Cops tick me off

People often get confrontational or overly nervous with cops, too, which gets their hackles up.

Really??? hehe

Hey, anyone here who "hates the police" want to start a petition to get a tax break in return for giving up your police protection rights? The only problem is, if your house is ever robbed, or if someone is ever pointing a gun at you, or if you're ever in a hit-and-run, and so on... you're on your own. So if you're lucky, it's just a tax break!! (If you're not lucky, you're dead or poor, though.) Sound good to anyone? (Silly people!)

Erm..yeah, asshole cops out there suck ass, but blanket statements like "I HATE COPS" don't make any sense. It's like saying you "hate all whites" or "hate all lawyers". (Well, the latter perhaps does deserve big frowns directed at them at minimum..)

Sounds great to me, assuming that the epsilon semi-morons running our government allow us to defend ourselves effectively.

lol, How come I knew people would go for this idea?

Actually Garoad, there was an urban neighborhood in NY that did something similar. They told the city government that they did not want the police to patrol their neighborhood. It was the result of a few people, with very strong anti-police feelings convincing the rest of the people who live there, of the advantages they would have by not having this government intervention where they live.

So they got their wish. It was decided that no officers would drive down their streets, patrol the areas, or respond to calls there. The people who lived there were happy with this until the first burglary occured a few weeks later. They came home to find the aftermath of this burglary that their commune's neighborhood watch failed to prevent. The victims called the police who promptly them told that they are no longer responsible for their neighborhood and would be sending no one to take a report, collect evidence, etc. The people then called their insurance company who refused to process their claim without a police report.

So..... be careful what you wish for

ha my favorite subject.

My husband is a police officer. He brought this home from work one day. Puts things in a different perspective.

Me, the Lousy Cop

Well, Mr Citizen, I guess you've figured me out. I seem to fit neatly in the category where you've placed me.

I am stereotyped, characterized, standardized, classified, grouped and always typical. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true-I can never figure you out.

From birth you teach your children I am the bogeyman, and then you're shocked when they identify with my traditional enemy, THE CRIMINAL.

You accuse me of coddling juveniles until I catch your kid doing something wrong.

You may take an hour for lunch and several coffee breaks each day, but point me out as a loafer i fyou catch me having just one cup.

You pride yourself on your polished manners, but think nothing of disrupting my meals with your troubles.

You raise hell with the guy who cuts you off in traffic, but let me catch you doing the same thing and I'm picking on you. You know all the traffic laws, you've never gotten a single ticket you deserve.

You shout FOUL if you observe me driving fast to an emergency call, but raise hell if I take more than ten seconds to respond to your call.

You call it part of my job if someone strikes me, but its police brutality if I strike back.

You would not think of telling your dentis how to pull a badly decayed tooth, or your doctor how to take out your appendix, but are always willing to give me a few pointers on the law.

You talk to me in a manner that would assure a bloody nose from anyone else, but expect me to take it without batting an eye.

You cry "something has got to be done about all the crime" but you can't be bothered getting involved.

You have no use for me atall, but of course, it's okay if I change a flat tire for your wife, and deliver your child in the back seat of my cruiser on the way to the hospital, or save your son's life with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, or work hours of overtime looking for your lost daughter.

So, Mr Citizen, you stand there on your soabox and rant and rave about the way I do my work, calling me every name in the book, but never stopping to think that your property, your family or maybe even your life depends on me or one of my buddies. Yes, Mr Citizen, it's me, the lousy cop.

In 1955, a contest was announced in the Los Angeles Police Department's internal magazine, BEAT. The contest involved devising a motto for the Los Angeles Police Academy.

The winning entry, "to protect and to serve" , was submitted by Officer Joseph S. Dorobek and served as the LAPD academy's motto until, by City Council action, it became the official motto of the entire Los Angeles Police Department in 1963. They even painted the motto on the side of the patrol cars.

The problem is - that officers are no longer trained to serve.

Protect yes, their life and their partner’s first, innocent civilian second and perpetrators of crime last. High tech gadgetry and obligatory enforcement of victimless crimes separate them from the community instead of immerse them.

Thanks to overly zealous (and politically ambitious) prosecutors, greedy and corrupt city officials and ruthless politicians, the police have become tools. No more and no less. It’s no longer called “Police Work”; it’s called “Law Enforcement”. They have been cast into a role that demands blind and emotionless enforcement of law. Just the facts Ma’am.

