|
|
Post by packerconvert on Dec 17, 2012 17:38:58 GMT -5
There has been advocacy for the expansion of the police force on another thread and I thought it a perfect opportunity to dedicate a single thread to the topic. TW, your service to this country is unimpeachable and your life time experience oozes wisdom in the words you write. When discussing the expansion of law enforcement, often times you cite cuts in the police force or the advocacy of cutting the police force,while, at the same time, Criminal Justice is the fastest growing occupational field, and will continue to grow with current mindsets and the erosion of civil liberties. Make no mistake, the Police State is growing in leaps and bounds. I have no doubt that TW was the type of Officer that served his community, obeyed the law and, made sure to protect the rights of all civilians. He was a servant of the public who I have no doubt got a cat out of a tree a time or two. IMO, most in Law Enforcement are not that way anymore. They see the citizenry as the enemy. When I drive down the street and I see Law Enforcement with their militarized hair cuts, garbs, weapons with their finger off the trigger, etc and I know I'm not in Mayberry anymore. I am not in favor of expanding Police powers and part of the expansion is having to put more gestapo like uniforms on the street. Most, do not care about the people, they are there to serve the interest of their Government by harassing simple folk to fill the coiffures. This op-ed reflects a lot of what I am speaking to: lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead31.1.html |
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Dec 17, 2012 18:07:08 GMT -5
I must disagree, I can still say without a moment of hesitation that there are far more Officers that are putting on the uniform to serve and protect. to work for there community.
as there the type of people you mention? I am sure, but again they are far and few between.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Dec 17, 2012 18:13:42 GMT -5
I must disagree, I can still say without a moment of hesitation that there are far more Officers that are putting on the uniform to serve and protect. to work for there community. as there the type of people you mention? I am sure, but again they are far and few between. No doubt they serve and protect. I am speaking more to the perspective of Law Enforcement, the changing mentality of law enforcement from civic minded to military minded. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Dec 17, 2012 18:49:11 GMT -5
Back in the early 70s, the US Supreme Court ruled that the job of Police Officers was not to protect and serve, but to arrest law breakers.
That may seem like a distinction that would make you scratch your head, but it isn't. It fits right in with the comments made by PC. When the "appearance" of what a law enforcement officer actually is can be described by making that sweeping a change of what's considered their mandate, it can appear disturbing.
But, that's not really true, because at all levels, except for the Federal level, law enforcement personnel are subject to the scrutiny, and oversight, of the private sector, and therefore not really a threat to civil liberties. If there would be a threat to same, it would come from a Federal level.
That said, those who would prefer anarchy, or something similar, will continue to use reference to the police on all levels as being gestapo because they are a fringe element, and the same applies to those who want to believe that everything the police do is because they're racist.
A few years ago, the black community in one city in the south claimed that they were being picked on by the white police officers, who were racist.
When a survey of the arrests made in the black community was done, they found that over 85% of the arrests of blacks was made by black officers, and that the percentage of those cases that were "bad arrests" and questioned, the percentage ratio of those made by black officers was over 5 times higher than those made by white officers.
Still, the black community railed against the whites, and indicated that they "loaded the results of the survey," completely ignoring the fact that the survey was supervised by, and conducted by, black leaders in the community.
Because the findings were unpopular, these black leaders feared even stating they supported their actual findings.
It's these two outside influences that people listen to way too often. It's like the guy who blows .13 on the breathalyzer, then claims it was because he uses a mouthwash that has alcohol in it.
The breathalyzer combined with the physical test doesn't lie. It's reality. Yet, we keep hearing how the cops are gestapo from everyone who faced that type of arrest.
At Federal level, what keeps law enforcement honest? That's where questions should be directed. I believe they are, because after the Hoover fiasco, no agency will ever allow itself to travel down that path again.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Dec 17, 2012 18:55:43 GMT -5
Don't you think that the Federal Government sets the tone. for instance, if the Feds can do it, we can do it mentality? Also, isn't ironic that Law Enforcement uses the "niche" of "To Proect and Serve" when the Supreme Court says they should put, "We Arrest Law Breakers" on the side of their cars.  |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Dec 17, 2012 20:22:26 GMT -5
No, I don't think what's on the side of the cars should change.
I was a cop when the Supreme Court made that statement. To us, as a whole, it was stupid on their part, because our first priority would always remain protecting the innocent from harm from those that would harm them.
If that wasn't the case, think about all those officers who died at the WTC on 9-11. They went to help people, not arrest them.
