This thread is still going....I have worked in mil and LE and yes they have both good and bad representation. With that said, I always figured LE "snipers" that were here to learn would hang out in the Military & LE Only Section and argue amongst themselves. Anyway....carry on
- Thread starter LRShooter101
- Start date
maybe frank should add, "no retard baiting contests".
That would ruin the place, seriously, that's like taking a golfers balls from him..... That is the funnest part... get bored, go on the Hide, call someone a Tard... watch him go apoplectic and call my momma names..... Makes a guy happy ya know.
You seem confused moses. "The system is corrupt," is what I typed. Apparently you read "all cops are corrupt." That's interesting.
More interesting is the hostile and confrontational nature of which you ask questions. It's almost as if you ask questions based on your preconceived notion of my viewpoints. Why ask questions at all? You took exception to what I said, due to a complete failure to read what I typed, so why not just attack outright and in the open? Why attempt and then fail at hiding your animosity for that misinterpreted viewpoint behind a veil of cleverly worded questions?
You don't actually care what my viewpoint is, and you have no cause to do so. If you did, you'd have the capacity to read what is written without inserting your own view of what you thought I typed. I'm good with that, as it is exactly how most online interactions are these days.
You seem confused moses. "The system is corrupt," is what I typed. Apparently you read "all cops are corrupt." That's interesting.
More interesting is the hostile and confrontational nature of which you ask questions. It's almost as if you ask questions based on your preconceived notion of my viewpoints. Why ask questions at all? You took exception to what I said, due to a complete failure to read what I typed, so why not just attack outright and in the open? Why attempt and then fail at hiding your animosity for that misinterpreted viewpoint behind a veil of cleverly worded questions?
You don't actually care what my viewpoint is, and you have no cause to do so. If you did, you'd have the capacity to read what is written without inserting your own view of what you thought I typed. I'm good with that, as it is exactly how most online interactions are these days.
"Cops are the physical extension of that corruption"
Yup, looking at the above quote I am certainly of an intensely diminished capacity. No doubt about that. However, as for the confrontational nature... my posts are millions of miles away from my nature, which is exceedingly confrontational. I just choose to practice that somewhere other than internet.
Edit: I certainly wasn't trying to be clever. But, just for purely demonstration purposes, if you want to see just a tiny sliver of cleverness (the microscopic amount I might be able to muster), and a modicum of confrontational language... I should be happy to oblige upon request.
Last edited:
Why only take PART of my quote? That too... is interesting.
In your vast wisdom, it never occurred to you that my statement meant they are put in a position which they cannot win? Couldn't be that your preconceived notion of my position on this topic is clouding your ability to know what my actual position is?
I suppose my support of the cops in a recent thread in which some shitbag got zapped with a Tac Ops rifle carries no weight.
Unlike many... I have the capacity to view each incident on its own. I have no need for classifications and "group assignments" when laying out blame. I hold everyone around me accountable based on their individual actions, and will make them feel the weight of those actions if I can. If you want to infer that I'm classifying every cop as a bad cop... go ahead and infer. Sadly, you're as wrong as you can be. Though it is something I'm passionate about... so I can see how easily my actual views can be hidden behind my words. If I could just punch someone in the face when I found them doing something wrong, without fear of imprisonment... life would be a lot easier.
This is both wrong in the first statement and misleading or naive in the second. The first is that the problem is not with the individual, the real problem is with the people he comes into contact with and how his actions affect others. The effect of his action going unchecked, unpoliced by his fellow officers is a direct contributor to the perceptions and convictions of others about LE that you seem to think are the mark of lazy people.
Change structure you say. It's pithy, but impractical. LE are themselves unable to change their own structure. Many times we've heard the 'good' guys here lament the politics and policies of the 'brass' and yet, they are happy, willing and diligent to do what they are told by the 'idiots' upstairs. That's lazy, that's destructive and it's worthy of the black sludge you can dredge up.
I find the argument of one bad apple being insulting to even an IQ at room temperature. Cops do not operate in a vacuum of each other and there have been MANY cases of groups of police giving false witness to protect a cop in clear violation of the law.
What happened to the state trooper was a murder. It is not more or less deserving of our condemnation or attention than any other murder committed. What would be and is worse, are the assaults, murders etc of citizens by police officers that are not investigated or covered up. Again, that's the source of the black sludge.
Some here have whined about not getting a long enough applause for doing something good. Oh please!! No-one else does good in this world? Giving a homeless guy a pair boots is not a big deal in the scheme of things. We have people here pissing on aid workers efforts in shitholes of the world and saying their gruesome murders are deserved or at least their own fault. Fuck that shit, it comes from the same minds that call 'muzzies' barbaric yet they think they're any better.
The truth usually lies closer to home than people would like to admit. While we are told they're so patriotic, they uphold laws and support chiefs and politicians who they publicly (yet anonymously) disagree with while happy to arrest anyone breaking 'the law'. That's hypocrisy. Plain and simple. Do they do other things that are worthy, needed and important. Yes. But what's the trade off? Well, it's the general public thinking they're better off not trusting them 'just in case'.
OP whining about the negative LE sentiment is a joke. Police yourselves better, act, overtly, against the laws you think are wrong and the policies you think are illegal, be on the side of the citizens you swore to protect and you'll see a sea-change of sentiment in your favor. Whine and bitch about censorship then you can basically continue to enjoy your siege mentality. At least you've got your mine-resistant vehicle to protect you from any further barbed comments...
Moses - I've very sorry about your sister and I sincerely hope she has a speedy and full recovery but your view that no-one is allowed to speak ill of LE in regards to differential treatment is not right. When LE have committed actual crimes we commonly read that they get fired - and that's it or they get fined through a civil suit. For actions that would have incarcerated 'lesser' beings. There is a clear divide, and while obviously rogue LE get caught and jailed, time and again many more do not and they evade justice in some cases with the aid of those who should be leading the charge against them.
Last edited:
I'm 64 years old. My experience is negative. I view them as no neck uneducated SS wannabees. Pushy , holier than thou and belligerent. Worst of all, cowardly bullies."Course, what do I know.
We had a meter bitch stalker on the job site . He'd wait around for some poor shit to miss feeding the meter./ A guy got 3 tickets in one day. The general bought 2 spots for maybe 10 rigs, subs, etc. One day, guys are out fucking with a meter. Drilling on it. The city. Something's wrong. They eventually cut the pipe and pulled it. Next week same thing. I asked them what was going on. Seems someone put screws in the lock and broke them off. Toast. The parking meter bitch disappeared and then resigned.There's a name for that I cannot recall. Irish something.
We had a meter bitch stalker on the job site . He'd wait around for some poor shit to miss feeding the meter./ A guy got 3 tickets in one day. The general bought 2 spots for maybe 10 rigs, subs, etc. One day, guys are out fucking with a meter. Drilling on it. The city. Something's wrong. They eventually cut the pipe and pulled it. Next week same thing. I asked them what was going on. Seems someone put screws in the lock and broke them off. Toast. The parking meter bitch disappeared and then resigned.There's a name for that I cannot recall. Irish something.
If you permanently Ban MAGGOT .. I will drive up to CT and stand in line for 3 hours at your favorite Pizzeria and buy you one of those $80 Pizza pies that you love .
Lol, this thread is hilarious. There's nothing wrong with taking an active interest in what LE is doing in your community. The point at which it goes off the deep end is when a few members start making remarks about how the cop deserved to get shot, etc. I am one of the more conservative officers you'll find and have to admit that there's sometimes a fine line you have to walk while respecting someone's rights and still accomplishing the task at hand. But for those who think there's a growing issue with LE today vs the past I can't take what you have to say seriously. Honestly, I can't. Technology has advanced the way many of these stories are reported via video and audio recordings easily obtained and spread around on the internet. If you take a hard look at where LE is today vs even a decade ago you'll find that things are much more regulated and there's a lot more accountability. The shit that used to fly in the past, especially with use of force, is no longer something that most PDs will tolerate or accept as standard practices. Yes, there are still some places still caught in the past and the differences can be very regional.
Yes, there are some bad officers out there among us, but I'll be the last person to stand behind someone that's ethically in the wrong or that willfully abuses their authority or violates the rights of those they serve. That being said, mistakes do happen. Also, some things just don't look pretty on camera. There is a time and a place where it is a necessity for police to use force and unfortunately cameras don't always capture the whole aspect of an incident.
If you don't like the laws we enforce or have a problem with something you see in your community in regards to the police, take an active role in changing it. I would love to see a more limited role for LE, unfortunately when we pull back from certain functions there's also another part of the population that becomes upset that we are no longer doing enough.
