To Protect and to Serve...

[Grand Vol]

Actually GV, you and I are probably pretty close on the no-knock issue. I think they have a purpose, but are incredibly abused. And I believe if an owner sicks a dog on police, the police should protect themselves.

Where you and I will diverge is that I believe that until the justice system shows that they can responsibly use no-knocks, and better legislation is passed to make sure they are not so heavily abused, no-knocks should be banned. Period.

The shocking frequency of screw-ups is appalling and without excuse.

And the fact that someone like me, a God-fearing, law-abiding, patriotic citizen that has always supported LEO, feels this way, should tell you something about how bad the perception of LEO has gotten.

It seems that on a large scale, LEO has forgotten that they are there to serve us, and the perception is that you spit on our rights. The perception is that you are looking for every loophole you can find to bypass those rights. The perception is (back to no-knocks) that all these screw-ups are happening and you guys are still abusing the system, so you must not care very much about the citizens you're supposed to be protecting and serving.

It's LEOs image problem. It's up to LEO to fix it.

And as stated before, how many articles get into the paper about the good things that happen? (no retort needed Sam) And actually, there are a lot more than you think. Any time you read about "suspect busted for X" or "perpetrator arrested for Y" and "defendant found guilty of Z" means that's a LEO doing their job. But you see many bad articles make the headlines because the public loves hearing about bad cops.

I agree no-knocks should be curtailed. But I disagree that they should be stopped altogether until proper guidance can be established. And it's not always the police in this. There are judges and DAs that are to blame for approving said raids to begin with. But they never make the headlines. Plenty of blame to be passed around on this issue, but it always comes down to one group.

 

[Grand Vol]

I do have a question about this. Is there any upper limit on how extremely obese an officer can be? Serious question.

Per department.

Most have a set physical standard that has to be met, but the problem comes from the tenured officers that are a part of a union. You know how hard it is to fire a unionized individual?

 

[Danl]

Per department.

Most have a set physical standard that has to be met, but the problem comes from the tenured officers that are a part of a union. You know how hard it is to fire a unionized individual?

I'm really not hating on anybody here, but does that pretty much mean that there are no enforced standards?

 

[rjd970]

You're the one that passed judgment on an entire profession because you personally believe it's overloaded with dimwits and losers. And I disagree because your personal opinions don't mean jack **** since you haven't worked in the field or received training in such.

You are making yourself look stupid. Nowhere, anywhere, did I say it was loaded with dimwits. I'm simply saying for the power they have on the spot to legally screw someone out of rights, treasure, or life...the requirements should be higher. It is my opinion, but I'm not basing it on a tunnel vision of my own personal experience. I can point to 10 stories in this thread alone that attests to this opinion. Argue the opinion all you want, but your personal experience doesn't mean ****.

Its a analogy in bad taste I'm sure...but if I went to Gaza and argued with a Hamas leader about terrorism I would hear all about how great they are at charity and providing for the community based on his personal experience. But that simply isn't the whole story.

YOU decided to take offense to it in the first place, which I find interesting.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm really not hating on anybody here, but does that pretty much mean that there are no enforced standards?

Per department. I'm not trying to be vague, but some let their officers go without a concern. Others keep to a physical standard pretty strictly.

Depends on where you work and what you do.

 

[CNCVol88]

Well... Just spit-ballin' here, so bear with me... But you could post links to LEO job qualifications, etc...

And behind most cops that arrest bad cops, there's a news article sitting on a chief of police's desk and a secretary saying, "You have another call, sir..."

When I was in training one of my trainers told me a story of him catching a THP officer, in uniform, shoplifting. When they called the area PD and explained the situation, THP came out and stripped him of his uniform and badge right there...

I know its just a nice little anecdote but I believe the majority of officers are in it for good or at worse neutral reasons. They either want to protect people or collect a paycheck. You can't always predict someone is going to be abusive in power.

I get its a case of who watches the watcher though.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And as stated before, how many articles get into the paper about the good things that happen? (no retort needed Sam) And actually, there are a lot more than you think. Any time you read about "suspect busted for X" or "perpetrator arrested for Y" and "defendant found guilty of Z" means that's a LEO doing their job. But you see many bad articles make the headlines because the public loves hearing about bad cops.

I agree no-knocks should be curtailed. But I disagree that they should be stopped altogether until proper guidance can be established. And it's not always the police in this. There are judges and DAs that are to blame for approving said raids to begin with. But they never make the headlines. Plenty of blame to be passed around on this issue, but it always comes down to one group.

I agree bad stuff is reported, good stuff not so much. But I'm speaking more at the statistical level. I quoted the statistical jump of no-knocks earlier in this thread.