The problem is, they're human. Humans have opinions, make mistakes and have agendas of their own. There is no incentive however, on behalf of cities, courts, trainers, media or corporations to address this aspect of "police work". Because of that, you wind up with twelve guys pounding the shit out of some guy at a traffic stop.

I watched the Rodney King videos and yes, I think they initially stopped him because he was black. But they beat the shit out of him because he would not do what they told him to. It was about control and fear of losing control.

Yes, they give them psychological screening - oriented toward how well they can divorce themselves from their own emotions so that they can "control" a situation. So what kind of people do you think will fall best through that screen? Maybe people who like to "control"?

Police are not evaluated on how well they are respected in their community (though perhaps they should be). They are evaluated on how many perps they bring in, how well the convictions stick and how low the crime statistics are. The more impersonal they become the more they are rewarded. Who gives a shit if the person they haul in is really guilty when only the statistics matter?

Of course, now that personal property can be seized and ultimately put into municipal pockets there is even more incentive for abusive behavior. So just remember, the more power we give the politicians to make laws like this, the more they will use law enforcement as a tool to bulldoze your rights (and maybe your house).

I guess my point here is maybe you should take a closer look at the laws behind the badge enforcing them. In the meantime, remember that the person behind the badge is a human - trained to act like robo cop. Not always a great combination.

.

Rose,

Police officers are trained to serve their community through the protection of personal safety and property. Once you boil it all down, that is the core of what they are trying to do. There are times when various "quality of life" crimes are heavily enforced because people get fed up with problems they see and want to know why they have to put up with it. The enforcement of victimless crimes usually comes from a community desire to not be confronted with things they deem to bad. They don't want to have to see Joe Blow smoking a joint in the park, or Jimmy Beam peeing on the side of a car in a tavern parking lot, or drive by Hugh Grant's car with a hooker's head bobbing up and down in his lap. So the call goes out to make these things stop and they work on reducing them.

As far as control goes, cops are trained to take control of situations and there are many reasons for this. People expect them to take control and are confused if they do not. Cops are more likely to get hurt if they do not have control of persons involved in an incident. Cops who are unable to take control of people (and this is done almost exclusively through talking to them) don't make it through training. If you let them through training they are a liability that is going to blow up in someone's face. The best you can hope for, with a cop who cannot take control of a situation, is that the only person who gets hurt is them and not the other officers, who are operating under the assumption that said officer has control of his/her area of responsibility, or a member of the public who is operating under the assumption that the police are not going to let someone hurt them because they are there protecting them.

The police do have an order in which they prioritize safety. It goes personal safety, partner's safety, public safety, and suspect safety. This goes back to a basic training doctrine that you can't help anyone if you get incapacitated. This is not exclusive to police work, the fire department and ambulance services operate under this doctrine as well. If their is a bar fight where someone is bleeding profusely, the ambulance will stage in the area waiting for the police to arrive and bring the situation under control. Then they will move in provide medical care. If the police are still 10 minutes away, the victim will sit there and bleed. Ambulance services have the policy that they are there to provide medical care not break up fights. If their personnel disregard this policy, they are likely to find themselves looking for another job and their agency will not support them if they get hurt while disregarding policy.

Police evaluations generally are completed in line with how the officer carries forth the mission of the department. If it's a state traffic agency, they are going to want to see lots of traffic stops and "paper contacts." If it is a smaller municipality, they are likely to value numerous local ordinance tickets (and traffic tickets written under ordinances mirroring state laws) because of the revenue that can bring into the town. If it is a metropolitan agency, the largest emphasis is liable to on bigger arrests and status arrests (gang related, weapon related, drug dealer related) because these things can be used to show a City Council/Mayor what a good job they are doing when they ask for a bigger budget next year. Trying to evaluate someone on how they are respected in the community would be very difficult, if not impossible. It's too subjective and prone to manipulation, or abuse, to further the career of whoever the golden haired child of (insert favorite gov't office/community group here). It also tends to not separate those who are doing their jobs from those who grab a squad car and go on patrol only to turn it in 8 hours later with no one having heard from them all shift. If there are no standards, then there is no performance.