And as far as the militarization of the police goes, it's being blown way out of proportion. Bearcats have been around in LE for decades and the move to arm more officers with AR-15s has been a great move as we are encountering a more well armed public. The majority of LE is running around with their primary side arm and they may have access to a basic AR-15 or a shotgun, hardly anything more than the average citizen has. The outer carriers are great as they can be removed on a hot day while in the station and thrown on as you're heading out for a call. They also get more weight off of the hips, something I can guarantee you that a lot of retired LE would have loved to have now that they are blessed with hip and back problems. The weight of gear worn by the average patrol officers gear load is about 25-30 pounds, it adds on wear and tear day in and day out over the course of a career of 20 or more years. I'm sorry you think the look is too military, but it serves a purpose and has nothing to do with being operator as fuck.
Yes, there are some bad officers out there among us, but I'll be the last person to stand behind someone that's ethically in the wrong or that willfully abuses their authority or violates the rights of those they serve. That being said, mistakes do happen. Also, some things just don't look pretty on camera. There is a time and a place where it is a necessity for police to use force and unfortunately cameras don't always capture the whole aspect of an incident.
If you don't like the laws we enforce or have a problem with something you see in your community in regards to the police, take an active role in changing it. I would love to see a more limited role for LE, unfortunately when we pull back from certain functions there's also another part of the population that becomes upset that we are no longer doing enough.
And as far as the militarization of the police goes, it's being blown way out of proportion. Bearcats have been around in LE for decades and the move to arm more officers with AR-15s has been a great move as we are encountering a more well armed public. The majority of LE is running around with their primary side arm and they may have access to a basic AR-15 or a shotgun, hardly anything more than the average citizen has. The outer carriers are great as they can be removed on a hot day while in the station and thrown on as you're heading out for a call. They also get more weight off of the hips, something I can guarantee you that a lot of retired LE would have loved to have now that they are blessed with hip and back problems. The weight of gear worn by the average patrol officers gear load is about 25-30 pounds, it adds on wear and tear day in and day out over the course of a career of 20 or more years. I'm sorry you think the look is too military, but it serves a purpose and has nothing to do with being operator as fuck.
Last edited:
I appreciate the level headedness of your post, I really do but I think that is a regional thing and a department by department thing. I also think it depends on the political culture of the county or city you work in. If you are a deputy and your sheriff happens to be of a conservative bent, then I would imagine things would be quite different than say... a Chicago department.
The couple of cop friends I have are pushing retirement and they tell me and they both agree that things are getting worse and not better. They say there is a culture shift. One of them did comment to me once that they are more restrained in the use of physical force but the tradeoff is the use of tazers. Dont get physical with the guy, taze his ass first. I don't have an issue with this, I think it protects the cop better and keeps his ass out of court provided he used necessary force when he tazed someone.
The culture shit is an attitude change. It's a change of perception. There is a change in the people that once regarded offers with esteem. Esteem has been replaced by contempt.
I don't think things have changed all that much in regards to what we see, we have always had the 6'oclock news and we have still seen it to one extent or another. People's cell phones are just allowing us to see more than we have previously.
I can never remember a time when I was younger where I encountered an asshole cop. Even in my teens when we would have parties the cops would show up and tell us to keep it down. I got a little waxed once in my 20's at a bar and beat the shit out of this guy who hit is wife for talking to some guy and the cop that showed up at the brawl drove me home for Christs sake... That does not happen anymore.
If you are injured in an accident, thats one thing.. But the attitudes have changed and I think as a result of it, the chickens are coming home to roost.
You might be a great cop, and by your post it sounds like you are and I do apologize for any guilt you feel is being unfairly placed upon you as a result of association but the moral decay in our society is driving a big wedge between your average law abiding citizen law enforcement in some areas.
Last edited:
Militarization of police is nothing new. It started back in the 20's, battling prohibition. Look at the military hardware deployed when FBI and local cops engaged Bonnie and Clyde. BAR's and Thompsons. Same with Treasury agents and Chicago PD when dealing with Capone and his ilk. LE has mostly been reactionary by nature. Can't tell when somebody is going to commit a crime.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Against my better judgment, Vol II. Being more tired and emotionally drained...
I do not wish to devolve into assessments of intellect (I wish this would stop rearing its ugly head), there is no shortage of bright people here and I do hold you in some esteem. Rather than me laying out an encyclopedia of failed and successful Nuremberg Defenses here I encourage you to use your Google-fu and decide for yourself if this is an acceptable defense. Of course such a plea does sometimes prevail, and this is too often shameful. Perhaps a more to the point, should we (continue) to hold individuals accountable for their actions?
I stand by my assertion: "if there is a cop that is guilty of abuse of his position then the problem is with that cop". I do not see a moral or legal escape, and I generally hope against one notwithstanding individual merits.
Bosh. This appears to me as a throw your hands up in the air abstention. Difficult, maybe even extremely difficult? Yes. Expensive? Usually. Impractical? Hardly. Holding the individual and the structure accountable are not mutually exclusive efforts. There is not enough room on Sniper's Hide servers to document legal decisions that affect and change LE. If affecting/effecting police behavior is a doomed effort perhaps courts of all flavors, our various state and federal legislatures, and the bar should just stop trying. The fact is that courts frequently find against LE, I think most often on Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Just to remind us of a few notables affecting cops:
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
SCOTUS applied the "exclusionary rule" to the states. Any evidence illegally obtained by the government cannot be used in court against the accused.This case began when seven police officers broke into the Cleveland home of Dollree Mapp, supposedly to look for a bombing suspect and gambling paraphernalia. Although they found neither, they did find some books and photos that they deemed to be obscene. Mapp was convicted of possession of obscene literature and sent to prison.
The Court overturned Mapps conviction, finding that the search of her home violated the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court applied the exclusionary rule (which provides that otherwise admissible evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial if it was the result of illegal police conduct) and said that the evidence used to convict Mapp should not have been allowed. Prior to this case, the Court had not applied the exclusionary rule to the states. This case was the beginning of an era in which the Supreme Court (under Chief Justice Earl Warren) overhauled criminal procedure.
Personally, I think the court blundered. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights could have been vindicated without setting the criminal free because the constable blundered. Such remedies would include tort or civil rights actions for the constitutional injury, or even criminal prosecutions for officers who maliciously violate the Fourth Amendment. By imposing a remedy without firm constitutional basis, the Mapp decision allowed countless criminals to go free because of police mistakes. This case represented a sea change in police procedure. Not something I would say was the result of a pithy statement by the plaintiff's attorney's.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
SCOTUS established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given. The warning requirements only apply when a person is in custody and interrogated. In this case, "custody" is an arrest or when freedom is significantly deprived to be equivalent to an arrest. "Interrogation" is the use of words or actions to elicit an incriminating response from an average person. Of course we are all familiar with Miranda. I mention it as it is cited by courts more times than I care to count.
Missouri v. Seibert, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (06/08/2004).
Seibert’s 12-year-old son Jonathan had cerebral palsy, and when he died in his sleep she feared charges of neglect because of bedsores on his body. In her presence, two of her teenage sons and two of their friends devised a plan to conceal the facts surrounding Jonathan’s death by incinerating his body in the course of burning the family’s mobile home, in which they planned to leave Donald Rector, a mentally ill teenager living with the family, to avoid any appearance that Jonathan had been unattended. Seibert’s son Darian and a friend set the fire, and Donald died. Five days later, the police awakened Seibert at 3:00 a.m. at a hospital where Darian was being treated for burns. In arresting her, Officer Kevin Clinton followed instructions from Rolla, Missouri, officer Richard Hanrahan that he refrain from giving Miranda warnings. After Seibert had been taken to the police station and left alone in an interview room for 15 to 20 minutes, Hanrahan questioned her without Miranda warnings for 30 to 40 minutes.
An officer of that police department testified that the strategy of withholding Miranda warnings until after interrogating and drawing out a confession was promoted not only by his own department, but by a national police training organization and other departments in which he had worked... Consistently with the officer’s testimony, the Police Law Institute, for example, instructs that ‘officers may conduct a two-stage interrogation... At any point during the pre-Miranda interrogation, usually after arrestees have confessed, officers may then read the Miranda warnings and ask for a waiver. If the arrestees waive their Miranda rights, officers will be able to repeat any subsequent incriminating statements later in court’... The upshot of all this advice is a question-first practice of some popularity, as one can see from the reported cases describing its use, sometimes in obedience to departmental policy.
