Police abuse

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dignin said:

I think that if you are serving the public where trust is paramount to your job you should be held to a higher standard than say a welder.

I would agree with this. And, of course, holding people to such high standards would mean we compensate accordingly.

The job has it's challenges recruiting. There's a reason for that. You can't expect a dollar's day of work when you pay 15 cents.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

dignin said:

I think that if you are serving the public where trust is paramount to your job you should be held to a higher standard than say a welder.

Exactly. My career is irrelevant. The consequences of what a bad cop can do are far more life altering than what the fry guy can do.

While there is truth to this, there is also truth to the fact that one shouldn't throw rocks when they live in glass houses.

The fact that you avoid that question tells me your job isn't exactly the shining beacon of integrity. Leading me to making my point which should be obvious right now.

Edit: You play it nice and safe... and the ones that do place themselves at risk get very little respect from you. It's like armchair coaching- the guy on the couch always knows better and could do it better.

unsung

Again, my career is irrelevant, and I don't have to answer nor to I need to defend questions about it. The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

I'm one of those that pay their salaries, and yes I can require that high standards are upheld, just as I do for the politicians of whose salaries I pay.

So keep trying to deflect from the real issue which is police abuse and not my career.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Again, my career is irrelevant, and I don't have to answer nor to I need to defend questions about it. The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

I'm one of those that pay their salaries, and yes I can require that high standards are upheld, just as I do for the politicians of whose salaries I pay.

So keep trying to deflect from the real issue which is police abuse and not my career.

No you don't have to answer. But I find it interesting you don't. You consistently knock guys that go out on the streets and risk their lives, yet you won't even risk stating what you do for a living.

A trending scale that shows cops are doing the opposite of serving and protecting? Come on, man, Seriously.

For every unique and isolated incident of a cop shooting a dog running at them as they investigate a break in at a house... there is one where a cop is injured in the line of duty or, for that matter, a million incidents where cops have served the public quite well.

unsung

You find it interesting that I prefer to keep my privacy intact as much as possible?

(301) 688-6524

That's the number to the NSA, thanks to Obama and Bush they have everything you'd need to know about me.

dignin

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dignin said:

I think that if you are serving the public where trust is paramount to your job you should be held to a higher standard than say a welder.

I would agree with this. And, of course, holding people to such high standards would mean we compensate accordingly.

The job has it's challenges recruiting. There's a reason for that. You can't expect a dollar's day of work when you pay 15 cents.

I agree

vant0037

unsung said:

The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

There's no such trend. You make that claim by pointing out instances which are undeniably infrequent (given the millions - yes millions - of citizen/police contacts that occur on a daily basis). Is your only other proof that you once dated a girl who was a cop? You can do better than that.

It's easy to pick out awful situations where cops become the bad guys. That doesn't mean there's an epidemic and it doesn't mean all cops are bad.

So which statement, in your mind, is true:

1. A majority of cops are bad and a minority are good.
OR
2. A majority of cops are good and a minority are bad.

Pointing out the bad instances that happen doesn't make either statement true and you're smart enough to know that. But yet you persist in this line of argument, and say unproven things like "there is a trending scale that shows etc etc etc." That leads me to believe you've made up your mind about what cops are like, and believe, perhaps in spite of a lack of proof (aside from whats reported in the news or an ex-relationship), that one of the above statements to be true.

So which is it? It would be very helpful to the rest of us who read these threads about yet another instance of police abuse if we knew what your bias was. It's clear you have one.

gimmesometruth27

yesterday, in broad daylight, a policeman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in the middle of the street in ferguson, mo, which is about a 12 minute drive from me. it has been all over the news. there is a bunch of unrest in the community. things are really on edge in st louis tonight. officer has been placed on paid leave with his identity hidden for his own protection.

rival gangs, who apparently have nothing to do with any of this, are putting differences aside and are going to go after police.

things are going to come to a head at some point, and it is not going to be pretty.

fife

unsung said:

Again, my career is irrelevant, and I don't have to answer nor to I need to defend questions about it. The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

I'm one of those that pay their salaries, and yes I can require that high standards are upheld, just as I do for the politicians of whose salaries I pay.

So keep trying to deflect from the real issue which is police abuse and not my career.

yes high standards should be upheld but does that mean no mistake ever?

also gimme, can you post a link to the story you talked about the kid?

unsung

gimmesometruth27 said:

yesterday, in broad daylight, a policeman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in the middle of the street in ferguson, mo, which is about a 12 minute drive from me. it has been all over the news. there is a bunch of unrest in the community. things are really on edge in st louis tonight. officer has been placed on paid leave with his identity hidden for his own protection.

rival gangs, who apparently have nothing to do with any of this, are putting differences aside and are going to go after police.

things are going to come to a head at some point, and it is not going to be pretty.

