you know even though i dislike the normal every day police, i will admit that i have total respect for thr transport police!
The Role of the Police
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
I didn't think I could do it, Tiassa, but it seems that I've shut you up!!
Now all I have to do is work on Fraggle, the second biggest know-it-all, and second wordiest member of the forums! ....LOL!
It's okay, Tiassa, you're allowed to hate the police if you want to, but you should be a man about it and just admit it. Don't make up a bunch of bullshit in some misquided idea of justifying that hatred. Hate all you want, it's good for you.
Baron Max
Why? Do you have a rational reason, or you had a bad experience with ONE cop? Or what?
And please don't get me wrong, you can hate cops if you want to. And I respect you a lot more for admitting it than I respect people like Tiassa who uses bullshit to try to justify his hatred.
Baron Max
respect me then because i hate the police! we have had many dealings with them and i have even had one fired!
you know baron, somtimes just one cop will make it bad for people
Ya' know, sometimes one black man can make it bad for all other black people.
Sometimes one bad soldier can make it bad for all other soldiers.
Sometimes one bad Muslim can make it bad for all other Muslims.
Sometimes ....... (need I go on?)
Baron Max
but the police are a goverment run department, they should not stand by and watch a young kid die!!
I respect you for saying it, not for you hatred. But if hate makes you feel better, then be my guest.
But I'm just curious ....why don't you hate all people, all humans? Because I know that you've been fucked over by one or more of 'em.
Baron Max
If I remember what you're talkin' about, then only two "cops" stood by and did nothing. So why not hate those two cops, but not all of the others? What did they do to earn your hatred?
Baron Max
i was living in s wales, and this police officer said to my mum in law! "did you know, june (thats me) ran away when she was just 15?, your son will be better leaving her" and in fact it was my sister who ran away, but he caused all sorts of hassle for me and my husband, so after many meatings with the chief inspector he was fired from his job, and bloody rightly so
why dont i hate all people, in fact Baron i dont have respect for peolpe till they have earned it
I agree, he shouldn't have said that. But why hate all cops because of the actions of one? And the chief inspector? Why do you hate him? And why do you hate one of the cops 100 miles from you that's never done a thing to you?
See? That's how racists do their hatred. One black man did something wrong, so that's proof enough for a racist to hate all black people.
Now me, I'm different ....I'm an equal opportunity hater ...I hate everyone, every race, every religion, every culture, every color, every size, every...... I hate all humans equally ....and some I hate a little more than others!
Baron Max
But I think you've said or implied several times that you hate all cops?! What gives now? Did I talk to you enough to see that you were just a little too emotional to be reasonable?
Baron Max
I agree, he shouldn't have said that. But why hate all cops because of the actions of one? And the chief inspector? Why do you hate him? And why do you hate one of the cops 100 miles from you that's never done a thing to you?
See? That's how racists do their hatred. One black man did something wrong, so that's proof enough for a racist to hate all black people.
Now me, I'm different ....I'm an equal opportunity hater ...I hate everyone, every race, every religion, every culture, every color, every size, every...... I hate all humans equally ....and some I hate a little more than others!
Baron Max
because that was just one reaon to hate! you know when you got to police for protection and they treat you like crap, and they say that to your family, you feal sad and annoyed at the complete police system
Well, good. Then the next time someone says something bad about "all blacks", just remember your own hatred and don't rail on the racists who revel in their own brand of hate.
Baron Max
Moving on to more relevant considerations
I'm just curious: aside from police, what other organizations, when found to be rife with corruption, get to demand respect? If the basis for giving greater respect to police is that they put their lives on the line, protect the citizens, and volunteer to do the tough work that makes our lives better, what are we to think when they do the exact opposite?