As for politicians passing laws, they pass the laws the public supports. Good or bad, if a law is favored by their constituency they will bring it forth. Recently, in my state, a bill was brought forth to address a feral cat problem. The legislators from this area introduced and pushed the law saying that property owners may kill feral cats that come onto their property. The governor said that, no matter what the legislature does, he would not sign the bill because he did not want our state to become known as "that place where they shoot cats." The law was a bad idea all around. I mean, if your pet runs out the door and wanders into your neighbor's yard, do you really want the neighbor to shoot it. "Oh I guess Fluffy wasn't feral... hard to see the collar and tags from fifty yards out and sighting down the barrel of my shotgun."

As for prosecutors, they want a high win percentage. It looks good when they apply for their next job. "Vote Jimmy Noose for District Attorney. With a 105% conviction rate, he gets all the criminals and then some!" Of course, these high rates are usually achieved through selective prosecution. If the Public Defender's Officer we're allowed to this you would hear things like, "Well Timmy I'd like to defend you, but I'm not sure I can get you off sooo.... you're on your own." This doesn't apply to high profile cases that are going to garner media attention. If the prosecutor gets to be on the news then they'll take a chance and prosecute a cause they may feel they only have a 60% chance of winning. As for regular prosecutions, ask a rape victim with no physical injuries or witnesses to support her. She'll get a letter of non-prosecution stating that, while they are not saying that she is being untruthful, they don't feel that there is enough evidence to ensure a conviction of the suspect. It happens all the time, give them a case that is 95%+ winnable, in front of a jury, or it will never make it that far.

So our system does have it's drawbacks, but it usually manages to get the right thing done.... most of the time anyway


Ack!!! I think Prok has made shorter posts!

I agree with most of your post. Someone who is responding to an emergency situation has to be in control. I did not mean to imply that they shouldn't be. My point was more in line with the need for average people to see the police doing more than just responding to emergency situations. I realize that with municipal budgets cut to the bone that this is not feasible but then again, when so many average law abiding citizens distrust the police so much, how can it just be ignored?

With regard to: The enforcement of victimless crimes usually comes from a community desire to not be confronted with things they deem to bad.

I have so much less sympathy for this. Most of the people who avocate laws against vice are generally just a bunch of busy NIMBY's who don't want to expend the tax dollars or allocate the property to get to the root of the problem (usually a lack of jobs and drug (or other) treatment programs).

We had a lot of homeless people on the streets here in Fort Lauderdale and the city tried to build a new shelter not too far from my house. The neighborhoods went into a tizzy and circulated a petition to stop it from happening. Property devaluation, crime, blah, blah, blah.

Needless to say, I did not sign said petition. The homeless shelter did get built (in my neighborhood and near the downtown) and things have improved considerably because of it! It's much nicer to walk around now. It's a nice shelter too, with programs to help people find jobs and get treatment.

Campaigns to round up hookers and drug addicts are just that, campaigns for ambitious politicians. Police should not be used this way. It pits them against the local community and it endangers their lives needlessly.



Unfortunately, I think it is the police that take the hit for this miscarriage of justice more often than not.

I guess I don't believe anymore that our system gets it right most of the time. I just have seen too many really good people leave law enforcement, too many innocent people who even though proven innocent, have ended up losing everything they owned to defend themselves and too many guilty people let off with just a shrug.

Most of this is because government and the criminal justice system have become much more interested in becoming independent, financially self-sustaining entities than they are in serving the public. Not that the public isn't largely responsible for this, because they are. Nevertheless, it's sad.

.

I agree it would be nice to see the police doing more to assist the communities they work for. But, this can also go badly with the tight budgetary matters. There are police departments out there that struggle to maintain bare minimum staffing for patrol shifts while keeping special projects positions (school liaison, community policing, etc.) full. As much as the community programs generate positive press, they can never replace field officers; the backbone of any police agency.

Campaigns to round up hookers, drug addicts, etc. are often advocated by politicians, but they do so because it will increase their popularity with the voters. These same voters want to keep these things illegal and expect them to be kept under control. If you don't think so, start a campaign to legalize prostitution in your state and see how that goes. People don't want these things in their lives and the most popular method they have for controlling them is the law.