When Miranda warnings are inserted in the midst of coordinated and continuing interrogation, they are likely to mislead and ‘depriv[e] a defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them’... By the same token, it would ordinarily be unrealistic to treat two spates of integrated and proximately conducted questioning as independent interrogations subject to independent evaluation simply because Miranda warnings formally punctuate them in the middle... Strategists dedicated to draining the substance out of Miranda cannot accomplish by training instructions what Dickerson held Congress could not do by statute. Because the question-first tactic effectively threatens to thwart Miranda’s purpose of reducing the risk that a coerced confession would be admitted, and because the facts here do not reasonably support a conclusion that the warnings given could have served their purpose, Seibert’s postwarning statements are inadmissible.”
In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967)
SCOTUS established that juveniles have several rights that adults have. 1) Due process requires adequate and timely notice. 2) There is right to counsel. 3) The privilege against self incrimination applies. 4) The juvenile has a right to a hearing with sworn testimony subject to the opportunity for cross-examination. I am personally thankful for this one.
Chimel v. California, 395 US 752 (1969)
The arrest of a person in his home does not allow the warrantless search of the whole house incident to arrest.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
The use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is not justified unless it is necessary to prevent the escape, and it complies with the following requirements. The officer has to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Groh v. Ramirez, 124 S.Ct. 1284 (02/24/2004).
ATF agents search a home pursuant to a warrant that failed to describe the “persons or things to be seized.” Although the application particularly described the place to be searched and the contraband petitioner expected to find, the warrant itself was less specific; it failed to identify any of the items that petitioner intended to seize. In the portion of the form that called for a description of the “person or property” to be seized, petitioner typed a description of respondents’ two-story blue house rather than the alleged stockpile of firearms. The warrant did not incorporate by reference the itemized list contained in the application. It did, however, recite that the Magistrate was satisfied the affidavit established probable cause to believe that contraband was concealed on the premises, and that sufficient grounds existed for the warrant’s issuance. The search uncovered no illegal weapons or explosives. A lawsuit followed alleging a violation of the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The Court made several rulings:
(1) “The warrant was plainly invalid. The Fourth Amendment states unambiguously that ‘no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ The warrant in this case complied with the first three of these requirements: It was based on probable cause and supported by a sworn affidavit, and it described particularly the place of the search. On the fourth requirement, however, the warrant failed altogether.”
(2) The “presumptive rule against warrantless searches applies with equal force to searches whose only defect is a lack of particularity in the warrant.”
(3) “Given that the particularity requirement is set forth in the text of the Constitution, no reasonable officer could believe that a warrant that plainly did not comply with that requirement was valid... Moreover, because petitioner himself prepared the invalid warrant, he may not argue that he reasonably relied on the Magistrate’s assurance that the warrant contained an adequate description of the things to be seized and was therefore valid.” Thus, the affiant was not entitled to qualified immunity.
(4) “[O]fficers leading a search team must ‘mak[e] sure that they have a proper warrant that in fact authorizes the search and seizure they are about to conduct’... That is not a duty to proofread; it is, rather, a duty to ensure that the warrant conforms to constitutional requirements... Petitioner contends that the search in this case was the product, at worst, of a lack of due care, and that our case law requires more than negligent behavior before depriving an official of qualified immunity... But as we observed in... Sheppard, ‘a warrant may be so facially deficient -- i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized -- that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid’... This is such a case.” (Emphasis added.)
The list of such cases is endless. In any given session SCOTUS renders perhaps a dozen or more decisions directly impacting police behavior. Police and the cities that employ them lose civil cases too frequently to count. Organizations and governments do change.
But none of this addresses the crux of my argument that generalizations are harmful, to both the purveyor and the subject. Even in grade school we learned that when taking a test any answer that said "all" or "in every instance" was going to be a wrong answer. While some generalizations work, in the average, the singularity of people simply defies it. The fantastic degree to which we excel at excessive simplification seems to be natural to the human mind, since it is only by abstraction and generalization, which necessarily imply the neglect of a swarm of particulars, that we can stretch our faculties so as to embrace a minute portion of the unlimited vastness of the universe. Of course it is a swarm of particulars that makes up who each of us is. If this inclination is natural and even inevitable, it is nevertheless at our own peril, since it is apt to narrow and falsify our conception of any subject under investigation. To correct it partially - for to correct it wholly would require an immeasurable intellect - we must strive to broaden our views by taking account of a wide range of facts and possibilities; and when we have done so to the utmost of our power, we must still remember that from the very nature of things our ideas fall immeasurably short of the reality. What often does promote evil behavior is the lazy, nasty habit of believing that generalizations have anything at all to do with individuals. The singularity of people escapes the most clever of generalizations. The choice of human groupings for cultural comparisons is not a natural or scientific choice, but a political one.
I suppose I would like for all of us to draw on some personal experience that might help shuck the propensity for generalizations. Having spent a childhood lumped into a category (poor, blue collar) I was struck on the head at every turn; to gain admittance to this or that school, being told I would never date a certain girl because of social standing. But the worst was being condemned to a particular path of pre-ordained behavior. When I got into a fight, well that is what was expected of kids like me. Not one of these generalizations helped bridge a gap between me and whomever it was that was promoting it. There is a lesson there. I will always fight against generalizations, especially those of people.
"Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords."
—Theodore Roosevelt
[MENTION=30303]EventHorizon[/MENTION], with sincere respect I emphatically disagree. History has an endless list of defendants that agree with you that the first statement is wrong. I am comforted that history has come down against them (though not often enough), and I hope it will continue to do so. The individual may indeed be culpable, and often without limit. The defense that they are not responsible due to some chain of command (be it Superior Orders, Nuremberg Defense...) does not have a particularly strong legal footing, and less so morally and ethically. We could go on for volumes about the tension between conflicting judgments in international courts (often for war crimes) versus national courts, but one central fact remains through all of it, and that is that the individual does have a choice, be it moral or legal, and can be held to account. This is not a debate of IQ, be it lukewarm or molten, it is fact. And it behooves all of us to rejoice that it is. It further behooves us to ensure that such individual accountability is never swept away.
I do not wish to devolve into assessments of intellect (I wish this would stop rearing its ugly head), there is no shortage of bright people here and I do hold you in some esteem. Rather than me laying out an encyclopedia of failed and successful Nuremberg Defenses here I encourage you to use your Google-fu and decide for yourself if this is an acceptable defense. Of course such a plea does sometimes prevail, and this is too often shameful. Perhaps a more to the point, should we (continue) to hold individuals accountable for their actions?
I stand by my assertion: "if there is a cop that is guilty of abuse of his position then the problem is with that cop". I do not see a moral or legal escape, and I generally hope against one notwithstanding individual merits.
Bosh. This appears to me as a throw your hands up in the air abstention. Difficult, maybe even extremely difficult? Yes. Expensive? Usually. Impractical? Hardly. Holding the individual and the structure accountable are not mutually exclusive efforts. There is not enough room on Sniper's Hide servers to document legal decisions that affect and change LE. If affecting/effecting police behavior is a doomed effort perhaps courts of all flavors, our various state and federal legislatures, and the bar should just stop trying. The fact is that courts frequently find against LE, I think most often on Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Just to remind us of a few notables affecting cops:
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
SCOTUS applied the "exclusionary rule" to the states. Any evidence illegally obtained by the government cannot be used in court against the accused.This case began when seven police officers broke into the Cleveland home of Dollree Mapp, supposedly to look for a bombing suspect and gambling paraphernalia. Although they found neither, they did find some books and photos that they deemed to be obscene. Mapp was convicted of possession of obscene literature and sent to prison.
The Court overturned Mapps conviction, finding that the search of her home violated the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court applied the exclusionary rule (which provides that otherwise admissible evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial if it was the result of illegal police conduct) and said that the evidence used to convict Mapp should not have been allowed. Prior to this case, the Court had not applied the exclusionary rule to the states. This case was the beginning of an era in which the Supreme Court (under Chief Justice Earl Warren) overhauled criminal procedure.
Personally, I think the court blundered. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights could have been vindicated without setting the criminal free because the constable blundered. Such remedies would include tort or civil rights actions for the constitutional injury, or even criminal prosecutions for officers who maliciously violate the Fourth Amendment. By imposing a remedy without firm constitutional basis, the Mapp decision allowed countless criminals to go free because of police mistakes. This case represented a sea change in police procedure. Not something I would say was the result of a pithy statement by the plaintiff's attorney's.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
SCOTUS established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given. The warning requirements only apply when a person is in custody and interrogated. In this case, "custody" is an arrest or when freedom is significantly deprived to be equivalent to an arrest. "Interrogation" is the use of words or actions to elicit an incriminating response from an average person. Of course we are all familiar with Miranda. I mention it as it is cited by courts more times than I care to count.
Missouri v. Seibert, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (06/08/2004).