The report, by Eric Nalder and Lewis Kamb, consists of several stories, insight into case files, and a transcript of an internet chat session with Nalder. Despite tales and statistics showing that the police give professional courtesies to the point of facilitating tragedy, and that police officers face dramatically fewer and less severe legal ramifications, as well as a story about a little sticker on a cop's private car, the first question of the chat session asks, "Does the PI have a hatred of police for any particular reason?" The second asks, "Do you think this article is really necessary? It is hard enough to find people to want to be police officers."
I find these questions fascinating; does the first mean to suggest that because these are police officers, we ought to turn a blind eye to the situation? After all, the reason the community is supposed to care, even if you actually made it home safe that night, is that the next time you might not, and you might take someone with you. Does the fact of being a police officer change anything about that?
Does the second question really mean to suggest that without such professional courtesies--e.g. the right to break the law--people won't want to be police officers? What would that say about our law enforcement agencies?
Another question asked if there were any comparisons about people other than police officers, and how many lost their jobs. It's an interesting question, I think, that overlooks the fact that police officers are supposed to enforce the law. Drunk cops are a question of their own, I suppose, but to me, the question should focus on those who request such professional courtesies, and also (especially) those who give them (whether prompted or not).
A retired police commander of 30+ years suggests that firefighters use stickers to identify themselves and often hope for professional courtesies from the police. Again, we have to look at the people who request such courtesies and the cops who give them, but we also have to consider that this would be a cross-service courtesy equivalent to a firefighter confessing to the Fire Marshall, "Yeah, I committed that arson, but, what do you say? Can I get a professional courtesy on this one?" And given that the damage is already done (as opposed to a future potential), that seems a harder courtesy to grant.
The feature also includes "case files", including that of Casey Carson, who received unusually stiff punishment after pushing for a professional courtesy in Alaska: 45-day suspension, five days of home detention, random drug and alcohol tests for the rest of his law enforcement career, and a career-long probation that includes his termination if a judge ever dismisses him as an arresting trooper because of the conviction. His current boss says the WSP "saved a fantastic employee".
What should we do about this? Some of these drunk cops were driving their service vehicles at the time. Are such considerations, as one reader phrased it, merely a "bash job"? Or do the police, because they are the police, deserve a blind eye toward corruption and misconduct?
I'll point out one other comment from the internet chat session, perhaps the most important of the lot: "Without just hammering on the police all the time, isn't there anything that we, as a society, can do to help officers in trouble and also make sure that everyone is treated fairly and equally?"
Or is that asking too much?
____________________
Notes:
I'm just curious: aside from police, what other organizations, when found to be rife with corruption, get to demand respect? If the basis for giving greater respect to police is that they put their lives on the line, protect the citizens, and volunteer to do the tough work that makes our lives better, what are we to think when they do the exact opposite?
• See "Undue Influence", from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
The report, by Eric Nalder and Lewis Kamb, consists of several stories, insight into case files, and a transcript of an internet chat session with Nalder. Despite tales and statistics showing that the police give professional courtesies to the point of facilitating tragedy, and that police officers face dramatically fewer and less severe legal ramifications, as well as a story about a little sticker on a cop's private car, the first question of the chat session asks, "Does the PI have a hatred of police for any particular reason?" The second asks, "Do you think this article is really necessary? It is hard enough to find people to want to be police officers."
I find these questions fascinating; does the first mean to suggest that because these are police officers, we ought to turn a blind eye to the situation? After all, the reason the community is supposed to care, even if you actually made it home safe that night, is that the next time you might not, and you might take someone with you. Does the fact of being a police officer change anything about that?
Does the second question really mean to suggest that without such professional courtesies--e.g. the right to break the law--people won't want to be police officers? What would that say about our law enforcement agencies?
Another question asked if there were any comparisons about people other than police officers, and how many lost their jobs. It's an interesting question, I think, that overlooks the fact that police officers are supposed to enforce the law. Drunk cops are a question of their own, I suppose, but to me, the question should focus on those who request such professional courtesies, and also (especially) those who give them (whether prompted or not).
