To Protect and to Serve...

[utvolpj]

I agree and that's where the psych exam and stuff comes in.

I just don't see police officer as one that needs a degree.

Then the definition of police officer needs to change. The rest can become red light and speed camera techs

 

[utvolpj]

High(er) standards I might agree with.

However, yearly mental exams and top 25% in intelligence? C'mon.

I don't see yearly mental exams as a negative. They should also be subject to a serious job review at the same time

Smarter cops doing actual police work would be a positive right?

 

[Grand Vol]

That answer is pretty F'n clear if I'm staring at a loaded gun or being beaten with a stick.

Sure, it happens so often...

So you are saying you would rather file bankruptcy because you got audited by the IRS and couldn't produce certain documentation or face an irate cop on a traffic stop?

Or getting your property seized by the Federal Government because an endangered species of grasshopper was found living near your boundary?

Or having your livelihood destroyed and out of work because a federal agency changed the federal code and levels of CO2 pollution?

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't see yearly mental exams as a negative. They should also be subject to a serious job review at the same time

Smarter cops doing actual police work would be a positive right?

You want your taxes raised to pay for that?

And there are plenty of smart cops out there already. Some just like to deny that fact.

 

[utvolpj]

You want your taxes raised to pay for that?

And there are plenty of smart cops out there already. Some just like to deny that fact.

I am willing to pay for fewer but smarter. Ones that solve crimes rather than setup more speed traps to make up for decreased property tax revenue

 

[rjd970]

Sure, it happens so often...

So you are saying you would rather file bankruptcy because you got audited by the IRS and couldn't produce certain documentation over an irate cop on a traffic stop?

Or getting your property seized by the Federal Government because an endangered species of grasshopper was found living near your boundary?

Or having your livelihood destroyed and out of work because a federal agency changed the federal code and levels of CO2 pollution?

Not sure what you are getting at here. All I have said is I think qualifications for cops should be higher, especially if they can make an on the spot decision to haul me off to jail, or worse.

How I'm getting screwed by political leaders is another argument. And for the record yes, I think qualifications for political leaders should be higher as well. But LEO choose to be so, and they don't go through the public vetting of those they are serving like politicians do.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Why is this a division line? You, you, you and our, our, our. LEOs are citizens too you know and like it or not, many can and will side with you on the side of your individual rights although you don't hear about it. Ever hear of the Oath Keepers? It's a lot more widespread than you think. When you create that division line of us and them and make a profession of service feel like they have only themselves to rely on, what happens? And don't take the high moral road here because both sides are guilty of alienating each other.

One person has a bad experience with a cop. Suddenly each and every person wearing a badge is lumped into the same category of *******. I'd expect you to be objective enough to see it. Plenty of people on here bash anything LEO and lump everyone into the same category of JBT waiting to shoot a dog and Tase a speeding driver. It does nothing to prevent the problems and only makes matters worse.

But on the subject of Rights. Which branch of the government gives the power and takes the Rights? The answer is each and every one of them. This isn't a judicial or legislative or executive thing. It's a corrupt government thing. And it reaches into each and every branch we have. And that's local State and Federal all encompassing.

Don't mean to offend, but you're talking around the issue and not to it. It's a bit disingenuous to now claim that I am creating an "us/vs them" distinction. It's a bit ridiculous to try to say there isn't a distinction.

Let me ask...

If I kicked in someone's door in full riot gear, screaming and cursing, carbine at ready, shooting their pets... What would happen?

Yep. Thought so.

There is a distinction.

LEO are the ones in question, with the responsibility to properly administer law and order while protecting us and our rights.

That was a lame post.

Sorry.

 

[rjd970]

You want your taxes raised to pay for that?

And there are plenty of smart cops out there already. Some just like to deny that fact.

As PJ was saying, pay for fewer that need higher qualifications for criminal work. The rest can be glorified meter maids.

 

[Grand Vol]

Don't mean to offend, but you're talking around the issue and not to it. It's a bit disingenuous to now claim that I am creating an "us/vs them" distinction. It's a bit ridiculous to try to say there isn't a distinction.

Let me ask...

If I kicked in someone's door in full riot gear, screaming and cursing, carbine at ready, shooting their pets... What would happen?

Yep. Thought so.

There is a distinction.

LEO are the ones in question, with the responsibility to properly administer law and order while protecting us and our rights.

That was a lame post.

Sorry.

No, I didn't make the claim you created the distinction. The distinction is there already and people nurture it along by keeping the divide going. And it's an issue whether you want to believe it or not. I've seen it from both sides of the equation and yes, it's there.

And it happens to be the job of LEO to enforce the laws. And if that means dressing up in riot gear with carbines ready cursing and shooting Fido, sometimes that happens. As long as they have a valid legal reason to be going in shooting Fido that is.

 

[Grand Vol]

Not sure what you are getting at here. All I have said is I think qualifications for cops should be higher, especially if they can make an on the spot decision to haul me off to jail, or worse.