Seibert’s 12-year-old son Jonathan had cerebral palsy, and when he died in his sleep she feared charges of neglect because of bedsores on his body. In her presence, two of her teenage sons and two of their friends devised a plan to conceal the facts surrounding Jonathan’s death by incinerating his body in the course of burning the family’s mobile home, in which they planned to leave Donald Rector, a mentally ill teenager living with the family, to avoid any appearance that Jonathan had been unattended. Seibert’s son Darian and a friend set the fire, and Donald died. Five days later, the police awakened Seibert at 3:00 a.m. at a hospital where Darian was being treated for burns. In arresting her, Officer Kevin Clinton followed instructions from Rolla, Missouri, officer Richard Hanrahan that he refrain from giving Miranda warnings. After Seibert had been taken to the police station and left alone in an interview room for 15 to 20 minutes, Hanrahan questioned her without Miranda warnings for 30 to 40 minutes.
An officer of that police department testified that the strategy of withholding Miranda warnings until after interrogating and drawing out a confession was promoted not only by his own department, but by a national police training organization and other departments in which he had worked... Consistently with the officer’s testimony, the Police Law Institute, for example, instructs that ‘officers may conduct a two-stage interrogation... At any point during the pre-Miranda interrogation, usually after arrestees have confessed, officers may then read the Miranda warnings and ask for a waiver. If the arrestees waive their Miranda rights, officers will be able to repeat any subsequent incriminating statements later in court’... The upshot of all this advice is a question-first practice of some popularity, as one can see from the reported cases describing its use, sometimes in obedience to departmental policy.
When Miranda warnings are inserted in the midst of coordinated and continuing interrogation, they are likely to mislead and ‘depriv[e] a defendant of knowledge essential to his ability to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning them’... By the same token, it would ordinarily be unrealistic to treat two spates of integrated and proximately conducted questioning as independent interrogations subject to independent evaluation simply because Miranda warnings formally punctuate them in the middle... Strategists dedicated to draining the substance out of Miranda cannot accomplish by training instructions what Dickerson held Congress could not do by statute. Because the question-first tactic effectively threatens to thwart Miranda’s purpose of reducing the risk that a coerced confession would be admitted, and because the facts here do not reasonably support a conclusion that the warnings given could have served their purpose, Seibert’s postwarning statements are inadmissible.”
In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967)
SCOTUS established that juveniles have several rights that adults have. 1) Due process requires adequate and timely notice. 2) There is right to counsel. 3) The privilege against self incrimination applies. 4) The juvenile has a right to a hearing with sworn testimony subject to the opportunity for cross-examination. I am personally thankful for this one.
Chimel v. California, 395 US 752 (1969)
The arrest of a person in his home does not allow the warrantless search of the whole house incident to arrest.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
The use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon is not justified unless it is necessary to prevent the escape, and it complies with the following requirements. The officer has to have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Groh v. Ramirez, 124 S.Ct. 1284 (02/24/2004).
ATF agents search a home pursuant to a warrant that failed to describe the “persons or things to be seized.” Although the application particularly described the place to be searched and the contraband petitioner expected to find, the warrant itself was less specific; it failed to identify any of the items that petitioner intended to seize. In the portion of the form that called for a description of the “person or property” to be seized, petitioner typed a description of respondents’ two-story blue house rather than the alleged stockpile of firearms. The warrant did not incorporate by reference the itemized list contained in the application. It did, however, recite that the Magistrate was satisfied the affidavit established probable cause to believe that contraband was concealed on the premises, and that sufficient grounds existed for the warrant’s issuance. The search uncovered no illegal weapons or explosives. A lawsuit followed alleging a violation of the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The Court made several rulings:
(1) “The warrant was plainly invalid. The Fourth Amendment states unambiguously that ‘no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ The warrant in this case complied with the first three of these requirements: It was based on probable cause and supported by a sworn affidavit, and it described particularly the place of the search. On the fourth requirement, however, the warrant failed altogether.”
(2) The “presumptive rule against warrantless searches applies with equal force to searches whose only defect is a lack of particularity in the warrant.”
(3) “Given that the particularity requirement is set forth in the text of the Constitution, no reasonable officer could believe that a warrant that plainly did not comply with that requirement was valid... Moreover, because petitioner himself prepared the invalid warrant, he may not argue that he reasonably relied on the Magistrate’s assurance that the warrant contained an adequate description of the things to be seized and was therefore valid.” Thus, the affiant was not entitled to qualified immunity.
(4) “[O]fficers leading a search team must ‘mak[e] sure that they have a proper warrant that in fact authorizes the search and seizure they are about to conduct’... That is not a duty to proofread; it is, rather, a duty to ensure that the warrant conforms to constitutional requirements... Petitioner contends that the search in this case was the product, at worst, of a lack of due care, and that our case law requires more than negligent behavior before depriving an official of qualified immunity... But as we observed in... Sheppard, ‘a warrant may be so facially deficient -- i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized -- that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid’... This is such a case.” (Emphasis added.)
The list of such cases is endless. In any given session SCOTUS renders perhaps a dozen or more decisions directly impacting police behavior. Police and the cities that employ them lose civil cases too frequently to count. Organizations and governments do change.
But none of this addresses the crux of my argument that generalizations are harmful, to both the purveyor and the subject. Even in grade school we learned that when taking a test any answer that said "all" or "in every instance" was going to be a wrong answer. While some generalizations work, in the average, the singularity of people simply defies it. The fantastic degree to which we excel at excessive simplification seems to be natural to the human mind, since it is only by abstraction and generalization, which necessarily imply the neglect of a swarm of particulars, that we can stretch our faculties so as to embrace a minute portion of the unlimited vastness of the universe. Of course it is a swarm of particulars that makes up who each of us is. If this inclination is natural and even inevitable, it is nevertheless at our own peril, since it is apt to narrow and falsify our conception of any subject under investigation. To correct it partially - for to correct it wholly would require an immeasurable intellect - we must strive to broaden our views by taking account of a wide range of facts and possibilities; and when we have done so to the utmost of our power, we must still remember that from the very nature of things our ideas fall immeasurably short of the reality. What often does promote evil behavior is the lazy, nasty habit of believing that generalizations have anything at all to do with individuals. The singularity of people escapes the most clever of generalizations. The choice of human groupings for cultural comparisons is not a natural or scientific choice, but a political one.
I suppose I would like for all of us to draw on some personal experience that might help shuck the propensity for generalizations. Having spent a childhood lumped into a category (poor, blue collar) I was struck on the head at every turn; to gain admittance to this or that school, being told I would never date a certain girl because of social standing. But the worst was being condemned to a particular path of pre-ordained behavior. When I got into a fight, well that is what was expected of kids like me. Not one of these generalizations helped bridge a gap between me and whomever it was that was promoting it. There is a lesson there. I will always fight against generalizations, especially those of people.
"Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords."
—Theodore Roosevelt
Last edited:
Does citing legal precedent prove a moral obligation, or merely a paper obligation? Do you think the "law" as it is written, is adequate measurement for right and wrong?
I don't.
Guy is arrested for his 12th DUI. He had a valid drivers license at the time. Right, or wrong?
Guy is arrested for burglary. This leads to his 7th burglary conviction, and 5th felony. Right, or wrong?
Guy is convicted of murder. Sentence - 3yrs. Guy is convicted of tax fraud. Sentence - 18 years. Right, or wrong?
Guy is arrested for speeding in his new sports car. He us lumped into the same category as everyone above. Right, or wrong?
Justice is... truly blind. Only a goddamn fool can think that's a good thing.
I once tried to get a lawyer to write an iron-clad waiver for students of our shooting classes to sign. His response: "You cannot sign away negligence." Me - "What the fuck is the point of a waiver then? I want them to sign something stating they know its potentially dangerous, and they cannot sue me under any conditions for any reason. If they don't want to sign it, they can leave." Him - "That is not possible." Well, of course it's not possible, because then the system would not be able to feed itself, would it? Fucking lawyers.
As I said, the system... is corrupted and mutated beyond recognition. It is so far detached from reality and moral obligation, that any entity trying to execute enforcement of that systems will, is doomed to absolute failure in a supposedly free society. None of us are actually free anymore... but we still think we are. Hence the endless and continually worsening encounters with law enforcement. The cops keep trying to control, when the citizenry keep trying to not be controlled. What is happening, is as logical and predictable as the sun rising and setting. So as you see, some generalizations are quite accurate. Individual officers should be treated individually, however. That would seem pretty obvious.
I don't.
Guy is arrested for his 12th DUI. He had a valid drivers license at the time. Right, or wrong?
Guy is arrested for burglary. This leads to his 7th burglary conviction, and 5th felony. Right, or wrong?