A retired police commander of 30+ years suggests that firefighters use stickers to identify themselves and often hope for professional courtesies from the police. Again, we have to look at the people who request such courtesies and the cops who give them, but we also have to consider that this would be a cross-service courtesy equivalent to a firefighter confessing to the Fire Marshall, "Yeah, I committed that arson, but, what do you say? Can I get a professional courtesy on this one?" And given that the damage is already done (as opposed to a future potential), that seems a harder courtesy to grant.
The feature also includes "case files", including that of Casey Carson, who received unusually stiff punishment after pushing for a professional courtesy in Alaska: 45-day suspension, five days of home detention, random drug and alcohol tests for the rest of his law enforcement career, and a career-long probation that includes his termination if a judge ever dismisses him as an arresting trooper because of the conviction. His current boss says the WSP "saved a fantastic employee".
What should we do about this? Some of these drunk cops were driving their service vehicles at the time. Are such considerations, as one reader phrased it, merely a "bash job"? Or do the police, because they are the police, deserve a blind eye toward corruption and misconduct?
I'll point out one other comment from the internet chat session, perhaps the most important of the lot: "Without just hammering on the police all the time, isn't there anything that we, as a society, can do to help officers in trouble and also make sure that everyone is treated fairly and equally?"
Or is that asking too much?
____________________
Notes:
Nalder, Eric and Lewis Kamb. "Undue Influence". SeattlePI.com, August, 2007. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/undueinfluence/
Baron Max said:
I'm aware, Max, that you're not bright enough to understand certain things. For instance, I'm aware that you can't tell the difference between a pencil and a gun. I'm also aware that you can't tell the difference between a police officer and a black person.
What, in the end, is the point of trying to explain anything to someone who is incapable of understanding even the most basic considerations?
Squeals on Wheels
Look, I know police are people, and people are humans, but when you volunteer, apply for, sign onto, or ask to be something, there are often certain expectations that go with it. Consider this story coming in from North Carolina:
Now, I'm not going to make any bones about a cop banging a subordinate's wife; that's between the players in that game. But, really ... while on duty? Leaving your loaded gun in your mistress' car for her children to find? I'm not even going to complain about the judge's decision; the outcome is fine with me. But the hearing included discussion of nine years' worth of disciplinary issues relating to police officers and sexual conduct:
And to consider, beyond that, other tales dogging the Highway Patrol:
Now, let's get back to the central question: What is the role of the police?
The police are supposed to be enforcers of the law. They are supposed to work to the benefit of the community. Certainly all sorts of people might abuse their dogs, have affairs with subordinates' wives, get laid at work, and even leave their guns around for children to find. But when you're the police, the expectation is that you will avoid these kinds of vulgar episodes.
An interesting note about the decision:
Two things stand out: in the first place, why didn't the Highway Patrol cite Poarch for having sex while in uniform? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, why does such a rule exist in the first place? Is it an unfair rule? If, as some have implied, the police have no greater obligations than anyone else in society, how is such a rule fair? Once upon a time, I got laid while wearing a Pizza Hut uniform. And a Sbarro's. And a Hollywood Video. And I know many people who have had a quick shag while "in uniform". None of them, of course, were cops, but as long as they didn't come to work with last night's stains on their uniform, nobody would have cared.
The rule exists because of the role police serve in society.
When your role is to be the protector of the community, the enforcer of the laws, the bright shield of moral conduct, then one is expected to not behave in a dangerous, immoral, illegal, or sleazy manner. Soap operas are mundane vulgarity in American society, but yes, there are times that people are expected to put the drama aside and play the part they've asked (and been given permission) to play.
_____________________
Notes:
Look, I know police are people, and people are humans, but when you volunteer, apply for, sign onto, or ask to be something, there are often certain expectations that go with it. Consider this story coming in from North Carolina:
Now, I'm not going to make any bones about a cop banging a subordinate's wife; that's between the players in that game. But, really ... while on duty? Leaving your loaded gun in your mistress' car for her children to find? I'm not even going to complain about the judge's decision; the outcome is fine with me. But the hearing included discussion of nine years' worth of disciplinary issues relating to police officers and sexual conduct:
And to consider, beyond that, other tales dogging the Highway Patrol:
Now, let's get back to the central question: What is the role of the police?
