Our Police

[Novis]

I've had my vehicle searched once when an officer asked and I obliged. He found the handgun I had a licence and aside from that, the most he could probably pin on me was having a messy car. Crumbs and the such. But to my knowledge you can ask what the officers reasoning is, though they aren't required to give any reason other than the implied suspicion, it is a way to test that officers character depending on their response and how they respond. I asked and he replied, "We have reports of a vehicle of this color that was involved in a local burglary." Now I admittedly don't know my law to well and there are ways to dispute an unwarranted search and in my mind I say, "What's to hide?"

Most officers will oblige any questions you ask. That I agree with. Does it really test an officers character, not really. Why? That's a pretty standard response. If an officer thinks there is something more than a simple vehicle match, they aren't going to say. It could place their life in danger. That's a pretty standardized protocol.

But it's a matter of principle at that point, privacy and the such. I mean you wouldn't let just anyone snoop around your vehicle or home, even friends. Hell even family. But I digress.

The rights of privacy. Again, that's not on police, that's on local law makers. You can't use that and pin that to your friendly neighborhood police officers. They have laws that pertain to them and what they are and aren't allowed to do. I can understand the inconvenience and the feeling of being like some point of your being is being violated in a sense, but like you I have to say, 'what is there to hide?' Yet, I have to think about all of the good can do?

Recently here in the local news, two police officers pulled over a car driving 60 in a 35 mph speed zone (Under law here, automatic auto search for anyone caught driving 15 miles over the speed limit) where they found nine fully automatic weapons, loaded, extra ammo in the trunk. Along with several hand guns. I'm not saying this is always the case. Again, I have to ask. A little bit of inconvinance to hopefully pull these kinds of things off the streets and out of the hands of people that have malicious intent?

That and @Goldmarble I agree with that last bit wholeheartedly, save for the sir part. Can't break the habit of calling every male equally or older than I am or holds some position of authority sir. I blame my years in the boy scouts.

I say yes Sir or Ma'am, regardless of WHO it is. I'm southerner, it's damned good manners. :)

 

[SlamifiedBuddafied]

I should note however I've had my vehicle searched while their was an ounce of a certain drug stashed under the drivers seat. He saw it. I know he saw. Why? I had a large sword in the back seat.

Officer: *stare. blink. stare*

Me: *returns gaze*

Officer: *shrugs. ends search*

Whatever the reasons I'm not sure entirely what his motives were, but he continued on his way and said not a word. Though I've only had my car searched three times. Once for the aforementioned search, second was sobriety checkpoint and I admitted to having two beers but was well within legal limits and a third time involving a pair of broadswords in my back seat, mentioned in this current post.

 

[Novis]

I should note however I've had my vehicle searched while their was an ounce of a certain drug stashed under the drivers seat. He saw it. I know he saw.

He didn't feel like doing the mountain of paperwork! ;p

 

[SlamifiedBuddafied]

He didn't feel like doing the mountain of paperwork! ;p

Over a minuscule amount. That was one of my first thoughts.

 

[Novis]

Over a minuscule amount. That was one of my first thoughts.

I've had a few friends that have similar stories. :) Mine are usually something like, I got pulled over for doing 98 in a 70 in Georgia a few summers ago and the State Trooper let me walk with a warning Ticket. :P

 

[Goldmarble]

This in fact isn't the fault of most police officers. That's in the fault of most state/local laws. It's presumed by more that they need a 'right' or a warrant, in many cases they don't. They are merely are working within the parameters of the laws they are given to work with. If they feel like they need to search your car while having you pulled over, if they feel there is something amiss, they can. They don't need a warrant or spoken reason to you to do so.

You want these kinda of things to change, the laws have to be changed. Pointing fingers at the Police at your rights being imposed upon will not change the situation.

Do I agree there are bad cops? Yup, there are. But the assumption of "Fuck the police" isn't so once you need them to come help you. :)

If the police are complicit with unjust laws, are they not at fault?

But yes, you are right, I made a mistake: If the Police has reasonable Suspicion, they may search my car. But I am going to demand a reason, as it is my right to know. I will of course, ask first.

The rights of privacy. Again, that's not on police, that's on local law makers. You can't use that and pin that to your friendly neighborhood police officers. They have laws that pertain to them and what they are and aren't allowed to do. I can understand the inconvenience and the feeling of being like some point of your being is being violated in a sense, but like you I have to say, 'what is there to hide?' Yet, I have to think about all of the good can do?

Recently here in the local news, two police officers pulled over a car driving 60 in a 35 mph speed zone (Under law here, automatic auto search for anyone caught driving 15 miles over the speed limit) where they found nine fully automatic weapons, loaded, extra ammo in the trunk. Along with several hand guns. I'm not saying this is always the case. Again, I have to ask. A little bit of inconvinance to hopefully pull these kinds of things off the streets and out of the hands of people that have malicious intent?

I have never liked this mindset of, "If you have done nothing wrong, then what is there to hide?"

