board77

Feredir wrote:

meril, this has nothing to do with police so don't make it that way. If you want personal protection hire a body guard. The Constitution limits our power (rightfully so) but people want to whine because they aren't "being protected." If we are "everywhere" people complain, if no one sees a cop, they complain. In our city of 58,000 the average police officers working is 6.6/hour. Give me a break.

I have dealt with plenty of criminals and each one would slit the others throat, without a deal being offered. They simply want to appear to be cooperating so the judge will take it easier on them.


freddy

Precisely.

Just a quick qualifier: I didn't say I would actually want to go to the Mafia -- only that I'd rather that than the cops. Does that tell you anything?

Meril, you want to take it there then we will.

Why do you have a hatred/distrust of the police?

Have you or anyone you know been mistreated by police?

Do you personally have knowledge of someone being mistreated or do you base it on things you read that do not provide the whole story?

Have you ever spent time as a police officer?

Have you ever experienced what a police officer attends to each day?

Have you ever been hated simply because of your job?

Have you ever been spit on or assaulted simply because of your job?

Have you ever had to tell someone that their 16 year old son just killed himself?

Have you ever had to run into a house where two people have been stabbed and had to search the house, knowing you might have to confront someone wanting to kill you?

Have you ever tried to comfort the wife that just witnessed her husband commit suicide, in front of their children?

I could go on but will wait for your response. Then we will get back to the intent of this thread, trying to figure out the roots and what can be done about this barbaric situation.

freddy

There are two aspects to this. One aspect is the entire gang culture, and the other is the difference between witnesses testifying on their own versus witnesses being bought and paid for.

The purchased witness, as well as the gang culture, have roots in the drug war, which in turn produced the great mass of people who no longer choose to participate in our civil institutions due to their getting the short end of the stick.

Notice carefully that the drugs that land one in prison are those favored by either the young or the poor, while the legal drugs are those favored by either the rich or the old (the rich buy senators while the old vote disproportionately more than the young).

If you really want to end the entire dysfunctional gang culture, defund them by taking drugs out of the hands of the underground economy and put them in the legal economy along side the beer and prozac.

One of the reasons snitching has become such a problem is precisely because of the drug war. Given a crime where no participants are victims, it is impossible to get either participant to report the other, plus any such report is also self-incrimination. Purchased or plea-bargained testimony is really the only way to break into the drug transaction in order to gain prosecutions.

Since the drug trade takes place in the underground economy, the competition isn't in terms of price and quality but territory and violence. That leads to those who act against the system to become violent victims of the system. Compare to the lies of "the truth" commercials about tobacco and the reaction of the toboacco companies - one notably absent reaction from the tobacco companies was to hire hitmen to kill the producers of those commercials.

Given actual crimes witnesses usually want to come forward, but can be intimidated against doing so, but that almost always happens in gang systems such as the ones set up by the drug war. Criminals without gangs may make threats, but nobody is going to silence the witness for the criminal. Posting the name and address of a witness to a solo criminal may be rude but it's not a threat. Posting the name and address of a witness to a gang criminal is a threat.

So to protect those witnesses of gang violence, you need to disrupt the gang system, which again ties back to ending the drug war.

The other main source of gang activity, which was a source of the Italian Mafia or the Japanese Yakuza, was if the government itself became corrupt, a source of offense against the population. Then the illegal organizations became an alternative system to dispense the justice not supplied by the government. I can understand why snitches there are heavily frowned upon - they are betraying the provider of justices to the government that is not supplying justice. This may soon become the case in the USA, as it is obvious the police are rapidly becoming an increasingly brutal paramilitary force with an us-vs-them mentaily towards those they are sworn to protect.

freddy,

The police are the front line representatives of the government. When the government grows corrupt, yes it is the people in charge making it so, but it is the police who make it possible.

No politician has ever killed an innocent in a wrong-house drug raid enforcing a law against a victimless crime. No politician has ever seized a person's life savings using civil asset forfeiture on the grounds of "suspicion". After an eminent domain proceeding it's not the politican who enforces the politician's vote, it's the police. No politician has ever arrested anybody for any reason, or collected any fine or tax.

And all of that is before we get to our increasingly brutal paramilitarized police that are becoming increasingly common today, which are an essential extension of our increasingly authoritarian government.

