ab91d_n.jpg)
Last year's Fan favorite. (Because they didn't have the MRAP then)
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6136/5992485377_57cbbb2dd6_n.jpg)
I guess the Operations/Maintenance money for a MH6 Little Bird is just too much (which is saying something in this state).
Here's one that I know CS&D will approve of !!!!
http://www.thehulltruth.com/attachments/boating-forum/210753d1325002175-new-thp-gun-boat-all-decked-out-joes-tank.jpg
-
http://www.thehulltruth.com/attachments/boating-forum/210753d1325002175-new-thp-gun-boat-all-decked-out-joes-tank.jpg
Orange tip; clearly it's Airsoft.
-
Is that the one that got away from joe? Rolled away unattended? Or a new one? For the tuff on crime sheriff with the worst record on crime in the area?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Orange tip; clearly it's Airsoft.
:lol:
-
Is that the one that got away from joe? Rolled away unattended? Or a new one? For the tuff on crime sheriff with the worst record on crime in the area?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don't know. Why don't you tell me?
-
It's a new one. He's got a howitzer now. Plugged barrel and a pair of armored vehicles. It was one of those that escaped and crushed a neighbors car while they burned the house down and roasted the dog while arresting that guy for failure to appear on a traffic charge.
I can't recall if that was the one seagal rode along on
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The problem with Battle Monkey's list is that police get suspended all the time if there is any hint of misconduct including false accusations. Would you allow local activists to depopulate your police force due to inflexible rules designed for the worst case?
The w/o pay issue is somewhat misleading. A lot of police don't make a lot money on base pay. They get up to decent money with overtime. When they are suspended they get no OT.
If you are going to put all these rules on police, you had better be prepared to pay higher salaries to get people to take the job.
-
The problem with Battle Monkey's list is that police get suspended all the time if there is any hint of misconduct including false accusations. Would you allow local activists to depopulate your police force due to inflexible rules designed for the worst case?
The w/o pay issue is somewhat misleading. A lot of police don't make a lot money on base pay. They get up to decent money with overtime. When they are suspended they get no OT.
If you are going to put all these rules on police, you had better be prepared to pay higher salaries to get people to take the job.
I hear McDonalds is always hiring.
-
Add to the false persecution bit the false accusers. Accuse someone of rape or??? and get it proven false the liar goes up for a rape sentence equal to what their intended victim might have gotten.
-
Add to the false persecution bit the false accusers. Accuse someone of rape or??? and get it proven false the liar goes up for a rape sentence equal to what their intended victim might have gotten.
Remember that a "not guilty" verdict is not the same as proving the accusation false.
-
I hear McDonalds is always hiring.
If your goal is to fix the issue, that isn't the way to go. You will just insure that EVERY cop is a power trip guy or on the take. If you want to get rid of police all together, I wouldn't do it that way.
-
...
If you are going to put all these rules on police, you had better be prepared to pay higher salaries to get people to take the job.
Fewer laws enforced by fewer cops making more money works for me :cool:
-
Fewer laws enforced by fewer cops making more money works for me :cool:
Yes, fewer, simpler laws would go a long way in the right direction. The cops won't change until our Govt does.
Some of the old wartime sailing books mentioned they read the laws of war to the crew weekly. They apparently weren't very long. Made me think our military law and civilian law has gotten way out of hand.
-
Yes, fewer, simpler laws would go a long way in the right direction. The cops won't change until our Govt does.
Some of the old wartime sailing books mentioned they read the laws of war to the crew weekly. They apparently weren't very long. Made me think our military law and civilian law has gotten way out of hand.
That is only because they have gotten way out of hand.
-
Add to the false persecution bit the false accusers. Accuse someone of rape or??? and get it proven false the liar goes up for a rape sentence equal to what their intended victim might have gotten.
Which would lead to no women ever reporting when they've been raped.
-
Which would lead to no women ever reporting when lying they've been raped.
FIFY =D :police: :police:
-
FIFY =D :police: :police:
No, you really haven't. It's difficult enough to convince rape victims to bring charges as it is.
-
No, you really haven't. It's difficult enough to convince rape victims to bring charges as it is.
Tough cookies. That is NOT a license for any woman to lie about it.
And don't start whining about how blippin' "unfair" to the wimmins -- been there done all that years ago.
-
Tough cookies. That is NOT a license for any woman to lie about it.
And don't start whining about how blippin' "unfair" to the wimmins -- been there done all that years ago.
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I truly feel sorry for any women unfortunate enough to have you as a part of their life.
By the nature of the crime, rape is exceedingly difficult to prove in the majority of cases. If you hold the explicit threat of jail time up for any woman who reported it, then all you would be doing is legalizing rape as no woman would risk reporting it.
There are already laws for falsifying a police report. Why would you single out rape as a special case to threaten the victim?