Why? Because it is a direct infringement on the right to privacy, and I don't believe that should ever be the question asked. I ask, "If you have done nothing wrong, why should you be searched?"

I personally value my rights, and my freedoms, far more than the illusion of safety.

 

[Novis]

If the police are complicit with unjust laws, are they not at fault?

No. It isn't their job to decide what is and isn't considered unjust laws. Their job is to only enforce the laws that exist. It's the job of politicians to rewrite unjust laws.

I personally value my rights, and my freedoms far more, than the illusion of safety.

You're entitled to feel such.

Edit: I'm entitled then to my Illusion. :p

 

[Goldmarble]

No. It isn't their job to decide what is and isn't considered unjust laws. Their job is to only enforce the laws that exist. It's the job of politicians to rewrite unjust laws.

You're entitled to feel such.

Edit: I'm entitled then to my Illusion. :p

Now see, this is where things get a bit...unhinged.

Their job is, yes, to enforce the laws that exist. But as human beings, do they not have a responsibility to the people, to recognize unjust laws and refuse to enforce them?

For example: What lead to the Battle of Athens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) ). Can the deputies be excused, for following the orders of corrupt politicians and the Police Chief, when they actively fought to help keep a known corrupt Mayor in power?

Can "Just following orders" be used to excuse the actions of the Police during the rise of the Nazi Party in Post-Wiemar Republic Germany?

Police are not robots. They are human beings. They have morals. They know just laws from those which are unjust. When they chose to enforce laws which are unjust, are they not guilty of making that choice?



Finally, you're entitled to feel however you want, so long as you do not infringe on my rights and freedoms.

 

[Novis]

Now see, this is where things get a bit...unhinged.

Their job is, yes, to enforce the laws that exist. But as human beings, do they not have a responsibility to the people, to recognize unjust laws and refuse to enforce them?

For example: What lead to the Battle of Athens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) ). Can the deputies be excused, for following the orders of corrupt politicians and the Police Chief, when they actively fought to help keep a known corrupt Mayor in power?

Can "Just following orders" be used to excuse the actions of the Police during the rise of the Nazi Party in Post-Wiemar Republic Germany?

Police are not robots. They are human beings. They have morals. They know just laws from those which are unjust. When they chose to enforce laws which are unjust, are they not guilty of making that choice?



Finally, you're entitled to feel however you want, so long as you do not infringe on my rights and freedoms.

I'm honestly not going to debate or argue this. You are entitled to your opinion. As I am to mine. I'll draw the line here to say I agree to disagree with you. At this point, it's beating a dead horse. I've stated my opinion and WHY I feel such, and so have you. This isn't a debate thread. :)

Edit: Interpretation of Law is much like Beauty- there is no guarantee that a police officer will see the same law as you do as being 'unjust'.

 

[Halo]

In my opinion, I dislike people who look down on the police or call cops 'pigs'. It's just rude and disrespectful. The police are there to protect you and they risk their lives every day for you. They are the first person you would call for help if your house got burgled. Sure, there are some bad/corrupt cops out there but that doesn't necessarily mean that all cops are like that. From personal experience, the police here in the UK were very friendly and professional when I needed them.

The police in the UK and the police in the US are entirely different beasts.

I mean, I'm obviously biased as hell here, but the core difference I see is that the police here are regarded as an emergency service - like healthcare, or the fire service. In the US, there's a much more militant perspective on the role of the police, whether conscious or subconscious.

They're given guns, and then have the impression that their lives are constantly in danger hammered home over and over until they're paranoid as hell and feel a strong "THEM OR US" dichotomy between the public and themselves. They're told they're basically heading into a warzone everyday; that's what you imply by giving them guns and giving them the right to use them at their own discretion (yeah, in theory there's parameters, but they police are the ones deciding whether those parameters are met.) Those are the same conditions under which a soldier enters war, and the police are repeatedly told that the general public/criminals will basically treat them the way the local populace/insurgents treat soldiers in fucking Afghanistan.

Rather than being there to serve, they're seen as an authority over people (whether a just authority or a corrupt one is irrelevant; it's the fact that they're seen as an authoritative institution over people). That creates a very different dynamic between them and the public, on both the individual level and the broader one.

And I think that's part of what needs to change. The people feeling oppressed, whether justifiably or not, would not feel so were the police to both view themselves as and be viewed by others as public servants rather than authority with the right to impose and suppress. And those like the OP, who brush over the many, many issues with the police force out of fear, create exactly the same dynamic - they cry out for a protector and are willing to ignore problems ("they're nice guys, really! curse those anti-policers") in search of that, a dynamic that intrinsically hands off some absolute authority to said protector.

It would certainly create less resentment and friction if this dynamic were replaced with one in which the police are accountable public servants and not treated like an authority, like a military institution with the right to act at their own discretion. And it would hopefully stop the many, many cases of police overstepping their bounds and acting with authority they don't possess, violating peoples' rights in the process.