I agree that the police often take the hit for other parts of the criminal justice system (and for that matter other elements of government) because they are a highly visible enforcement arm. They wear uniforms, drive marked cars, and are given privileges to use force when voluntarily legal compliance isn't happening. All these things makes them a target since they are the ones tasked with enforcing the laws, breaking up unlawful assemblies, and trying out various strategies to reduce crime.

I also agree that law enforcement should never be a "for profit" exercise. But the public expects a standard of service and policing is not cheap. Since no one wants to see a raise in their taxes, but still want someone available to help them in their hour of need, alternatives have been found to help finance. Heck, the City of San Diego bills everyone for expenses for police work. You should see what they charge if they use a helicoptor to track you on your run from the police. This is all in addition to criminal charges. I don't really agree with this way of handling police work, but I understand why we are going in that direction.

I'm glad this turned around from the COP bashing that it started as. These are the people who risk their lives (mostly) to protect people like us, who constantly speak poorly of them.

Several members of my family are police officers, I hear their pain when they speak of some of the things that are said to their faces, and it always angers me when I hear the bashing going on.

But, everyone is welcome to their opinion, which strangely, changes when a crime hits their family or friends.

Joseph

With a couple of minor exceptions, I don't see outright cop bashing here. Many respondants disclaimed that they know that the vast majority of cops are good cops.

This thread is a solicitation for bad cop stories, hence, we are reading bad cop stories. I would imagine that if someone started a thread soliciting good cop stories, we would probably have no problem filling several pages with just that.

As with anything in life, since we expect cops to be good, we tend to not remember as vividly the good stories, because this is the norm we expect. Such is the human condition, the negatives makes a greater mark in our memories.

So if someone started a thread about a bad customer service experiences, we would get bad customer service stories, because there are some less than desirable people working in customer service, and people remember this a lot more versus the norm we expect.

I seem to remember a "I HATE COPS" and a couple of "pigs" thrown in, if mistaken, my apologies.

You're right, two people did say "hate", one seemed serious, and the other was saying it tongue in cheek.

One did say "pigs", as well. That's two out of quite a few respondants, so I personally wouldn't call this thread cop bashing.

As for myself, I have a few bad cop stories, but I don't hate police. I was raised around them - my dad had several friends who were cops, I have relatives who are MPs, and in High School, my best friend's dad was the Chief of Police in our city. So, I definately know and appreciate what they do.

I do think, however, that problem cops should be dealt with swiftly, sternly and with 100% transparency, especially if they display a pattern of misuse of position. Problem cops are a large part of the reason that cops in general get a bad rap at times, so it really makes sense to have a serious disciplinary policy - it's beneficial to both the police and the rest of society to do so.

The fact that cops frequently get paid while on disciplinary leave does not help things either. Speaking for myself, that practice disgusts me, because its like a free paid vacation.

We place a lot of trust in the police, especially by virtue of empowering them over normal citizens. There is no justification for giving them a couple weeks off with pay if they have abused that trust and power, especially if, like I alluded to above, it's a pattern.

This is a big issue for me, partially because we had a cop, in a city I lived in a few years ago, who got away with abuse for many years. The whole town buzzed about it everytime he pulled another one of his stunts. The one episode that comes to mind first, is when he stopped a an old man for a moving violation. He made the man get in the felony position at gunpoint while screaming at him like a drill sergeant. He got a nice 2 week paid vacation. Bleh.

If a teen working at McDonald's loses his cool one day, and starts screaming at the other staff or customers, he will likely lose his job, but a cop who has all that responsibilty and trust placed in them gets paid leave. I don't get it.

Sorry, but IMO, you are comparing apples to oranges. A person working at McDonald's doesn't deal with a quarter of the stress that police officers do. That analogy doesn't even cut it for me.

Being paid while on disciplinary leave is the same as being innocent until proven guilty. Investigations go into each disciplinary incident to see what action should be taken.

I am not taking up for the bad cops, yeah there are some no doubt about it. But think about it...you screw up at work one day, what could happen? For me, I might miss an SLA. A cop screws up, someone could get hurt or some criminal could get away. They are human, they are going to make mistakes.

We don't know what is going on with that cop either. Maybe they had a bad day...maybe they just saw someone die in an accident. Or maybe they saw someone get shot. Or maybe they just had a foot chase with some dirtbag that robbed an old lady and they couldn't catch him. Or maybe someone ran them over with a car. Or better yet, maybe someone with HIV or Hepatitis bled all over them while they were trying to do their job.