And that's why I said "justice system". It's even worse when the judges and DAs are to blame. The checks and balances are gone. That's why they need to be completely ceased until better legislation, and the system can prove itself trustworthy to use them again.

And for the record, I think if the system loses no-knocks, they'll clean themselves up quicker than the citizens being abused just whining about it.

It's out rights, GV. It's our homes. Our lives. Our kids. Our pets. It's literally our country and our rights being eroded. Prove you can be trusted with them again. Until that happens, we get legislation that cuts off your rights.

 

[Grand Vol]

You are making yourself look stupid. Nowhere, anywhere, did I say it was loaded with dimwits. I'm simply saying for the power they have on the spot to legally screw someone out of rights, treasure, or life...the requirements should be higher. It is my opinion, but I'm not basing it on a tunnel vision of my own personal experience. I can point to 10 stories in this thread alone that attests to this opinion. Argue the opinion all you want, but your personal experience doesn't mean ****.

Its a analogy in bad taste I'm sure...but if I went to Gaza and argued with a Hamas leader about terrorism I would hear all about how great they are at charity and providing for the community based on his personal experience. But that simply isn't the whole story.

YOU decided to take offense to it in the first place, which I find interesting.

Oh are you implying I'm self conscious about my own lack of intelligence? Nice try.

So what should the requirements be? C'mon smart guy, give us what you think the standards should be to become a LEO.

And "just higher" isn't an answer. You need a baseline qualification standard to move forward.

 

[Grand Vol]

I agree bad stuff is reported, good stuff not so much. But I'm speaking more at the statistical level. I quoted the statistical jump of no-knocks earlier in this thread.

And that's why I said "justice system". It's even worse when the judges and DAs are to blame. The checks and balances are gone. That's why they need to be completely ceased until better legislation, and the system can prove itself trustworthy to use them again.

And for the record, I think if the system loses no-knocks, they'll clean themselves up quicker than the citizens being abused just whining about it.

It's out rights, GV. It's our homes. Our lives. Our kids. Our pets. It's literally our country and our rights being eroded. Prove you can be trusted with them again. Until that happens, we get legislation that cuts off your rights.

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.

 

[hog88]

So...not a friend of the police right now?

You would be correct. It's actually a quasi police and the prosecutor. Even the judge was amazed they were not dropping.

 

[rjd970]

Oh are you implying I'm self conscious about my own lack of intelligence? Nice try.

So what should the requirements be? C'mon smart guy, give us what you think the standards should be to become a LEO.

And "just higher" isn't an answer. You need a baseline qualification standard to move forward.

I'm still waiting on you to answer that for me. I've asked specifically about the education requirements, and you seem to want to refuse to answer with anything other than "you don't know what your talking about, I done this, this, and this".

For a basic patrol officer, entry level, before being accepted in the academy:

At a minimum, a 4-year University degree in criminal justice or related field should be required before one is even considered.

A background check that includes criminal history, finances and drug use. I wouldn't be opposed to a limited scope polygraph as well. Spot checks on finances and drug tests.

A minimum IQ that fits into at least the top quartile of the population. No exceptions.

Annual physical fitness re-qualification and certification.

Initial Psychiatric Exams and mental health assessment. Annual ones every year thereafter.

For starters...these would be basic standards nation-wide. Specific departments can elevate certain specific criteria.

I think that would drastically improve the public service we are paying for. And don't start with the how would we pay for those higher qualifications. Its public service. Nobody is forcing them to do it and private sector jobs are there.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm still waiting on you to answer that for me. I've asked specifically about the education requirements, and you seem to want to refuse to answer with anything other than "you don't know what your talking about, I done this, this, and this".

For a basic patrol officer, entry level, before being accepted in the academy:

At a minimum, a 4-year University degree in criminal justice or related field should be required before one is even considered.

A background check that includes criminal history, finances and drug use. I wouldn't be opposed to a limited scope polygraph as well. Spot checks on finances and drug tests.

A minimum IQ that fits into at least the top quartile of the population. No exceptions.

Annual physical fitness re-qualification and certification.

Initial Psychiatric Exams and mental health assessment. Annual ones every year thereafter.

For starters...these would be basic standards nation-wide. Specific departments can elevate certain specific criteria.

I think that would drastically improve the public service we are paying for. And don't start with the how would we pay for those higher qualifications. Its public service. Nobody is forcing them to do it and private sector jobs are there.

Okay

 

[CNCVol88]

I'm still waiting on you to answer that for me. I've asked specifically about the education requirements, and you seem to want to refuse to answer with anything other than "you don't know what your talking about, I done this, this, and this".