Guy is convicted of murder. Sentence - 3yrs. Guy is convicted of tax fraud. Sentence - 18 years. Right, or wrong?
Guy is arrested for speeding in his new sports car. He us lumped into the same category as everyone above. Right, or wrong?
Justice is... truly blind. Only a goddamn fool can think that's a good thing.
I once tried to get a lawyer to write an iron-clad waiver for students of our shooting classes to sign. His response: "You cannot sign away negligence." Me - "What the fuck is the point of a waiver then? I want them to sign something stating they know its potentially dangerous, and they cannot sue me under any conditions for any reason. If they don't want to sign it, they can leave." Him - "That is not possible." Well, of course it's not possible, because then the system would not be able to feed itself, would it? Fucking lawyers.
As I said, the system... is corrupted and mutated beyond recognition. It is so far detached from reality and moral obligation, that any entity trying to execute enforcement of that systems will, is doomed to absolute failure in a supposedly free society. None of us are actually free anymore... but we still think we are. Hence the endless and continually worsening encounters with law enforcement. The cops keep trying to control, when the citizenry keep trying to not be controlled. What is happening, is as logical and predictable as the sun rising and setting. So as you see, some generalizations are quite accurate. Individual officers should be treated individually, however. That would seem pretty obvious.
So you asked your Lawyer to write something that would not have been legally valid. You Lawyer explained that what you wanted could not work under the law. And your responce is to condem not only your own Lawyer, but the entire profession. You should have thanked your Lawyer for clearing up your missunderstanding and asked him about stratgys to defend against accusations of negligence.
The law and moral obligation are not often intertwined. Point taken. I recently sat in on a business law lecture at a prominent eastern MBA program. The attorney, and law professor, giving the lecture is a high profile individual that has shaped policy at a few federal organizations at the behest of Presidents. A conversation took place between he and a student about the reason for taking a particular action in business. The professor was speaking in terms of legal obligation when the student said he disagreed because it wouldn't "be the right thing to do". The attorney basically laughed. It was not out of disrespect but because the gap between their thinking was so vast that the next 10 minutes were spent trying to reconcile a common language.
Given a bourbon or two I would be happy to share stories of my own moral outrage with our legal system that was severe enough to cause me to change careers. These are personal experiences that leave in plain sight perversions of the legal system. But I will not throw out the baby with the bath water. We are a country of laws, and the bedrock is our Constitution. Without it I do not know what we are. Believe or not there are many attorneys who go to law school thinking one day they will save the whales or put away the bad guys. I have seen with my own eyes the pain caused when such ideals are smashed against the rocks of reality. Same goes for cops. Behind each of these cases that makes it to SCOTUS challenging police behavior (to reiterate, there are dozens every year) there are lawyers who have likely spent years litigating the matter in lower courts because they believe quite strongly in the righteousness of the matter. If you look at some of these defendants it is clear that a lot of these attorneys are not getting rich of off the fees. I have a very good friend that left a partnership in one of the most prestigious law firms in the country to work with the federal defenders program to fight precisely what a lot of folks on this forum are complaining about, because he believes in it. I'm guessing his annual income took about a 75% hit. All this is to say there are two sides to the coin and we should recognize that.
Perhaps a more jolting affront to the equal application of law and fair representation is with legislative bodies and lobbyists. However, each of us is a potential lobbyist. Annual donations to your congressman, followed up by a few phone calls are under rated. I know very few people who engage in this process dilgently.
I think our distaste is with the application of law, not so much much with what is written (which is generally, and should be, quite blind). It is this application that is too often uneven and unfair. I know that is an understatement. Where I see a lot of these threads going is in fact throwing the baby out with the bath water. I believe this is the single greatest threat to our liberty. The republic for which so many have stood simply cannot exist without active participation. So many well meaning and smart people not engaging in the process will leave our system to wither on the vine. This only leads to further disenchantment as things change (and they do) in a way that one may feel negatively impacted and that they have nothing to do with and no hand in. The end game for this is outright scary. If it's tyranny that many of us are to one day revolt against (I think that is a fair reading of many posts) I remind you that it is often a worse tyranny that it is replaced with.
One of the most insidious of tactics politicians employ is to divide and conquer. I once had to pull to the side of the road to take in a billboard paid for by a sitting US congressman that read, quite simply "Fighting Them for US". I believe this may be a dangerous path we are going down.
Once the ball of revolution starts rolling it can be hard to stop or direct, and this raw energy, itself uncertain, is all the more alluring for it. Although an Englishman fond of moons and meadows, William Wordsworth wasn't immune to the excitement unfolding in the dirty streets of Paris. On the subject of being nineteen when the Bastille was stormed, he recalled,
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven! Oh! Times,
In which the meager stale forbidding ways
Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
The attraction of a country in Romance!
Romance indeed, and many men and women who pick up arms do so out of a sort of love—which can of course be blinding. I have no doubts about the passion with which so many on here speak of love of country. It is actually sometimes surprising. After the Easter Uprising of 1916 had been put down, W. B. Yeats asked about his countrymen in the Irish Republican Brotherhood,
“And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?”
The course of a revolution, like that of true love, never does run smooth.
Given a bourbon or two I would be happy to share stories of my own moral outrage with our legal system that was severe enough to cause me to change careers. These are personal experiences that leave in plain sight perversions of the legal system. But I will not throw out the baby with the bath water. We are a country of laws, and the bedrock is our Constitution. Without it I do not know what we are. Believe or not there are many attorneys who go to law school thinking one day they will save the whales or put away the bad guys. I have seen with my own eyes the pain caused when such ideals are smashed against the rocks of reality. Same goes for cops. Behind each of these cases that makes it to SCOTUS challenging police behavior (to reiterate, there are dozens every year) there are lawyers who have likely spent years litigating the matter in lower courts because they believe quite strongly in the righteousness of the matter. If you look at some of these defendants it is clear that a lot of these attorneys are not getting rich of off the fees. I have a very good friend that left a partnership in one of the most prestigious law firms in the country to work with the federal defenders program to fight precisely what a lot of folks on this forum are complaining about, because he believes in it. I'm guessing his annual income took about a 75% hit. All this is to say there are two sides to the coin and we should recognize that.
Perhaps a more jolting affront to the equal application of law and fair representation is with legislative bodies and lobbyists. However, each of us is a potential lobbyist. Annual donations to your congressman, followed up by a few phone calls are under rated. I know very few people who engage in this process dilgently.
I think our distaste is with the application of law, not so much much with what is written (which is generally, and should be, quite blind). It is this application that is too often uneven and unfair. I know that is an understatement. Where I see a lot of these threads going is in fact throwing the baby out with the bath water. I believe this is the single greatest threat to our liberty. The republic for which so many have stood simply cannot exist without active participation. So many well meaning and smart people not engaging in the process will leave our system to wither on the vine. This only leads to further disenchantment as things change (and they do) in a way that one may feel negatively impacted and that they have nothing to do with and no hand in. The end game for this is outright scary. If it's tyranny that many of us are to one day revolt against (I think that is a fair reading of many posts) I remind you that it is often a worse tyranny that it is replaced with.
One of the most insidious of tactics politicians employ is to divide and conquer. I once had to pull to the side of the road to take in a billboard paid for by a sitting US congressman that read, quite simply "Fighting Them for US". I believe this may be a dangerous path we are going down.
Once the ball of revolution starts rolling it can be hard to stop or direct, and this raw energy, itself uncertain, is all the more alluring for it. Although an Englishman fond of moons and meadows, William Wordsworth wasn't immune to the excitement unfolding in the dirty streets of Paris. On the subject of being nineteen when the Bastille was stormed, he recalled,
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven! Oh! Times,
In which the meager stale forbidding ways
Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
The attraction of a country in Romance!
Romance indeed, and many men and women who pick up arms do so out of a sort of love—which can of course be blinding. I have no doubts about the passion with which so many on here speak of love of country. It is actually sometimes surprising. After the Easter Uprising of 1916 had been put down, W. B. Yeats asked about his countrymen in the Irish Republican Brotherhood,
“And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?”
The course of a revolution, like that of true love, never does run smooth.
The OP started this thread for what reason? Are you looking for brownie points? Was it really to stand up for LEO's? Some of your friends nit picked a couple posts off of the Hide and were offended and you thought it your duty to protect them? Are you trying to be in consideration for a moderator? Post it up there to see how many will cross the line so they can get the Ban Hammer that you seem to think is the way to handle things? He has since bailed and left it to "Frank and the Moderators". NICE MOVE douche bag. Most of the threads that cross the line are squelched in a timely manner. The ones that don't get deleted are either ignored or the OP is warned by other Hide members that they have crossed that line. Example- The Eric Holder thread, most recently. So WTF is the reason for starting this?