The day you come here and post that you refused to enforce an unjust law you redeem my entire concept of the police. Of course you will need to tell us which law it is. Police in California are quite clear about how they aren't enforcing the Medical Marijuana initiative but are instead cooperating as extensively with the DEA as they can to override the will of the voters who pay their salaries.

C_G wrote: And all of that is before we get to our increasingly brutal paramilitarized police that are becoming increasingly common today.

Provide me with proof of this. All of the older officers I speak with tell of things that I hold to be completely wrong and illegal (ie: beatings, intentional dog bites, etc). Does this happen today, yes but it is on the DECREASE not the increase as you allege. I am very thankful for that.

C_G also wrote:
The day you come here and post that you refused to enforce an unjust law you redeem my entire concept of the police.

Who decides if a law is unjust? You? What makes your opinion better than mine? If the law is there then MANY people (politicians or voters) decided it should be there.

This whole situation does not hinge on the illegal drugs, hip-hop, or police misconduct. When did society lose its compassion for other humans? Why do these youth feel that they have been mistreated? Have they truly been mistreated or have they been brain-washed?

freddy

As for your second question, who is the person who is enforcing the law?

It is up to you to make a decision, since you are the one with the badge. Do you, personally, think that a given law is unjust? If so, and since it is up to you to enforce it, do stand by the law or do you stand by justice? I cannot make that decision for you.

It is not my decision if the law is unjust, it is my decision to enforce the law. If I were to provide my bias to the law then I would saying that my opinion is more important than those that were elected.

Then it is up to the courts, who are elected by the people (not including federally appointed judges), to hold the person accountable and how best to do so.

The law makers, once again elected, decide what laws are just and unjust. The courts provide further clarification of that law.

freddy

In other words, no matter how bad the law, you will still enforce it.

Notice that in my question, I didn't grant the police the power to create law, but only to nullify law. And to a certain extent your opinion is more important than those whoa re elected since they do not enforce any of the laws they pass. They depend on you to enable their despotism.

Are there any lines that you can think of at all at which point you would balk and say "no way I'm enforcing that?" Any potential laws that would make you either simply not enforce or alternately resign rather than enforce?

As per your first question, a quick search found several recent ones. You can go through the "Terror Police States" thread for older ones.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... duct_N.htm

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/ ... est1st.txt

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/200 ... house.wlwt

http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?s=7446220

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2062.asp

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/263855

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2643155.html

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/12/10/lang.htm

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2007/nov/07/7west/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10VKwULQbb8

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/717727.html

It is well known that police say "stop resisting" as a pass to brutalize even those who aren't resisting. After all, the police would never tell someone to stop resisting unless they were, right?

But about how dangerous the work is. This site supports your claim, sort of.

http://home.austin.rr.com/apdhallofsham ... ations.htm

Also you didn't respond to this part of my post.

CG wrote:

The police are the front line representatives of the government. When the government grows corrupt, yes it is the people in charge making it so, but it is the police who make it possible.

No politician has ever killed an innocent in a wrong-house drug raid enforcing a law against a victimless crime. No politician has ever seized a person's life savings using civil asset forfeiture on the grounds of "suspicion". After an eminent domain proceeding it's not the politican who enforces the politician's vote, it's the police. No politician has ever arrested anybody for any reason, or collected any fine or tax.

Speaking from experience, sad though that experience is, there are times when the sight of a guy in a blue uniform, wearing those thick-soled black shoes, is about the most welcome sight possible.

I "distrust" the police to the extent that I think cops stick together against the rest of us, but that's a cultural thing that can be changed and is changing. "Us" vs "them" is fading, so I hear, in the attitudes admired in police academies. One important change should be made ASAP, that is that all police forces be subject to civilian scrutiny and answerable to a civilian board when issues arise with police behavior/misbehavior. The police should not investigate themselves.


I am as one with feredir that the police should not choose which laws to enforce, that they have taken on the task of enforcing the laws as they stand and it is up to the rest of us, C_G, to have the laws changed. It is utterly unfair and unreasonable to put that burden onto the police, and moreover betrays a very strange mindset --- since no one would shriek louder than you if they decided to do that very thing and it was YOUR ox being gored. Of course, if you and yours decide to toddle off to the local gang boss in search of justice, that's up to you, but it puts you out there on a limb, beyond the pale, at the mercy of men who have absolutely NO let or hindrance on their behavior, with no one to answer to.