The problem today is society. We have way too many people who feel they are "above the law," or immune from prosecution, for some reason or another.
I've pointed this out in how people argue about politics. A Republican says a Democrat did something wrong, people jump up and say what the person did isn't nearly as bad as what some Republican did. In other words, one wrong offsets another in people's minds, thereby making them immune from being "lawbreakers," because someone else probably did worse.
This is a mentality issue in the population, not the fault of law enforcement.
Yes, there will be some bad cops, but they are few and far between. Most are hard working people who would, and have, sacrificed their lives to protect others.
Yet, we have people who choose to forget that, because it doesn't fit into how they "personally want to believe" the police work.
I will defend my fellow officers, but if I found one dirty, I'd get him out of there as fast as possible. There is no "thin blue line" of resistance against truth as some people would like to believe. The vast majority of police officers will do the right thing, repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Dec 18, 2012 6:18:01 GMT -5
just to scratch the surface, the parents of today are to busy both working, having there fun time as well and not bringing there children up with high morals, plus the media, TV, games, etc are so violent that it does indeed affect young peoples minds. then there is the very heavy use of drugs, prescription, and also the fact that punishment now has an excuse for just about everything, just put those few things together and you can tell why we are in this country, Bad shape, (Thank God there are still more good people here) OOPS!, I MENTIONED " GOD" i am in trouble now!
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Dec 18, 2012 19:48:45 GMT -5
There are so many d**n laws on the books that not everyone can be enforced. Therefore, Departments are left with prioritizing what is important to enforce and what isn't which leads to a perception of "selective" law enforcement.
In fairness, Law Enforcement of yesteryear made decisions in the field regarding how they handled a particular situation and citizen.
A lot of the decision making has been taken away due to lawsuits, insurance carriers and knee jerk politicians.
This, too, makes law enforcement look more overbearing because wherein, a cop of yesteryear would have kids dump the beer and go home, has turned into arrest records and convictions....life long records.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Dec 19, 2012 2:10:59 GMT -5
There were a lot of circumstances where the wise choice was to give the person a "second chance," as you indicated. I did that with people regarding DUIs.
I helped such notables as Ron Santo from the Cubs (who later became a friend of mine), the owner of the Chicago Blackhawks, and Andy Granatelli out, when they were intoxicated. But, they were no different than anyone else. Also included in the assists was the Governor of Illinois, the Secretary of Treasury of the US, and the guy who was Officer Friendly on WGN TV.
When someone was honest with me, and wasn't a repeat offender, based on records check, I'd usually park their car, take their keys, and give them a ride home. When they got home, I'd give them a note that they could pick up their car keys at the station the following morning. I didn't want them going back to their cars that night.
It seemed to work pretty well, to be honest. The results were much better than they would be if I'd gotten off writing tickets.
In fact, it got to the point that several well known people would call the station, and if I was on duty, I'd pick them up at the watering hole, and take them home. There were also a few other officers that helped me with this, because I wasn't there all the time to help.
When it came time that we needed to work on PR with the area, a lot of these people would step up, and actually help. As an example... when I was starting a new First Aid program at one of the area high schools, Santo came in and visited with the kids at sign up, and so did a couple of other Cubs players. When it was time for our first class to graduate, Wirtz, the owner of the Blackhawks, came in, and handed the kids their diplomas, and 4 tickets to Blackhawk games to share with their families.
We had about 15 kids for the first set of classes, and during the second year, we expanded out to four classes of 25 in each class, which was an enormous program for us, and the school.
So, I'll still go with the job of a cop being to protect & serve, regardless of what the Supreme Court said.
As I tell off duty police officers who work security with me up in Wisconsin, in our little summer village, "Leave the cynical attitude at the gate, if that's what you have, because your primary functions here are to insure people enjoy themselves, and don't hurt themselves, or others.
To be honest, that's what I think life is all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Dec 19, 2012 14:17:58 GMT -5
Something I'm going to mention here. Police Departments are quasi-military operations as they stand. They need to be, to maintain discipline, and decorum.
The best cops I met were ex-military, because they had the ability to do their jobs, and had experienced the type of discipline needed.
Ergo... militarizing isn't all that bad a thing, as long as it's remembered that they are still part of the public sector, not the military.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Dec 19, 2012 18:04:58 GMT -5
yes, makes for a fair fight when the cops carry a pistol and the bad guys have semi automatic weapons or worse. just have to keep up with the times to help keep order.
Today was a good thought when The President made some comments about the weapons and what they will try to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Dec 19, 2012 19:06:40 GMT -5
|
|