Dude, they are just doing their job. They are serving and protecting. Don't you know that they are actually paid in peanuts? Don't throw stones because you once knew someone that knew someone that might have been a cop. Don't you know that there are millions of interactions. Are all cops this bad. C'mon you can do better than that.

/sarcasm

unsung

fife said:

unsung said:

Again, my career is irrelevant, and I don't have to answer nor to I need to defend questions about it. The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

I'm one of those that pay their salaries, and yes I can require that high standards are upheld, just as I do for the politicians of whose salaries I pay.

So keep trying to deflect from the real issue which is police abuse and not my career.

yes high standards should be upheld but does that mean no mistake ever?

also gimme, can you post a link to the story you talked about the kid?

Been under a rock?

http://usat.ly/VffaTn

He was unarmed and shot ten(?) times.

Those cops probably were just doing their job, following some procedures, they still will serve and protect while upholding a high standard of conduct.

unsung

vant0037 said:

unsung said:

The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

There's no such trend. You make that claim by pointing out instances which are undeniably infrequent (given the millions - yes millions - of citizen/police contacts that occur on a daily basis). Is your only other proof that you once dated a girl who was a cop? You can do better than that.

It's easy to pick out awful situations where cops become the bad guys. That doesn't mean there's an epidemic and it doesn't mean all cops are bad.

So which statement, in your mind, is true:

1. A majority of cops are bad and a minority are good.
OR
2. A majority of cops are good and a minority are bad.

Pointing out the bad instances that happen doesn't make either statement true and you're smart enough to know that. But yet you persist in this line of argument, and say unproven things like "there is a trending scale that shows etc etc etc." That leads me to believe you've made up your mind about what cops are like, and believe, perhaps in spite of a lack of proof (aside from whats reported in the news or an ex-relationship), that one of the above statements to be true.

So which is it? It would be very helpful to the rest of us who read these threads about yet another instance of police abuse if we knew what your bias was. It's clear you have one.

Thanks for joining the thread. If you'll take the time to actually read this thread most of what you seek has been addressed.

dignin

fife said:

unsung said:

Again, my career is irrelevant, and I don't have to answer nor to I need to defend questions about it. The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

I'm one of those that pay their salaries, and yes I can require that high standards are upheld, just as I do for the politicians of whose salaries I pay.

So keep trying to deflect from the real issue which is police abuse and not my career.

yes high standards should be upheld but does that mean no mistake ever?

also gimme, can you post a link to the story you talked about the kid?

I think he means this one

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/michael-brown-shooting-rioting-looting-erupts-after-peaceful-vigil-1.2732875

fife

unsung said:

fife said:

unsung said:

Again, my career is irrelevant, and I don't have to answer nor to I need to defend questions about it. The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

I'm one of those that pay their salaries, and yes I can require that high standards are upheld, just as I do for the politicians of whose salaries I pay.

So keep trying to deflect from the real issue which is police abuse and not my career.

yes high standards should be upheld but does that mean no mistake ever?

also gimme, can you post a link to the story you talked about the kid?

Been under a rock?

http://usat.ly/VffaTn

He was unarmed and shot ten(?) times.

Those cops probably were just doing their job, following some procedures, they still will serve and protect while upholding a high standard of conduct.

thanks for the story. as for living under a rock, no just don't always have time to read everything at all times.

as for your "just doing your job" comment i would say no they didn't do their jobs in this story. again, no one has said that cops are perfect and they should be held responsible for what they do.

rgambs

i was just speaking with a 24 yr old city police officer yesterday. He literally told me that he went into police work because it isn't hard to get in. He said they hold your hand through the classroom work that should be taken seriously and the hardest part was getting into shape. The training of police is the first problem that needs addressed. Communities should set standards for training (sensitivity and mental health included) that the big police orgs (which of course are controlled by big money players who want militarization) cant circumvent. Oh wait... That makes sense, I must be dreaming.

fife

rgambs said:

i was just speaking with a 24 yr old city police officer yesterday. He literally told me that he went into police work because it isn't hard to get in. He said they hold your hand through the classroom work that should be taken seriously and the hardest part was getting into shape. The training of police is the first problem that needs addressed. Communities should set standards for training (sensitivity and mental health included) that the big police orgs (which of course are controlled by big money players who want militarization) cant circumvent. Oh wait... That makes sense, I must be dreaming.

I agree with this statement 100%.

rgambs

caveat: this is small town policing, big city is a whole other scenario to which i cant speak.

unsung

I know the city of 150,000 that I'm in sends them down to the state police academy. I believe most that get hired have previous experience as well.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

i was just speaking with a 24 yr old city police officer yesterday. He literally told me that he went into police work because it isn't hard to get in. He said they hold your hand through the classroom work that should be taken seriously and the hardest part was getting into shape. The training of police is the first problem that needs addressed. Communities should set standards for training (sensitivity and mental health included) that the big police orgs (which of course are controlled by big money players who want militarization) cant circumvent. Oh wait... That makes sense, I must be dreaming.