How I'm getting screwed by political leaders is another argument. And for the record yes, I think qualifications for political leaders should be higher as well. But LEO choose to be so, and they don't go through the public vetting of those they are serving like politicians do.

Let's see, the IRS can run you into bankruptcy and haul you off to jail for tax evasion.

The BLM can make you forfeit your property and haul you off to jail for violations of the Clear Air or Water Act.

The EPA can cause you to lose your job by raising environmental standards without the consent of the people and closing an entire segment of the economy. You don't end up in jail, but you're broke and out of work.

But somehow cops have to be this elite group that is highly educated, getting mental tests every year and being in the top 25%?

Get over your hatred of the few idiots that have jaded you so much.

 

[Grand Vol]

As PJ was saying, pay for fewer that need higher qualifications for criminal work. The rest can be glorified meter maids.

The glorified meter maids still carry a badge and a gun.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, I didn't make the claim you created the distinction. The distinction is there already and people nurture it along by keeping the divide going. And it's an issue whether you want to believe it or not. I've seen it from both sides of the equation and yes, it's there.

And it happens to be the job of LEO to enforce the laws. And if that means dressing up in riot gear with carbines ready cursing and shooting Fido, sometimes that happens. As long as they have a valid legal reason to be going in shooting Fido that is.

That's my point, GV. That's my point.

 

[hog88]

Let's see, the IRS can run you into bankruptcy and haul you off to jail for tax evasion.

The BLM can make you forfeit your property and haul you off to jail for violations of the Clear Air or Water Act.

The EPA can cause you to lose your job by raising environmental standards without the consent of the people and closing an entire segment of the economy. You don't end up in jail, but you're broke and out of work.

But somehow cops have to be this elite group that is highly educated, getting mental tests every year and being in the top 25%?

Get over your hatred of the few idiots that have jaded you so much.

I'm an equal opportunity guy, today all in legal authority can go to hell.

 

[Grand Vol]

That's my point, GV. That's my point.

So why exactly was my post lame if you are agreeing with what I'm saying?

 

[Orange_Crush]

First, we need to know...









How's the local PD's computer backup policy?

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm an equal opportunity guy, today all in legal authority can go to hell.

I had to give you a like for this.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So why exactly was my post lame if you are agreeing with what I'm saying?

Because you played the whole "why does there need to be a whole 'us/them' distinction here?" card. There is obviously a distinction.

You know... I just re-read you post and I misinterpreted it. I'll beg your pardon.

You are correct that many LEOs disagree with current practices. I think we were speaking past one another.

My point was about the actual distinction-- i.e. that the people with the power need to demonstrate their trustworthiness with the power, or the power be taken away.

 

[Grand Vol]

My point was about the actual distinction-- i.e. that the people with the power need to demonstrate their trustworthiness with the power, or the power be taken away.

I think that the vast majority do demonstrate their trustworthiness with the power. But when all you hear about are the selected few that can't handle it or abuse said authority, it's easy to overlook the good ones.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I think that the vast majority do demonstrate their trustworthiness with the power. But when all you hear about are the selected few that can't handle it or abuse said authority, it's easy to overlook the good ones.

Have a look at this, GV.

The American Civil Liberties Union has released a report looking at police militarization and the use of SWAT raids. The study looked at 800 deployments of SWAT teams among 20 local, state and federal police agencies in 2011-2012 and found some interesting (though not necessarily surprising) statistics.


The study found that 62 percent of SWAT raids are targeting drugs. We have been discussing a series of mistaken raids, negligent shootings, and injuries associated with these drug raids — often carried out with “no knock” warrants. The police are routinely including a belief that guns may be present to secure “no knocks” and then pulling out their armored vehicles and SWAT teams.

The report also found that 36 percent of the SWAT raids found no contraband of any kind was found — and that this rate may be as high as 65 percent because of the incomplete reports of police. We have seen this statistic also reflected in recent tragedies.

Another interesting statistic is that 80 percent of SWAT raids were to serve a search warrant. That is far different from the original purpose of rescuing hostages and capturing armed escaped felons. These are people who have not been convicted of crimes. Conversely, just 7 percent of SWAT raids were “for hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios” — the famed purpose of the SWAT unit.

Another finding (that also reflects a recent tragedy of a baby seriously injured by a stun grenade) found that 65 percent of SWAT deployments resulted in some sort of forced entry into a private home, by way of a battering ram, boot, or some sort of explosive device. Yet, in over half those raids, the police failed to find any sort of weapon.

Here is the ACLU report: SWAT Report

ACLU: 62 Percent of SWAT Team Raids Were Searches For Drugs | JONATHAN TURLEY

62% of the raids studied were looking for drugs. Not violent offenders. Not murderers and rapists on the lamb. Not abducted kids.

Contraband.

62% put officer and civilian lives on the line looking for controlled substances with no immediate danger to anyone. 62% were homes (potentially) with kids, etc...

That seems right to you?

36% found nothing. Nada. Zip.