Do I lump all LEOs together? No. Are there some bad ones? yes. Can we discuss these bad ones? Seems to be yes. As long as the individual or the accepted practice he used s what is discussed and all officers are not grouped together as being bad because of the actions of the idiot that made head lines.
I have resisted posting on this thread till the last couple of posts that go into the realm of If you don't like what the police are doing then change the system. Today in a neighboring town they are having an auction. They are auctioning off all the confiscated vehicles and other items seized by the PD over the last several months. Well not really all the stuff but the stuff they decided not to keep. Here in lies the majority of the problem. $$$$ Money. The almighty dollar. Our local govt are in a crisis. The get elected because they promise more and more services or free stuff. Knowing that it is not really free. Where is the revenue for all these services going to come from? Property taxes in most areas are already high and they don't want to piss off the populace by making headlines of another property tax hike. So they put pressure on the other sources of money. The easiest is your local PD the Sheriff included. He may be elected but his funding doesn't come from a chicken that lays gold eggs. The pressure is put on the top and it is passed down the line till it gets into your pocket. If they don't write enough tickets they will put a few cameras that are on duty 24/7. Then "Proactive" policing came to be a cash cow. Example: "Do you have anything in your vehicle I should know about?". "Where are you coming from/ going to?". "Do you mind if I search your vehicle?". Refusing the search was easy but they came up with a strong arm response. "If you don't allow it we will detain you till we get a drug dog to give a probable cause". These tactics have caused those with big ego's to cross a line or two. I wont go into how the new dress code affects the mentality of these few with alter egos'. It has been covered many times that there are means to get these clowns off the force but it wont happen till a headline is made. Then it's still only a possibility. The bottom line is the all about the Benjamins. They want yours and so do you. How are they going to get them? If some officers push the line so be it. It's being "Proactive for your and your children's safety".
Do I lump all LEOs together? No. Are there some bad ones? yes. Can we discuss these bad ones? Seems to be yes. As long as the individual or the accepted practice he used s what is discussed and all officers are not grouped together as being bad because of the actions of the idiot that made head lines.
I have resisted posting on this thread till the last couple of posts that go into the realm of If you don't like what the police are doing then change the system. Today in a neighboring town they are having an auction. They are auctioning off all the confiscated vehicles and other items seized by the PD over the last several months. Well not really all the stuff but the stuff they decided not to keep. Here in lies the majority of the problem. $$$$ Money. The almighty dollar. Our local govt are in a crisis. The get elected because they promise more and more services or free stuff. Knowing that it is not really free. Where is the revenue for all these services going to come from? Property taxes in most areas are already high and they don't want to piss off the populace by making headlines of another property tax hike. So they put pressure on the other sources of money. The easiest is your local PD the Sheriff included. He may be elected but his funding doesn't come from a chicken that lays gold eggs. The pressure is put on the top and it is passed down the line till it gets into your pocket. If they don't write enough tickets they will put a few cameras that are on duty 24/7. Then "Proactive" policing came to be a cash cow. Example: "Do you have anything in your vehicle I should know about?". "Where are you coming from/ going to?". "Do you mind if I search your vehicle?". Refusing the search was easy but they came up with a strong arm response. "If you don't allow it we will detain you till we get a drug dog to give a probable cause". These tactics have caused those with big ego's to cross a line or two. I wont go into how the new dress code affects the mentality of these few with alter egos'. It has been covered many times that there are means to get these clowns off the force but it wont happen till a headline is made. Then it's still only a possibility. The bottom line is the all about the Benjamins. They want yours and so do you. How are they going to get them? If some officers push the line so be it. It's being "Proactive for your and your children's safety".
I could not agree more with the principle. Your observation is well shared throughout history.
“No free people ever existed, or can ever exist, without keeping the purse strings in their own hands. Where this is the case, they have a constitutional check upon the administration, which may thereby by brought into order without violence. But when such a power is not lodged in the people, oppression proceeds uncontrolled in its career, till the governed, transported into rage, seek redress in the midst of blood and confusion.”
―John Dickinson
Goddamn right I condemn the entire profession, because they rely on the bloated, corrupt, and malfunctioning system as a means of income. They owe their entire goddamn existence to it. I don't necessarily condemn the lawyers themselves, though some of them are certainly worthy of being condemned, but you are absolutely right that I'll condemn their profession.
In a logical world, a man should be able to say to another man: "If you agree to stay here and take this training, then I am not liable, nor is my company liable, or the associates of my company liable for your safety, up to and including your death. If you don't agree, then you must leave, but if you stay, then you agree" THAT should be completely legally enforceable. Instead... goddamn lawyers and the legal system count on someone being able to sue anyone for ANY reason they can dream up.
Do you have any idea how much money companies like mine waste trying to make sure some fucking parasite can't win those bullshit lawsuits? Between insurance and lawyers... it's goddamn ridiculous. You think that doesn't affect how much companies need to charge for the items they sell?
Moses - hope your sister is doing better today.
I wasn't clear about the first point. I didn't mean the individual rogue cop is absolved of personal responsibility but that the problems caused are not confined to him. Rather the consequences of both his actions and the inactions of his peers are the degradation of goodwill towards LE. Worse still are any actions taken to obfuscate that officer's transgressions and to either retrain, remove or prosecute him.
On the second point, yes, clearly 'change' has occurred within legal frameworks and as stated in many SOPs and tolerances but the phrase 'the more things change the more they stay the same' seems to apply. You reference the 4th Amendment. Well look at NYC. An overt transgression of it by policy thanks to Bloomberg and an entirely complicit police force. Quotas were established and it became a performance metric! Bloomberg was a mayor who unashamedly voiced the opinion that people should give up some of their rights in deference to his policies because it's good for them. How can I be expected to give any respect to LE who worked for him?
Time and again we hear lamentation and condemnation (rightly so IMHO) of the muslim community for their lack of involvement in battling the extremists amongst them. Well, I didn't see too many organized protests by NYPD against Bloomberg. The few instances where NYPD went up against him was over pay and benefits.
In this forum the LE requested the rest to reserve judgement until all the facts are know. Fair enough. Yet the same have voiced the 'its for your own good' and 'if you have nothing to hide why object'. Legal case citation does not prove effective execution at the ground level. People's attitudes are not formed in a vacuum. The lazy base their opinions on personal anecdote or hearsay. The informed seek perspectives of both sides and validate or refute with numbers. I've read posts by LE here saying 'its not my fault, orders are orders and I'm not going to lose my job.' I understand that. Bills need paying and not everyone can easily retrain for a new job. But don't ask or expect me to respect it. It's not worthy of it.
A society needs law enforcement. Law enforcement needs to be open and subject to review. It seems critical discussion is unwelcomed as bashing.
I wasn't clear about the first point. I didn't mean the individual rogue cop is absolved of personal responsibility but that the problems caused are not confined to him. Rather the consequences of both his actions and the inactions of his peers are the degradation of goodwill towards LE. Worse still are any actions taken to obfuscate that officer's transgressions and to either retrain, remove or prosecute him.
On the second point, yes, clearly 'change' has occurred within legal frameworks and as stated in many SOPs and tolerances but the phrase 'the more things change the more they stay the same' seems to apply. You reference the 4th Amendment. Well look at NYC. An overt transgression of it by policy thanks to Bloomberg and an entirely complicit police force. Quotas were established and it became a performance metric! Bloomberg was a mayor who unashamedly voiced the opinion that people should give up some of their rights in deference to his policies because it's good for them. How can I be expected to give any respect to LE who worked for him?
Time and again we hear lamentation and condemnation (rightly so IMHO) of the muslim community for their lack of involvement in battling the extremists amongst them. Well, I didn't see too many organized protests by NYPD against Bloomberg. The few instances where NYPD went up against him was over pay and benefits.
In this forum the LE requested the rest to reserve judgement until all the facts are know. Fair enough. Yet the same have voiced the 'its for your own good' and 'if you have nothing to hide why object'. Legal case citation does not prove effective execution at the ground level. People's attitudes are not formed in a vacuum. The lazy base their opinions on personal anecdote or hearsay. The informed seek perspectives of both sides and validate or refute with numbers. I've read posts by LE here saying 'its not my fault, orders are orders and I'm not going to lose my job.' I understand that. Bills need paying and not everyone can easily retrain for a new job. But don't ask or expect me to respect it. It's not worthy of it.
A society needs law enforcement. Law enforcement needs to be open and subject to review. It seems critical discussion is unwelcomed as bashing.