And, herein lies the problem that we see on occasion.

The fact that cheap taxpayers want a bottom barrel police force that demands police put their lives on the line every shift... but pay them garbage leads to a wide spectrum of people joining the police forces. Police are no longer successfully selected into the police force as much as they are accepted due to need and demand. As such... there are people without the ideal disposition that assume the badge. These people, when placed in positions of high stress, do poor things.

In Canada, we used to have the highest of standards for entry into the RCMP. It was one of the most respected and sought after jobs- but not everyone could get in and they were very selective as to who they would hire. The pension and pay were second to none back then. Things have changed: the RCMP are now marketing themselves and the force, still very competent, has lost some of the credibility they once boasted.

What is the reason for this? Why would a person go through rigorous training, spend time serving in a rural area, risk your life everyday on the job, and get shit on by the public when... for $30,000 more a year... you could push a broom at the mine?

Inclusion/discrimination laws have also played a factor in hiring practices that, to be brutally honest, have resulted in a diversified police force... but not necessarily the most competent police force.

Sit and bitch all you want, but unless you are prepared to increase the standards at the entry points... and pay for what you demand... then you are simply going to have to live with the- and let's get serious here- sensationalized 'outliers' that we read of from time to time of some kooky policeman performing badly.

vant0037

unsung said:

vant0037 said:

unsung said:

The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

There's no such trend. You make that claim by pointing out instances which are undeniably infrequent (given the millions - yes millions - of citizen/police contacts that occur on a daily basis). Is your only other proof that you once dated a girl who was a cop? You can do better than that.

It's easy to pick out awful situations where cops become the bad guys. That doesn't mean there's an epidemic and it doesn't mean all cops are bad.

So which statement, in your mind, is true:

1. A majority of cops are bad and a minority are good.
OR
2. A majority of cops are good and a minority are bad.

Pointing out the bad instances that happen doesn't make either statement true and you're smart enough to know that. But yet you persist in this line of argument, and say unproven things like "there is a trending scale that shows etc etc etc." That leads me to believe you've made up your mind about what cops are like, and believe, perhaps in spite of a lack of proof (aside from whats reported in the news or an ex-relationship), that one of the above statements to be true.

So which is it? It would be very helpful to the rest of us who read these threads about yet another instance of police abuse if we knew what your bias was. It's clear you have one.

Thanks for joining the thread. If you'll take the time to actually read this thread most of what you seek has been addressed.

Forgive me; these threads are so common and chock full of the same canned responses from both sides, that I didn't both wasting my time.

So, if you'd be so kind: which is it? Majority of cops are bad and a minority good, or vice versa?

chadwick

gimmesometruth27 said:

yesterday, in broad daylight, a policeman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in the middle of the street in ferguson, mo, which is about a 12 minute drive from me. it has been all over the news. there is a bunch of unrest in the community. things are really on edge in st louis tonight. officer has been placed on paid leave with his identity hidden for his own protection.

rival gangs, who apparently have nothing to do with any of this, are putting differences aside and are going to go after police.

things are going to come to a head at some point, and it is not going to be pretty.

becareful, sir

unsung

vant0037 said:

unsung said:

vant0037 said:

unsung said:

The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

There's no such trend. You make that claim by pointing out instances which are undeniably infrequent (given the millions - yes millions - of citizen/police contacts that occur on a daily basis). Is your only other proof that you once dated a girl who was a cop? You can do better than that.

It's easy to pick out awful situations where cops become the bad guys. That doesn't mean there's an epidemic and it doesn't mean all cops are bad.

So which statement, in your mind, is true:

1. A majority of cops are bad and a minority are good.
OR
2. A majority of cops are good and a minority are bad.

Pointing out the bad instances that happen doesn't make either statement true and you're smart enough to know that. But yet you persist in this line of argument, and say unproven things like "there is a trending scale that shows etc etc etc." That leads me to believe you've made up your mind about what cops are like, and believe, perhaps in spite of a lack of proof (aside from whats reported in the news or an ex-relationship), that one of the above statements to be true.

So which is it? It would be very helpful to the rest of us who read these threads about yet another instance of police abuse if we knew what your bias was. It's clear you have one.

Thanks for joining the thread. If you'll take the time to actually read this thread most of what you seek has been addressed.

Forgive me; these threads are so common and chock full of the same canned responses from both sides, that I didn't both wasting my time.

So, if you'd be so kind: which is it? Majority of cops are bad and a minority good, or vice versa?

Before I can answer that I'd need some sort of defined standards.