-
There is a problem
http://www.falserape.net/liesandrape.htm
Linda Fairstein, a former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's office, has criticized the doctrinaire belief that women never lie. Writing in Cosmopolitan magazine, Fairstein quoted FBI statistics on unfounded claims of forcible rape. These reports, she wrote, occur at rates as high as 9%, compared to between 1.5% and 5% of reports submitted in all other criminal categories. She continued,
"Having worked in this field for decades, I've found this phenomenon especially painful to witness. Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus claims, and the precious resources of criminal justice agencies are wasted..[T]hese falsehoods trivialize the experience of every rape survivor." 2
A June 3, 2004, Washington Post article titled "Sexual Assaults in Army on Rise" reported the results of a five year study of reports of abuse. The number of "unfounded" cases tripled from 48 to 157 between 1999 and 2003. An Army spokeswoman could not explain why. It is time to find out.
Every allegation is different, and appearances often deceive. Certain indicators should be investigated in order to separate truthful allegations from fabricated ones. Primary motives for false reports, which are not uncommon, include a) Jealousy or Revenge; b) Need for an Alibi; and c) Emotional Problems/Desire for Attention. None of these should be a surprise.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
CSD:
A buddy who worked child sex crimes told me that as the child gets closer to the age of majority/consent, the higher the probability that a claim is bogus. Getting up to 50% at the top end. Between the horrifying no-bull crimes and the false reports, he left skid marks out of that unit when he was able to get out.
I would be surprised if adult vs adult rape false reports were as low as 9%. Or gratified, given hard data.
-
It's truly an awkward spot with potential to victimize both genders.
I have seen and heard some real screwed up stuff.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The mcmartin preschool case is a great example of innocent people being victimized . For the cash
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Even a liberal leaning newpaper is calling the cops out.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/10/04/register-editorial-highway-robbery/16746907/
-
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I truly feel sorry for any women unfortunate enough to have you as a part of their life.
By the nature of the crime, rape is exceedingly difficult to prove in the majority of cases. If you hold the explicit threat of jail time up for any woman who reported it, then all you would be doing is legalizing rape as no woman would risk reporting it.
There are already laws for falsifying a police report. Why would you single out rape as a special case to threaten the victim?
Your naivety isn't as cute as it used to be.
-
Another story
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/29/138816111/weekly-standard-the-feminine-lie-mystique
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
From the local liberal rag, related to the new CA sexual consent law about "Yes means yes". Frankly, if I were in my 20's and in college now, I would be celibate or have a good porn subscription.
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/oct/02/sex-and-rape-isla-vista/
-
Your naivety isn't as cute as it used to be.
I will surely cry myself to sleep over some guy on the internet not thinking I'm cute.
Rape is a difficult issue to address. Everyone agrees it's a crime, but it's very difficult to prosecute under the best circumstances and there certainly always is a danger of false accusations. I don't think threatening rape victims with prosecution is a good idea.
Serious question: have any of you people actually worked with rape victims? I guarantee you, having a law that replicates the existing false reporting laws but specifically name checks rape would accomplish nothing other than deterring the vast majority of women who are raped from reporting it.
-
I will surely cry myself to sleep over some guy on the internet not thinking I'm cute.
You, you're an ugly cuss, I was referring to your naivety.
=D
-
You, you're an ugly cuss, I was referring to your naivety.
=D
It would be the height of naivety to think that the sort of people who would make fake rape accusation would be deterred from adding (a redundant) law threatening penalties for fake accusations. Serious question here, do you have any experience working with sexual assault victims? The women who are going to make fake accusation are going to do it no matter how many times you make it double extra sooper illegal. The legitimate victims, however, are going to be heavily deterred.
-
In effect there is no legal penalty now for false accusers
-
In effect there is no legal penalty now for false accusers
So enforce existing laws, instead of adding redundant new laws that have unintended consequences.
-
So enforce existing laws, instead of adding redundant new laws that have unintended consequences.
That's not the American way.
-
That would make sense. Neither of us should hold our breath.
I would like to see a reduction in revenge accusations. And some serious slap down for the offenders. Sadly the wrongly accused just want it to go away
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Serious question: have any of you people actually worked with rape victims?
I have.
-
Me too along with a couple who recanted. In cases of legitimate mental illness i can forgive it. When it's just evil and revenge? Not so much.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I have.
In your experience, would a (redundant) law against false reports specifically calling out rape have deterred those who make false reports? Would it have had a chilling effect on the legitimate victims?
-
In one it would not have made a difference.
The other ones. I doubt it. There were already punishments for swearing out a false statement.
All the victims had Article 134 (False Swearing) explained to them before they signed their Sworn Statements. They signed. The perps were tried and convicted. Rape kits generally make for good cases and Military Judges don't allow the victim to be put on trial. (At least they didn't.)