Rather than expect a police officer to stand scratching his head, thinking, "Jeez, should I enforce this silly law or not?" I think you should, like, get up from the computer and get involved in politics with the aim of getting rid of all the laws YOU think are unreasonable.

Somehow my path in life has crossed with the police path more times than I like and with one or two exceptions, the police were courteous, calm, professional, reliable, restrained, and necessary.

So if a law was passed saying that all Jews had to be rounded up and put into concentration camps...?

Meril36 wrote:

So if a law was passed saying that all Jews had to be rounded up and put into concentration camps...?

Why would it be up to the police to deal with such a law? Isn't it the responsibility of the population as a whole? I mean, here you are, you and C_G always going on about "freedom" and how people should be free to do whatever they want, etc., and yet, you don't visualize yourselves protesting or arming yourselves and taking to the hills, etc., should such a dreadful thing come to pass? You would stand supinely by and wait for the police to refuse to enforce such a law?

I think people should put their money where their mouths are, quite frankly.

Instead of dredging up chimeras, why not work toward a society where no such law could ever BE passed?

Because in general, the police can out-gun most people who would oppose such a law. Such societies have occurred in the past, and those who tried to follow your advice wound up shot, and the victims rounded up anyway. And the police were "just doing their job."

Yes, as the front line of government, the police have a very strong responsibility with regards to bad law, because without police compliance it would not be possible to enforce such laws.

Meril36 wrote:

Because in general, the police can out-gun most people who would oppose such a law. Such societies have occurred in the past, and those who tried to follow your advice wound up shot, and the victims rounded up anyway. And the police were "just doing their job."

Yes, as the front line of government, the police have a very strong responsibility with regards to bad law, because without police compliance it would not be possible to enforce such laws.

*snort*

Personally, I think the voters are more responsible. But then, some voters, almost a majority, elected G. W. Bush, so maybe my expectations are too high.

The police work for YOU, meril36, and if the police in your neighbourhood don't, then do something about it.

The problem then is that there are too many people who agree that the police don't have responsibility to judge, and they end up voting for bad politicians who vote for bad laws for the bad police to enforce. The good police know better, but they are not a majority. As CG said, the minute a police officer says to me that he refused to enforce an unjust law, he will redeem the police in my eyes.

I had a response to all the q's C_G but the computer ate them. I will try to get to them tomorrow.



freddy

I find it so very weird that someone as devoted as you claim to be to "small and non-intrusive" government would be wishing for the police to make decisions about which laws are "just" and "unjust".

And, why should any police officer care whether he can "redeem" himself in your eyes? It is not his job to cater to any specific political point of view.

The men and women who join the police force do so for a variety of reasons, but I suspect you could go the length and breadth of the world and not find ONE who believes it is his/her duty to decide which laws are just.

I actually find myself siding with CG and Meril here. Police officers here often get some sort of glory complex out of going far above and beyond their actual duty. Much like what attracts certain people to the military nowadays, I think that same type is attracted to law enforcement. Emphasis on enforcement, and not calming a situation down. Sorry, just my take on things.

Too many people all want to be in charge. And, we let them do it for the most part.

Vison,

There is a crucial difference in what my position really is and how you wish to view it.

What I write does not include giving the police the power to make law. It only includes nullification of law. Nothing in anything I've written would indicate any preference at all for any officer at any time to create law.

It is that one tiny little detail that makes all the difference, and that one tiny little detail that makes such a decision making power compatable with a "small and non-intrusive government."

One tiny detail, but profoundly significant. The small and non-intrusive government includes many steps to impede the enforcement of bad law, from making laws hard to pass to making them difficult to enforce to leaving the absolute final decision outside of the hands of government (the jury).

Feredir wonders why our profound distrust of police, why we see them as little better than the criminals they combat. If he doesn't want us to see the police that way, then he should indeed point out that he wouldn't enforce monstrocities simply because the monstrous is law. Feredir obviously is concerned about the reputation of the police. He seems more interested in redeeming the police in our eyes than you are. That is the redemption of which I speak.

You are right that if we polled the police, you would find few who would frame their answer of why the joined in the precise manner that I did. How many would frame it as "I want to make my town safer"? If the law is what makes the town less safe, wouldn't my position be included in making the town safer? What about "I want to protect people"? What if they need protection from the government?

It is that small detail that is ever so slightly evading your grasp that also so desperately needs to be grasped if you wish to understand my position.

There is a crucial difference between nullification and creation, and that separates what I advocate from what you think I advocate.