The police are supposed to be enforcers of the law. They are supposed to work to the benefit of the community. Certainly all sorts of people might abuse their dogs, have affairs with subordinates' wives, get laid at work, and even leave their guns around for children to find. But when you're the police, the expectation is that you will avoid these kinds of vulgar episodes.
An interesting note about the decision:
Two things stand out: in the first place, why didn't the Highway Patrol cite Poarch for having sex while in uniform? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, why does such a rule exist in the first place? Is it an unfair rule? If, as some have implied, the police have no greater obligations than anyone else in society, how is such a rule fair? Once upon a time, I got laid while wearing a Pizza Hut uniform. And a Sbarro's. And a Hollywood Video. And I know many people who have had a quick shag while "in uniform". None of them, of course, were cops, but as long as they didn't come to work with last night's stains on their uniform, nobody would have cared.
The rule exists because of the role police serve in society.
When your role is to be the protector of the community, the enforcer of the laws, the bright shield of moral conduct, then one is expected to not behave in a dangerous, immoral, illegal, or sleazy manner. Soap operas are mundane vulgarity in American society, but yes, there are times that people are expected to put the drama aside and play the part they've asked (and been given permission) to play.
_____________________
Notes:
Kane, Dan. "Trooper Had Sex in Patrol Car". NewsObserver.com, September 22, 2007. See http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/712570.html
if you are so sure of this happening then why don't you quote some sources? i can only name 1 time i have witnessed the a cop help anyone. but does walking into the pub and warning everyone of a nearby checkpoint really make up for the shit we get from them every other day?
I want to explain that not only cops don't do the right thing sometimes but most of the time regular people don't do them either. I've seen many instances in my lifetime that make me very concerned about the way regular citizens react to a given situation. Many accidents I've come upon I was the only person to even stop to try and render help to those involved. The rest of the people in their cars just looked on as they passed by. Thanks allot fellow citizens, you really are great pieces of work.
Police do try, in most instance, to help in a critical situation most of the time and we see it from time to time on the news. Sometimes they always don't do right , which the media just loves to exploit, and we never hear the end of that story. Whenever an officer helps out we only hear about that once or twice and then the story just fades away. Nice of the media to always keep playing up the negative about the police but rarely show the good work they perform because IT DOESN'T MAKE FOR GETTING PEOPLE EXCITED! That is what the media tries to do, looks for the wrongs not the rights in society.
Why didn't the media just stay with the story of the two anglers that rescued the one person and tried to help the other but failed? The media just had to say something negative about the story to make it more INTERESTRING so they could sell more of their crap to the public who for the life of me can't see what the media is doing. The media really were to blame for not crediting the anglers more and going with that line of the story but rather took the low road as they always try to do just to get everyone all hyped up about nothing.
Police do try, in most instance, to help in a critical situation most of the time and we see it from time to time on the news. Sometimes they always don't do right , which the media just loves to exploit, and we never hear the end of that story. Whenever an officer helps out we only hear about that once or twice and then the story just fades away. Nice of the media to always keep playing up the negative about the police but rarely show the good work they perform because IT DOESN'T MAKE FOR GETTING PEOPLE EXCITED! That is what the media tries to do, looks for the wrongs not the rights in society.
Why didn't the media just stay with the story of the two anglers that rescued the one person and tried to help the other but failed? The media just had to say something negative about the story to make it more INTERESTRING so they could sell more of their crap to the public who for the life of me can't see what the media is doing. The media really were to blame for not crediting the anglers more and going with that line of the story but rather took the low road as they always try to do just to get everyone all hyped up about nothing.