Last edited:
I appreciate the reason and arguments here. I am glad this country still has thinking men, gives me hope. It is possible to have a philosophical discussion without petty insults and I think Moses and EH have quite a bit in common on their viewpoints.
Moses I agree that where things are headed are dangerous...but it also inevitable, at least when people don't value liberty enough to participate in its preservation by ensuring they are a real citizen and not just a resident or subject. In such cases liberty is gained, or preserved, by determined minorities who will be free at any cost. As a man willing to do whatever is necessary to preserve liberty for my children, I never expect to be in the majority, and neither were the founders.
Moses I agree that where things are headed are dangerous...but it also inevitable, at least when people don't value liberty enough to participate in its preservation by ensuring they are a real citizen and not just a resident or subject. In such cases liberty is gained, or preserved, by determined minorities who will be free at any cost. As a man willing to do whatever is necessary to preserve liberty for my children, I never expect to be in the majority, and neither were the founders.
Very well stated.
Now, this topic of LE bashing, I don't see it as bashing. These are real stories people have brought up on here and if someone wants to address them, they should be able to. Saying a cop deserved to be ambushed outside of his barracks does even cross the line in my book. Then again freedom of speech is our right as Americans. You don't have to agree with said comment, but you can't pick and choose when a certain right is allowable or not. I'm not pro cop or against cops. I was always taught to respect them, but we all know respect is a 2 way street.
Police have to drop the "us versus them" attitude or things will get a lot worse. Not all cops have this attitude. Police like any other public servant have to police their own. When you see behavior that needs to be corrected, correct it. Don't allow it to happen. That's how things go down that slippery slope we are at right now.
Now I'm stepping off the soapbox.
Rich
I will share one of my stories.
I was coming into my home town to check on a job that was 3 roads over from my home. As I was sitting a the stop sigh a police care passed I front of. I crossed the street and went to the job site. This was about 4 blocks from the intersection. I went into the home inspected the kitchen and left this took about 1 min. As I was walking across the street I here a car engin rev. When I looked up it was the police car. This guy speeds up to my car and hits his breaks stoping at a 45 degree angle I front of my truck. He jumps out of his car pointing his finger at me and is screaming at me ( his face was beat red) ARE YOU TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM ME! I can't properly describe how angry this guy was. My espouse was. What are you talking about! Sill yelling he says. I know you saw me turning around at that intersection. UUUUh ! No I didn't what are you talking about? By this time he is around his car and in my face. He says when I passed you at that intersection you weren't wearing your seat belt (I kid you not ) so I turned around and you had taken off ( still yelling). I said. I don't know what your talking about I was wearing my seat belt I did not see you turning around I was on my way to this house to do an inspection. I held up the work order with the address on it. I live 3 streets over and I have lived there for 16 years. So I don't know what your problem is but this is un necessary. To make the story short I feel like the guy was just trying his best to give me violations for every thing he could. Let's just say I was not wearing a seat belt ( I was ! I never don't) does that automatically give this officer the rite to act the way that he did ? He accelerated to well I've the 25 mph speed limit to stop a parked car. He drove on the opposite side of the road in a school zone I might add. He blocked traffic because of the way he parked all for a supposed seat belt. In this situation who was mor of a danger to public safety? I believe that most officers at good and have the best intentions of serving the community. And public opinion of them is dropping it is up to LE to improve that image
I was coming into my home town to check on a job that was 3 roads over from my home. As I was sitting a the stop sigh a police care passed I front of. I crossed the street and went to the job site. This was about 4 blocks from the intersection. I went into the home inspected the kitchen and left this took about 1 min. As I was walking across the street I here a car engin rev. When I looked up it was the police car. This guy speeds up to my car and hits his breaks stoping at a 45 degree angle I front of my truck. He jumps out of his car pointing his finger at me and is screaming at me ( his face was beat red) ARE YOU TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM ME! I can't properly describe how angry this guy was. My espouse was. What are you talking about! Sill yelling he says. I know you saw me turning around at that intersection. UUUUh ! No I didn't what are you talking about? By this time he is around his car and in my face. He says when I passed you at that intersection you weren't wearing your seat belt (I kid you not ) so I turned around and you had taken off ( still yelling). I said. I don't know what your talking about I was wearing my seat belt I did not see you turning around I was on my way to this house to do an inspection. I held up the work order with the address on it. I live 3 streets over and I have lived there for 16 years. So I don't know what your problem is but this is un necessary. To make the story short I feel like the guy was just trying his best to give me violations for every thing he could. Let's just say I was not wearing a seat belt ( I was ! I never don't) does that automatically give this officer the rite to act the way that he did ? He accelerated to well I've the 25 mph speed limit to stop a parked car. He drove on the opposite side of the road in a school zone I might add. He blocked traffic because of the way he parked all for a supposed seat belt. In this situation who was mor of a danger to public safety? I believe that most officers at good and have the best intentions of serving the community. And public opinion of them is dropping it is up to LE to improve that image
The issue with this, is its wrong.
We can cloud everything up and build layers, but lets strip it down. Lets look at History and Human Nature.
Police(Fed & Local) are the ARM of Politics. They use force to make citizens comply with what the political arm of the government tells them. At it's very essence, when the Politicians or those in power (no matter what government) want something done, they use FORCE, which is the Police. They pay them, they train them, and they own them. Now you might say to yourself, F' that Ide just quit and defend the other side. Well, why don't you ask the Nazi's, Jappanese, USSR, Khmer Rogue or basically any regime in the history of the world what would happen to that "police" if he decided to go against the gov. Loss of job and starvation at a minimum to Bullet in the back every one of his family members. If a roman magistrate refused to follow the orders and smash a baby's head in when ordered, he would be sharing a cross with the enemy of the state or getting gnalled by a lion in the games. What then happens to his family?
It's not if shit gets bad enough, its WHEN shit gets bad enough, people are forced with making tough choices. Going off history when you like at societal breakdown, revolutions or just plain totalitarianism one thing is common. People starve. Food is used as a weapon to break the will of the opposition. It's easy to say you will fight it, but its not so easy when your family needs to survive. When those in power can provide the security, necessities and allow one to live above the rest of the citizens, people tend to choose this.
Same can be said for the Military. People blurb out they would disobey a order if it was illegal or unconstitutional. The Military owns your ass, and unless you want to get lined up against a wall and shot, you will do as told. How many NOLA LE's refused the order to confiscate guns? How many LE shot up random vehicles during the Dorner Manhunt? Were they even held accountable?
When someone has power and controls the resources, they control people. Say your a cop with a wife and a couple kids and the choice is to either go round up and execute some patriots or watch your family die....what you going to choose? You think the people pulling the strings are going to give you the easy decisions to make? You think there will not be a million more hungry and desperate people willing to take your place after you catch a round to the back of the head?
Desperate and hungry people will do ANYTHING to survive. It's instinct. So before getting off topic too far, Law Enforcement is the ARMED agents of Government. They enforce bad and unjust laws the same as any throughout history.
That is just one side of the problem. Another side is the inability of LE to police themselves. Yes there are bad apples in every bunch, but you are only as strong as your weakest link. Throughout history, LE has had a HUGE problem with cops covering up for bad cops.
I don't know about you, but these supposed "good cops" who cover up, ignore or are apathetic to the bad cops are just as bad. Couple that with the level of authority and color of the law given, LE should be held to the highest standards imaginable. There should be no tolerance whatsoever on any level. The mere illusion that corruption and unequal protection is going on, destroys all LE credibility.
The 3rd issues is attitude and approach. Police used to actually do this thing..........called policing. They were respected members of the community, they worked with people, and they made their communities safer. Today, There is no community policing. Its an us vs them mentality. There is no collaboration and the divide keeps getting bigger. Because of some of the previously mentioned , people don't trust cops. People don't like them. Can you really blame then when every interaction with LE is negative? When was the last time you saw cops actually patrolling, walking down the street and talking to business owners and people? Now they find a dark alley or lot to take a nap waiting for their shift to end.
The last issue is the commercialization of police. What was once a critical function to a successful society, is now a business. Laws are created and enforced to maximize revenue for the agency/government. ALL focus is paid to LE actions that make money, not those that protect the citizens. War On Drugs, Asset forfeiture, DUI money racket, For profit Jails, ect are what policing is about. When speeding tickets were $15, how many were written? When Tickets are $250, how many are now written. Its a fucking racket, meanwhile people are LESS safe then they were because instead of actually going out and proactive combating real crimes like Robberies, Rapes, Murders, Theft..........they would rather set up a DUI checkpoint or speed trap.