Their emotions don't stop when they put on a vest, gun belt and badge.

My gratitude for police officers extends only to those who don't abuse their authority. I will not give any cop a free pass to act like a dick just because he's wearing blue. To suggest that we should is disgraceful to the millions of cops who've worn the uniform and acted honestly and appropriately.

Wow, I like this thread more now. And Blayze that first post was pretty cool.

No, they don't stop, but there is also a reason not just anyone can be a cop. They are supposed to be able to remain more cool under pressure than the average person. They are supposed to be able to check themselves if they are having a bad day. In their line of work, they cannot be allowed to take out their bad day on civilians.

Let's also not forget that when a cop decides to become a cop, he has to realize certain things. The danger, the immense responsibilty, etc. I won't pity them the risks that come with a conscious decision they made with regard to how they want to live their life. People giving you a hard time and the like comes with the territory, after all, their nemesis is called a criminal for a reason, they're not nice people. it isn't working at Baskin Robbins.

I think we may agree more than we disagree. It was a poor analogy, was in a hurry when I wrote it, and it didn't convey my thoughts accurately.

I agree with you 100% about the nature of the job being more serious. This is why I say that disciplinary action should be tougher for them. I think it should be closer to how the military handles discipline. They have a much larger responsibilty to the community, and therefore must be held to higher standards, because, as you said, someone could get hurt if they freak out at work. A guy at McDonald's, a cog in the machine that is America, whose sole responsibility to society (when he is at work) is to make and serve fast food, faces more risk for fucking up than a cop, whose "having a bad day" can lead to dire consequences.

I do realize they review situations, but in the case of the cop I was referring to, he was never disciplined beyond his little vacations. That is wrong IMHO.

I should also note that this particular cop didn't have a very stressful job compared to many other cops. He drove around in a upper middle class suburb inventing crimes and overreacting.

Ouch! I just love those things.

That's because they don't want to be fingered as a suspect.

Oops, I didn't mean "first post", I meant I liked this one.

awww thanks...

and Nolan, I do understand where you are coming from, my intention is that there are just other things going on that we don't see.

Trust me, I didn't see it until my husband graduated from the police academy. I can't tell you how many times we have been out and my husband won't walk with us. Why? Because there is someone in the mall or store that he locked up. Or the times we have gone to eat somewhere and walked out for the same reason. The best one was when 2 guys that he locked up were working in the kitchen of a restaurant and came out to stare at us. We just got up and left.

So even when they aren't on duty, they are on duty. There is no "downtime" for him. We live in a town but the road behind us, there is a lot of rentals. One of the owners there rents for Section 8 housing *state subsidized*. Well, the one chick living there decided to moon us after he graduated from the police academy because she hates pigs. So this chick hung her fat, 40 year old, cottage cheesed up ass out her back door. Hell she is lucky I didn't shoot her just for the nightmares that sight gave me. LOL

Ugh, gross. And I hadn't even considered that aspect of being a cop, it's sortof like being a celebrity....only in reverse.

in the UK a cop can get away with speeding at 159Mph

yet i get a fucking fine and 3 points for 39Mph

In my town:

I find it funny that I can drive down a highway and see 12 cops posted at intersection speed traps; yet when you drive through the "bad" part of town, not a cop to be seen...prostitutes walking, open drug deals, muggings.
Seems that fighting crime is not as lucrative as collecting speeding tickets...

For me:
Firemen ROCK!
Paramedics ROCK!
Sanitation Workers ROCK!
Cops BITE THE WEENIE!

Truthfully Police people, I can protect myself in 2 seconds, you can protect me in half an hour minimum...and I've never seen a criminal who will wait that long. Oh, but I'm sure you will file a really nice incident report over my dead body, or make sure you have all the details of my wife's rape perfectly documented right before you tell us that the chances of catching the guy are slim...Go have a doughnut, I have guns to clean.

Update: I went to lunch today and found an actual use for cops...Directing Traffic, they totally shit on that old lady that used to be the crossing guard at my middle school...I mean one guy was stopping the traffic in one lane, while advancing the traffic in another AT THE SAME TIME!!! Woot! Job Skillz!