Not only did they not find drugs, they didn't find the firearms they're claiming to get the no-knock warrants. What is the reasonable level of proof to get a no-knock warrant, that 36% of them are complete misses.

That's 36% of the homes where (potentially) kids are awakened to intruders screaming, cursing and pointing guns at them.

I don't like my chances as to whether I'll fall into that 36%, have my dogs killed, my grandson terrorized, me be shot, shoot an officer, or both.

36% is completely unacceptable when you are talking about the dangers involved to US citizens and the misuse of peoples' rights.

80% of the use of SWAT teams is to serve no-knock warrants? Remember when SWAT teams were used to free hostages, take down known, immediate danger? Those heavily militarized peacekeepers that were instituted to keep citizens safe? 80% of their use is to barge into our homes with guns drawn in the middle of the night? (Let's figure in the 2/3 ratio where it was to look for drugs with no immediate danger to anyone, and the 1/3 where they were total whiffs...)

You think they're not roundly abused? I'm not talking at the "random news story" lever here, brother. It's an epidemic and has become the new business as normal.

Until business changes, you should be prohibited from using no-knocks.

Note: The article is about use of SWAT, and not no-knock in particular. 80% were no-knocks, and half of those no-knocks found no weapons on site. How are they getting all those no-knock warrants while being so damned wrong about the need for a no-knock?)

 

[rjd970]

Have a look at this, GV.



62% of the raids studied were looking for drugs. Not violent offenders. Not murderers and rapists on the lamb. Not abducted kids.

Contraband.

62% put officer and civilian lives on the line looking for controlled substances with no immediate danger to anyone. 62% were homes (potentially) with kids, etc...

That seems right to you?

36% found nothing. Nada. Zip.

Not only did they not find drugs, they didn't find the firearms they're claiming to get the no-knock warrants. What is the reasonable level of proof to get a no-knock warrant, that 36% of them are complete misses.

That's 36% of the homes where (potentially) kids are awakened to intruders screaming, cursing and pointing guns at them.

I don't like my chances as to whether I'll fall into that 36%, have my dogs killed, my grandson terrorized, me be shot, shoot an officer, or both.

36% is completely unacceptable when you are talking about the dangers involved to US citizens and the misuse of peoples' rights.

80% of the use of SWAT teams is to serve no-knock warrants? Remember when SWAT teams were used to free hostages, take down known, immediate danger? Those heavily militarized peacekeepers that were instituted to keep citizens safe? 80% of their use is to barge into our homes with guns drawn in the middle of the night? (Let's figure in the 2/3 ratio where it was to look for drugs with no immediate danger to anyone, and the 1/3 where they were total whiffs...)

You think they're not roundly abused? I'm not talking at the "random news story" lever here, brother. It's an epidemic and has become the new business as normal.

Until business changes, you should be prohibited from using no-knocks.

Note: The article is about use of SWAT, and not no-knock in particular. 80% were no-knocks, and half of those no-knocks found no weapons on site. How are they getting all those no-knock warrants while being so damned wrong about the need for a no-knock?)

GTFO with facts. Personal experience rules all.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My interpretation of the stats were a bit misinterpreted, but I think the premise stands. The militarized use of the police force has gotten out of hand.

ETA: Between 1981 and 2005, no-knocks increased from 3000 to over 50,000.

 

[tim]

I totally agree that it's a very small percentage. All I'm arguing is that it only takes one encounter with the one bad apple on the force to ruin a person's life. And I did serve in the USAF from 88-91.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Well thank you for your service, but the military is where police tactics are usually born from. Ask someone who served on the ground in Iraq about kicking doors and interrogation tactics. Annnnd before you tell me that the US is not a battleground and constitutional laws exist here, I'm fully aware. However, those uneducated 18 year old soldiers are making the same split second decisions as an LEO when the shat hits the fan.

 

[tim]

Not sure what you are getting at here. All I have said is I think qualifications for cops should be higher, especially if they can make an on the spot decision to haul me off to jail, or worse.

How I'm getting screwed by political leaders is another argument. And for the record yes, I think qualifications for political leaders should be higher as well. But LEO choose to be so, and they don't go through the public vetting of those they are serving like politicians do.

Policing isnt rocket science. I promise. If I needed an accountant I asked for one. If I needed an interpreter I asked for one. If I needed a tech guy I asked for one. If a bad guy needed arresting I grabbed a partner and snatched him up. Usually after knocking. But not always.

 

[tim]

I am willing to pay for fewer but smarter. Ones that solve crimes rather than setup more speed traps to make up for decreased property tax revenue

I speed. I get tickets. I know what causes it, but I also dont get mad at anyone except for myself. Damn red light camera got me too. Just glad I didnt hurt someone when I ran it.

 

[CNCVol88]

I speed. I get tickets. I know what causes it, but I also dont get mad at anyone except for myself. Damn red light camera got me too. Just glad I didnt hurt someone when I ran it.

I hate red-light cameras. I feel like they cause too many rear end collisions on highways.