And lets not get into the Pay. Police pay has FAR outstipped supply/demand. Its not uncommon for LE to make over $100K/yr with OT around here. It's also very common for them to schedule all of their Court Cases on their day off so they can draw OT. Oh you only had to go in for 15Mins to the courthouse? 4 Hours OT.... When you have as many people that apply for LE as you do, they pay to much. Couple that insane, unsustainable benefits packages and juice retirement, who wouldn't want to be a cop. With all these expensive liabilities, you better get out there and get some DUI's and Speeding tickets.....Your Pension is not going to pay for itself.
So for the TLDR. When shit gets bad, the the Cops who round up the undesirables. If cops would self regulate, then most of these issues would sort themselves out. Policing today is about making money (and supporting other industries who make money off it) not about keeping anyone safe.
As you can imagine, I dislike Police and LE. I have zero use for them. My rules when dealing with them are just about the same as the German:
- I don't trust the police
- I don't talk to the police
- I believe absolutely none of the bullshit the police try to tell me in order to get me to passively waive any rights to 'help' them regardless of the situation
- They do not have my best interests in mind
- Get a warrant
With respect to this site, I don't jump into the cop bashing. I have family, friends and coworkers or are LE. One one I actually respect because he would be the first one to tell you exactly what I just said. If you heard some of these stories your skin would crawl. It just so happens he is retired Army officer, Retired LE and a current FED. Personally, I would love to get in there and call out corruption and injustice, but that would be a one way ticket to banland. Ive made those concerns known in this thread and that is all I care to speak about on this subject.
I just ask, you take a look at the stuff that people are actually saying, instead of going right into a defensive Us vs Them stance. That is one of the root problems people are talking about in the first place.
I don't buy that. There are shitheads in EVERY field, but some self regulate.
I got lots of Family, Friends , Frat bros, ect who are cops. Most of them, I knew before they became cops.
It's not their mortality, its their training. They are TAUGHT this shit in the academies and it keeps getting pounded into them durring FTO and in subsequent training.
Want to know one of the big reasons there is a militarization of police. The Academies are run like Boot Camps. They treat them like basic training recruits and even use Military Instructors to run the academies.
One of my good buds got hired by Baltimore city police last year. Recently finished up the academy, and they took a nice, reasonable level headed guy and turned him into a dickhead. I love the dude to death, but its obvious as day the TRAINING is the issue here. They have instructors who do nothing but show videos of cops getting killed or beaten or mutilated, so the first thing a new recruit does is draw his Glock 22, pre-pull the trigger to the break point (yes they train them to take up the slack in the trigger) and get ready to fire first so they do not turn out like those dead cops in the video.
Or the other buddies who brag how after a shooting, they let the shithead just bleed out, Right wrong or indifferent, A cop's job is to save lives....No say, "not my job, EMT will clean up the mess" ... despite many hours of First Aid and wound management training. Then it turns out it's a bad shoot, but dead guys don't get to tell their side of the story and the department will just pay out. Back to business as usual.
When the only problem you are given is a Nail and every solution starts to look like a hammer. It's all about the attitude.
You go out looking for a fight, you are going to find yourself one soon enough.
Last edited:
Thats because where I come from, you don't get a trophy FOR DOING YOUR JOB.
That's what you are paid to do.
No one is asking for a fucking trophy but it doesn't seem too much to ask not to be labeled as a fucking douche when some fucking idiot on the other side of the fucking country does something stupid. Apparently that's too much to ask but I should concern myself with improving the image of LE nation wide. Sounds like pushing a rope uphill to me.
- It's the funny thing about this supposed "Us vs. Them" mentality that I apparently have (that I was unaware of until I visited the Bear Pit). Majority of the guys who say that cops have an "Us vs. Them" mindset are the ones who are most vocal about their dislike of cops. Weird.
Says the guy with a CAB as an avatar..........
I did not nor did I see where someone labeled him a douche? Not sure why you are projecting on me.
Sounds like he did a nice thing.... cool.
If you actually CARED, yes you would be trying to improve the image of LE. If you don't give a fuck and are just in it for the check and the power...why would you?
It's that Apathy that I talked about before.
Yep, because I ASKED to eat those IED's.............And then I wrote myself up for an award...........
Shoulda gave myself a Silver Star while at it.
By your line of thinking, you shouldn't have received anything because YOU WERE DOING YOUR JOB. Am I correct?
So slinky, does your avatar make you a pirate, a cop, or.....both? Or is it Mr Slaughter?
There is a pretty big difference between someone ELSE giving you an award. Something I have ZERO control over.
and
You bitching and moaning for a pat on the head and looking for recognition.
Not being able to understand the differences would put someone around sling blade on the IQ chart.
Pirate cop. Like a Viking cop, but better.
Somebody put you in for an award. Got it. You weren't looking for recognition, but somebody gave it to you. Got it. You don't think guys should get awards for DOING THEIR JOBS, yet have a CAB as an avatar. Got it.
Strange......I never once asked for recognition. Yet you say that I am "bitching and moaning for a pat on the head looking for recognition".
But hey, I'm just a dumb cop. I DO like french fried taters though.
Last edited:
Hey! That's cool! Obviously I'm not as computer savvy as some on here, but how do you edit a post without it saying that you edited the post? You know, like if I wanted to make a cute little comment - even after my original post was quoted and replied to? Maybe I should ask my middle school aged kid. Seems like some stuff kids his age would do.
Your the one calling me our for saying that people should not get a trophy for doing their job. Most old school people will agree. It shoot holes in the complaing that not LE is not given recognition when they do their job.
What should my Avatar be? You the Avatar police too?
What should my Avatar be? You the Avatar police too?
This is not true, I think most supporters of LEO's are genuinely concerned, if you are a LEO and think otherwise you are naive and part of the problem
I find humor in hypocrisy, that's all.
Avatar Police????? What type of pay, benefits, and retirement do they get? Do they accept laterals?
In all seriousness, keep your avatar. I understand what hell you had to go through to earn it. While you may not be asking for it.......Thank You.
Thanks for the kind words. Now get the hell out of MD and come south.
The only thing MD has going for it is Crabs and the Ravens.
The only thing MD has going for it is Crabs and the Ravens.
Am I naive in thinking that I don't have an "Us vs. Them" mentality, or that I think that most of the guys here who say cops have an "Us vs. Them" mentality are the ones who are most vocal about their dislike of cops? Or am I naive in thinking that most supporters of LE are not concerned? How can someone support the cops if they think the cops have an "Us vs. Them" mentality? Is it the "I support the troops, but not the war" argument?
I would HATE to live where some of you guys do. No positive interactions with the local cops? No shooting the shit? Nothing but negative interactions?
You have no idea how bad I want to move even further south. This state is a liberal shithole devolving further every day. If we don't get someone a bit less liberal in the Governor's office, we will be the California of the East Coast. The shore isn't like the "other side". Folks with common sense around here.
I was just in your area a few weeks ago. I'm not much on "big city" driving, so Arlington, Fairfax County, and DC about drove me up the wall.
EDIT: As for the Ravens...I'm just hoping I don't have to use my normal excuse of "Hey, it's a rebuilding year!"
Last edited:
I personally am kind of Neutral when it comes to LEO's , met 1 bad one out of a hundred or more that I have encountered, (mostly on the range or friends I grew up, never for getting arrested). I am saying, and probably could have said it better, that the us vs them attitude is not healthy for the long term relationship between the citizenship and LEO's and to think otherwise is naive.
MD is a LONG LONG lost cause. There is no fixing it short of genocide.
Born and Raised in the city, family all over Bcounty , AA and the Shore. Went to school at Salisbury, Was in the MDNG, worked at Aberdeen.
MD is a lost cause. Even as crazy as NOVA is, its leaps and bounds better than MD. Souther VA is MUCH nicer, cheaper and laid back. Richmond is a great city with plenty to offer.
People just carry themselves differently. You have the same hood trash and meth heads, illegals............the difference is when you go into a convenience store, you don't have to have 360 awareness at all times. The criminals down here know there is a good chance someone is carrying.
My interactions with the LE down here has been great as well. Much more laid back and lower numbers.
MD has more police per capita than anywhere in the US.... City/County/State/MTA/Metro Police/DNR/Feds/ect.........yet the crime rate is some of the highest in the nation.
It really is the epitome of "An armed society is a polite one."
I agree 1000000000000000000000000%. We don't always do ourselves any favors in the PR department. Sometimes we earn bad PR when we even do the right thing. Not everybody likes us. I'm OK with that. I try to remain firm but fair in my official interactions with the folks I serve. Some folks in my town hate my Department for something an officer did 30 years ago - and won't give any of us a chance to change his opinion. I'm OK with that too. I just hope they understand that when they need help, we'll be there without a second thought.
Similar threads