-
I might be in favor of a law that allowed a false accuser to be jailed or fined as long or as much as the victim was hurt. However, I can't see if working unless their was hard evidence. That would be very difficult unless the accuser confessed.
-
I might be in favor of a law that allowed a false accuser to be jailed or fined as long or as much as the victim was hurt. However, I can't see if working unless their was hard evidence. That would be very difficult unless the accuser confessed.
Really, all that would be needed is changing the sentencing guidelines on existing false reporting laws. But I would think that a creative DA could find all sorts of existing laws to charge someone with for a genuine, provable false report. Adding another law duplicating existing ones wouldn't do anything.
-
Really, all that would be needed is changing the sentencing guidelines on existing false reporting laws. But I would think that a creative DA could find all sorts of existing laws to charge someone with for a genuine, provable false report. Adding another law duplicating existing ones wouldn't do anything.
This; what we need is precedent in the form of a bunch of DAs prosecuting on every absolutely-cannot-be-true statement. Especially in single-party recording states, where the victim might well have solid proof, this would help to make filing a false report way too risky for most, and make it more likely that the rest will be too busy serving their sentences to file any more.
-
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. I truly feel sorry for any women unfortunate enough to have you as a part of their life.
By the nature of the crime, rape is exceedingly difficult to prove in the majority of cases. If you hold the explicit threat of jail time up for any woman who reported it, then all you would be doing is legalizing rape as no woman would risk reporting it.
There are already laws for falsifying a police report. Why would you single out rape as a special case to threaten the victim?
:mad:
Told you not to go there.
So you go there. ;/
It is nowhere near as hard to prove now with the advent of "rape kits" and DNA and other forensic techniques.
And I am not "singling out" rape as a "special case to threaten the victim."
You called what I said stupid. Well, THAT was stupid, in spades.
Anyone making a false police report alleging a non existant felony with malice aforethought should be prosecuted for the crime it is, rape, murder, bank robbery, what-ever.
-
:mad:
Told you not to go there.
So you go there. ;/
It is nowhere near as hard to prove now with the advent of "rape kits" and DNA and other forensic techniques.
And I am not "singling out" rape as a "special case to threaten the victim."
You called what I said stupid. Well, THAT was stupid, in spades.
Anyone making a false police report alleging a non existant felony with malice aforethought should be prosecuted for the crime it is, rape, murder, bank robbery, what-ever.
"Told you not to go there." 1: where did you tell me that? 2: Oh teh noes, sumdood on APS told me not to go there!!! ;/
Rape kits can prove you had sex, maybe even rough sex. Can't prove consent wasn't given. Lot of folks are into rough sex.
The post I quoted was singling out rape, you then responded agreeing with the post I had quoted which singled out rape. Ergo, you were singling out rape.
"I know you are but what am I" wasn't clever in grade school, and it's still a poor argument.
We currently have false reporting laws, and a prosecutor could easily charge the person with lots of other things as well. A new law that the prosecutor isn't enforcing will accomplish nothing.
Rape is a special case as merely proving that the act happened does not prove the crime. You prove that X robbed a bank, and you're done. But for rape, you need to prove not only that X had sex with Y, but that Y either did not or was not able to consent.
-
And false rape claims are done at such a greater number than other false claims that it's particularly problematic as a guy named Brian banks would assure us
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
"Told you not to go there." 1: where did you tell me that? 2: Oh teh noes, sumdood on APS told me not to go there!!! ;/
Rape kits can prove you had sex, maybe even rough sex. Can't prove consent wasn't given. Lot of folks are into rough sex.
The post I quoted was singling out rape, you then responded agreeing with the post I had quoted which singled out rape. Ergo, you were singling out rape.
"I know you are but what am I" wasn't clever in grade school, and it's still a poor argument.
We currently have false reporting laws, and a prosecutor could easily charge the person with lots of other things as well. A new law that the prosecutor isn't enforcing will accomplish nothing.
Rape is a special case as merely proving that the act happened does not prove the crime. You prove that X robbed a bank, and you're done. But for rape, you need to prove not only that X had sex with Y, but that Y either did not or was not able to consent.
Did I ever claim a new law was needed? I thought we HAD false reporting laws.
"We currently have false reporting laws." ~~ Balog.
See, even you agree! [tinfoil] [popcorn]
Rape is certainly a nasty case but I don't see it as unusualy special. Murder is far worse....but one rarely has the victim's testimony to go on .... [popcorn]
The point is, whatever "ergos" are involved (it's probably not a good idea to construct a sylligism from internet twaddle) I was not really intending to treat rape as "special" despite your feelings it is.
All felonies should (ideally [and we're NOT in an ideal world, I know]) be treated similarly.