For a basic patrol officer, entry level, before being accepted in the academy:

At a minimum, a 4-year University degree in criminal justice or related field should be required before one is even considered.

A background check that includes criminal history, finances and drug use. I wouldn't be opposed to a limited scope polygraph as well. Spot checks on finances and drug tests.

A minimum IQ that fits into at least the top quartile of the population. No exceptions.

Annual physical fitness re-qualification and certification.

Initial Psychiatric Exams and mental health assessment. Annual ones every year thereafter.

For starters...these would be basic standards nation-wide. Specific departments can elevate certain specific criteria.

I think that would drastically improve the public service we are paying for. And don't start with the how would we pay for those higher qualifications. Its public service. Nobody is forcing them to do it and private sector jobs are there.

A 4 year degree for a police officer? Jesus

 

[Grand Vol]

A 4 year degree for a police officer? Jesus

Tim can correct if I'm wrong, but any Federal Agency already has that requirement except prior service guys.

And I've heard a lot of the larger departments are going to a two year degree as a minimum. Or prior service as stated.

 

[rjd970]

I am part of the "system". How else would you, as someone who is clueless (on this subject, you sound like you're well rounded) gather information on a subject other than to speak to those familiar with the subject. Again, I do not condone bad behavior, I despise it. I also despise people who generalize and lump. Are all Germans bad? No of course not. I realize the irony in that question, but want to point out that behind every bad cop there's one who arrested him.

I don't know if you are talking about me as "people who generalize and lump" but that is not what I'm doing. My whole conversation started with a comment about the qualifications being disproportionate to the power LEOs have. Some took offense, some argued this. There are great LEO out there, and there are bad ones. I get it. All I'm saying is if somebody has the power to shoot, taze, detain, or fine me...they need to know wtf they are doing and have some basic qualifications above and beyond what is currently being required.

I can take your personal experience of LE, and I can take that of someone just thrown in prison and get two radically different opinions. That is why I think the personal experience crap is just that, crap. I can education myself and come up with valid and objective conclusions.

 

[CNCVol88]

Tim can correct if I'm wrong, but any Federal Agency already has that requirement except prior service guys.

And I've heard a lot of the larger departments are going to a two year degree as a minimum. Or prior service as stated.

2 year degree I can see for larger metro operations and even 4 years for federal LE but good luck outfitting the cocke County sheriff department requiring as such.

 

[rjd970]

A 4 year degree for a police officer? Jesus

Why not?

 

[CNCVol88]

Why not?

Because not everyone is college material. I know some intelligent people who just don't fit in with academics

I also see LE as I do the military in that it's a Career path for those not necesarily looking in academia.

College used to be something that some went to and some don't. Now if you don't have a bachelor's it's hard to make it in life and I don't see that as a good thing.

 

[Grand Vol]

I can education myself and come up with valid and objective conclusions.

lulz

You just suggested LEOs have more stringent qualifications than the politicians that can (and are) snatch away each and every Right we have bit by bit. So what's worse, the individual that scores around 50% in nationwide IQ that carries a firearm and enforces the law or the politician that uses a federal agency to ruin your life because of your political party?

Very objective conclusion you have there.

 

[utvolpj]

Because not everyone is college material. I know some intelligent people who just don't fit in with academics

I also see LE as I do the military in that it's. Career path for those not necesarily looking in academia.

College used to be something that some went to and some don't. Now if you don't have a bachelor's it's hard to make it in life and I don't see that as a good thing.

Not everyone is badge and gun material either. A career that includes the ability to kill a fellow citizen should probably come with high standards

 

[Grand Vol]

2 year degree I can see for larger metro operations and even 4 years for federal LE but good luck outfitting the cocke County sheriff department requiring as such.

Would Subway University be considered a "related field?"

 

[CNCVol88]

Not everyone is badge and gun material either. A career that includes the ability to kill a fellow citizen should probably come with high standards

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.

 

[Grand Vol]

Not everyone is badge and gun material either. A career that includes the ability to kill a fellow citizen should probably come with high standards

High(er) standards I might agree with.

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

 

[CNCVol88]

Would Subway University be considered a "related field?"

Just Googled. Was not disappointed.

 

[rjd970]

lulz

You just suggested LEOs have more stringent qualifications than the politicians that can (and are) snatch away each and every Right we have bit by bit. So what's worse, the individual that scores around 50% in nationwide IQ that carries a firearm and enforces the law or the politician that uses a federal agency to ruin your life because of your political party?

Very objective conclusion you have there.

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