In short I'd say most of the old timer cops are good, and most of the young blood is bad.

vant0037

unsung said:

vant0037 said:

unsung said:

vant0037 said:

unsung said:

The Police are supposed to serve and protect and there is a trending scale that shows they might be doing the opposite.

There's no such trend. You make that claim by pointing out instances which are undeniably infrequent (given the millions - yes millions - of citizen/police contacts that occur on a daily basis). Is your only other proof that you once dated a girl who was a cop? You can do better than that.

It's easy to pick out awful situations where cops become the bad guys. That doesn't mean there's an epidemic and it doesn't mean all cops are bad.

So which statement, in your mind, is true:

1. A majority of cops are bad and a minority are good.
OR
2. A majority of cops are good and a minority are bad.

Pointing out the bad instances that happen doesn't make either statement true and you're smart enough to know that. But yet you persist in this line of argument, and say unproven things like "there is a trending scale that shows etc etc etc." That leads me to believe you've made up your mind about what cops are like, and believe, perhaps in spite of a lack of proof (aside from whats reported in the news or an ex-relationship), that one of the above statements to be true.

So which is it? It would be very helpful to the rest of us who read these threads about yet another instance of police abuse if we knew what your bias was. It's clear you have one.

Thanks for joining the thread. If you'll take the time to actually read this thread most of what you seek has been addressed.

Forgive me; these threads are so common and chock full of the same canned responses from both sides, that I didn't both wasting my time.

So, if you'd be so kind: which is it? Majority of cops are bad and a minority good, or vice versa?

Before I can answer that I'd need some sort of defined standards.

In short I'd say most of the old timer cops are good, and most of the young blood is bad.

No standards, just a majority or minority of cops. Sheer numbers.

Thank you for answering (seriously), but do you really believe that? There've gotta be, what? 25,000 "young" cops? You believe a majority of them are bad?

I too am concerned when I read about police abuse, but that's a very bold leap to say that because bad things are sometimes done by cops, a majority (of young ones) are bad, don't you think? Isn't that the same thing as claiming that because some libertarians or democrats say stupid things, a majority of them are stupid?

gimmesometruth27

chadwick said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

yesterday, in broad daylight, a policeman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in the middle of the street in ferguson, mo, which is about a 12 minute drive from me. it has been all over the news. there is a bunch of unrest in the community. things are really on edge in st louis tonight. officer has been placed on paid leave with his identity hidden for his own protection.

rival gangs, who apparently have nothing to do with any of this, are putting differences aside and are going to go after police.

things are going to come to a head at some point, and it is not going to be pretty.

becareful, sir

thanks man.

they burned down some buildings and looted some stores last night. 32 rioters got arrested, and 2 cops got injured in the melee. they destroyed a news station's van.

tonight they are looting one of our biggest malls, which is about 12 miles away from where last night's stuff went down. the theory about town is that people are taking the metrolink from downtown to the galleria specifically to tear shit up. the mall has been on lockdown for about 2 hours now.

craziness...

bootlegger10

gimmesometruth27 said:

yesterday, in broad daylight, a policeman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in the middle of the street in ferguson, mo, which is about a 12 minute drive from me. it has been all over the news. there is a bunch of unrest in the community. things are really on edge in st louis tonight. officer has been placed on paid leave with his identity hidden for his own protection.

rival gangs, who apparently have nothing to do with any of this, are putting differences aside and are going to go after police.

things are going to come to a head at some point, and it is not going to be pretty.

Only the gangs are allowed to kill people in that town. How dare the police. Not saying the police shooting was right but what about the hundreds who aren't killed by cops but gang members. No looting, etc.... it would be nice to see people stand up for their towns when the gangs kill.

unsung

It is rather ridiculous that it takes a police shooting for them to care.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

It is rather ridiculous that it takes a police shooting for them to care.

Us and Them, Unsung.

You are doing your part to ensure that mentality exists. You should understand.

unsung

Please. I point out abuses, I don't use them as an excuse to commit other crimes. Another deflection. You deserve a medal.

unsung

vant0037 said:

No standards, just a majority or minority of cops. Sheer numbers.

Thank you for answering (seriously), but do you really believe that? There've gotta be, what? 25,000 "young" cops? You believe a majority of them are bad?

I too am concerned when I read about police abuse, but that's a very bold leap to say that because bad things are sometimes done by cops, a majority (of young ones) are bad, don't you think? Isn't that the same thing as claiming that because some libertarians or democrats say stupid things, a majority of them are stupid?

Of course you know that there is no way to put a number on it, and I would not hazard a guess to that number.

I will say that the ratio of police that violate some level of civil rights of the civilians in this country is changing for the worse. Is it 51% of the police force? I don't know. I do insist that a good cop that turns a blind eye to these violations is just as guilty as those that commit them.

unsung

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/cop-autistic-teen-pot_n_4178746.html

Serving and protecting.