board77

Except Voronwe that you are limiting the definition to just one little aspect of a much bigger job. And in this case the person is purposelly crafting a definition just to meet their own peculiar criteria.

To frame the definition that way is ridiculous since it neglects to consider all the things a police officer does in the normal execution of their many duties.

His definition did not include (as you put it) that term with others but simply stated that that one lone item was his criteria of judging. And that is just plain ridiculous.

vison wrote:

A police officer should not be held to a "higher standard" at all, the standard should be the same as for every other citizen.

I don't think CG is saying that police should be held to a higher standard than other citizens, just that in order to be a "good cop" they need to meet a higher standard than what they do now. Pretty much like what you said, that as of now the standard they are generally held to is lower than that which the average citizen might expect to be held to.

No, I am writing that Meril my dear. By voluntarily taking the job a police officer should be held to the standards of that job, which by necessity are higher than the average person. If a non-officer witnesses a crime, he has no obligation above and beyond notifying the police and giving them information. If a police officer is present at the time and witnesses the crime he is legally obligated to intervene, and not doing so is a crime. That, right there, is already a higher standard that is inherent in the nature of the job.

And the even higher standard I was referring to is eactly what Voronwë wrote as well, when I include policing the police.

Ah, I see. Except... wasn't there a ruling that police are not legally obligated to protect us, or something of that nature?

Lets try to clear this up once and for all time if we can.

Is CG saying - as he originally did - that his criteria for judging a "good cop" is that they turn in the bad cops... or is he saying that is one part of a larger set of criteria for judgng if a police officer is a "good cop"?

this statement

Quote:

Back when I wrote that my standard for "good cop" was different from some others, that I had a higher bar for police to clear to achieve that title, I specifically wrote that the good cops arrest the bad cops. There were no good cops present at the Critical Mass assault.

states clearly that there were no "good cops" at this Critical Mass event because - according to CG - they did not meet his one item of individual criteria.

It could be that everyone here is on the same page. But I would appreciate clarification before it goes any further.

Thousands of police officers go through their entire careers without turning in any othe police officers. Does that mean they do not earn the title of "good cops"?

Simple and direct answers can clear this up. Maybe we all agree.

Meril36 wrote:

Ah, I see. Except... wasn't there a ruling that police are not legally obligated to protect us, or something of that nature?

Yes, they are not. If you call them, they do have to arrive, but if everything happens before they get there they are not to blame. What they are legally obligated to do is act if they are on the scene.

The court case you are thinking about took place with police not on the scene and a restraining order that was ignored by the person restrained. In that case it is indeed true the police aren't obligated to protect but to collect any relevant information in order to find the offending person.

CG, there are a few "problems" with your description of what a cop must do. First, if an officer is off duty they have NO obligation to intervene. Each officer must weigh the situation and determine what will be best, witness or intervene. If I encounter a bank robbery in progress and my family is with me, I will be a witness.

If an officer is on duty and he witnesses a bank robbery in progress, he is not obligated to act to immediately stop the act. Officer/civilian safety comes first, if by rushing in he could create worse of a mess then he should wait until he can take action. Obviously I am not saying walk away, take up a position, call for back-up, be prepared to confront the person as they exit, etc etc. to stop the act.

Finally, if I am on duty and out of my jurisdiction, I have no authority to arrest for any crime other than a felony. An example would be if I saw someone smoking marijuana on a park bench then I have no authority to take action on the misdemanor crime. As a matter for fact I cannot arrest a person on signed charges against a person for domestic violence, I can only hold them until the jurisdiction with charges can pick them up.

As someone earlier posted, by your definition, since I have never arrested an officer for doing something wrong then I am not a good cop. Well, quite frankly I hope I retire as a "bad" cop because I have never witnessed a cop doing something that would require him to be arrested (yes, I have seen them be rude but nothing criminal).

What should be done about the people who file false complaints against officers?

freddy

I clicked on this thread because I saw the little exclamation point on it. Honestly, you guys. Is there a point to this arguing, other than the great feeling you get when you hit send?

I don't live in Oakland, but I can see it from my front porch and I drive through it often. Yes, there is some anti-police sentiment there, especially after an unarmed man was recently gunned down by a transit policeman. But on the other hand, the funeral for the 4 policemen killed recently filled a football stadium and snarled up traffic in all directions for 50 miles. There was tremendous support for the police on that day.

Um, I forgot. What was the topic of this thread?

laueranna,
My point? I'm tired of CG bashing police. I think this tends to be others' points also.

freddy

Actually, the original intent of the thread was for Iavas to compare Dick Cheney to Star Wars. Apparently, somewhere in the past 30 pages, it has gotten in to a fight about policemen on a very personal level. I hate to say this again, but it takes two to tango. There are trolls in this community who say inflammatory things because they get a charge out of it. You can put them on ignore, you can just ignore them by refusing to respond in kind, or you can give them the opportunity to expand on their ideas for pages and pages by repeatedly poking them.

Personally, I take what everyone says here with a grain of salt. If it doesn't agree with my take on the world, I usually assume the other guy is deluded and not capable of being shown the light. If he hasn't gotten it in this many years, he probably won't change with one post of mine, no matter how sarcastic. Which leaves me wondering why I bothered to make this post.

Er, like because you invariably (always?) make sense laureanna?

I don't completely disagree with you. I also don't take it personal. If I took it personal everytime someone said nasty things to me I would be one of the officers CG complains about. About 100 times over.

I just think it is time to defend what I feel is defendable.

freddy

Iavas himself changed the thread title many times before he left to keep up with the latest police state news items. Even he no longer kept up with the Star Wars topic that started the thread. At least once the changing thread title was used by a government worshipper to avoid discussing an issue wherein I posted an article about laws against smoking in private homes and he insisted we talk about cars instead.

The problem with a police state thread is that either one can concentrate on abusive laws, at which point the government worshippers can say "you haven't shown us any victims" or you can concentrate on the front-line abuses at which point government worshippers can say "you haven't shown any sort of pattern."

The other problem with the second activity is that police, as the front line representatives of the government, get most of the attention. It's not the bureaucrats who arrest people.

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

government worshippers

Boy, if that wasn't intended to be inflammatory.


freddy

You just have to smile indulgently and pat him on the head. All of us went through that rebellious phase when we were kids.

And the opposite of government worshipers is government demonizers and I'm not particularly interested in either side.

That said, it seemed a fair time to point out.......there are corrupt law enforcement people out there. Probably a lot. The whole "power corrupts" thing, ya know. So even if the majority, even vast majority, of cops are doing good things and that should be recognized, it's probably more important in the big picture that there are people out there watching out for wrong-doing and injustice and corruption on the part of cops. So while I find the extremeness of CG's general stance misguided, goodness, it's not like it's unreasonable to point out that cops shouldn't bully people around. Or shoot them!!

Yov, I've always said that if an officer screws up, whether intentionally or unintentionally, they should be held accountable. But not every offense results in firing and this is what seems to be screamed for. How many of these guys with cameras turn over the tapes when a cop can be exonerated by what is on it? I know of none, they just let the officer swing in the wind because "it makes up for the bad things they've done and not gotten caught." If there was balance to it then I would find more merit in it, instead it's a witch hunt.

freddy

*** puts out her card to show she's a government worker and sits patiently waiting for worshipers***

laureanna wrote:

*** puts out her card to show she's a government worker and sits patiently waiting for worshipers***

**pulls out ID badge

**settles down next to laureanna