The police are part of the public. They are subject to them, there to serve them, but still part of them. From what I can see, in the US it's the direct opposite - they aren't considered part of the public, and the public is subject to them rather than the other way around.

Of course, the necessary change in perspective would have to be the result of a great many changes and shifts in society over there, and that's very unlikely to happen in the near future. I don't think this is an issue that's going to get better soon - if anything, it's just going to get worse before any improvement is seen.

 

[Cpt Toellner]

I was moving stuff from my old apartment to my house, just a few blocks. I was rocking out in my truck, no seat belt, only to come to an intersection where I saw two cops in a cruiser looking over at me. I reached over and clicked my seatbelt, then did this:

They got a good laugh and drove on.

 

[Ser K+]

I don't care.
Still going to start life off as a Policeman-Detective. (Of course with fun side jobs, Policing is stressful work.)

 

[LeVen]

I'm naturally wary around police officers, despite only being around the school security and one off duty officer. Not because of the police brutality. I'm just an anxious person.

A while ago, there was another police shooting, the guy did everything right and was doing his job as he should. Guy dies, because he was running from police and not following their orders. The media never accused him of being in the wrong (it was implied), and eventually stopped talking about it.

A year or so ago, a woman called the cops on either her brother or relative because of his actions. It went downhill from there and the guy was shoot and killed. The woman who called the cops said a completely different story and accused the cops of murder. The evidence was there and the guy I guess pulled out a gun on the police, so they shoot in self defense. Might I remind, the woman was the one who called in the first place. Wtf?

Tbh, if I have a gun and I get threatened with one I will shoot because I want to go home at night to my family. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Protagonist]

Now see, this is where things get a bit...unhinged.

Their job is, yes, to enforce the laws that exist. But as human beings, do they not have a responsibility to the people, to recognize unjust laws and refuse to enforce them?

No. Police cannot decide what is and isn't "just" except under very extreme circumstances.

Look at it the other way around: There have certainly been just laws that police officers may want to not enforce because they personally do not like them. We cannot have police taking the law into their own hands. That would defeat the entire point of having a code of laws.

 

[Halo]

A while ago, there was another police shooting, the guy did everything right and was doing his job as he should. Guy dies, because he was running from police and not following their orders. The media never accused him of being in the wrong (it was implied), and eventually stopped talking about it.

I will literally never understand the logic process that says "guy runs from police because he doesn't want to be arrested so they should shoot him." Since when do you shoot people in the fucking back as they run? Since when is that the job of the police, who are there to protect and serve? In this case they're doing neither of those things in any way, shape, or form.

This links back to my post about the police being treated, and given the right to act, as a militant authority. You die if you don't do as they say. They have the right to shoot you for not complying with commands they level at an essentially arbitrary level (the guy could have been innocent, for all we know.)

Reasonable self-defence, sure, shoot the guy. Don't aim to kill, but shoot the guy. But for running away from the people waving guns in their face? Seriously?

 

[SlamifiedBuddafied]

One thing I have gathered from this thread so far is that American police seem to have a different position of authority than police in other countries. But as with any law of man, error is a lesson to be learned and will not cease. Faults are inevitable and blame can go firing off in any direction as the gun shall do. Though I've been taught by some officers if you're going to shoot, shoot to neutralize the threat, not to kill the threat. I know only one officer who has killed a man in the line of duty and that's all she could think about for months, she killed somebody. She blamed herself because she didn't know what would happen. Yes the suspect was armed, safety off and gun in his hand; logic would dictate shoot but even then it is a burden which can severely demoralize a person for life.

I cringe at the idea of having to kill another man, but then again I've never been put into a situation where I had to choose between another life and mine.

This links back to my post about the police being treated, and given the right to act, as a militant authority. You die if you don't do as they say. They have the right to shoot you for not complying with commands they level at an essentially arbitrary level (the guy could have been innocent, for all we know.)

Reasonable self-defence, sure, shoot the guy. Don't aim to kill, but shoot the guy. But for running away from the people waving guns in their face? Seriously?

This is part of a point. It doesn't seem necessary to kill any person who is running. Yet I can only wonder how that officer justified and thought about the act for years to come.

Interpretation of Law is much like Beauty- there is no guarantee that a police officer will see the same law as you do as being 'unjust'.

Too true.

 

[Halo]

@SlamifiedBuddafied - sorry, but I don't care how much police officers are "really really sorry, you guys" about shooting people.

With the obvious exception of the case of justifiable self-defense or defense of others, i.e. where there is a confirmed and certain threat to someone's long-term wellbeing, there is no excuse for the police shooting anybody. It doesn't matter how guilty they feel afterwards - that's no justification! Poor them, they feel bad. The person they fricking killed, and their families, are the victims, and no amount of feeling sorry about it is going to change the impact of what the officer did. I'm sure they do feel bad, but that does absolutely nothing to dissipate the responsibility of what they did. I'd love to see the day when a murderer in the court of law tells the judge they feel super bad about it, and they get off scot-free on that basis.

And when it comes to people's lives, sorry, but brushing it off as 'mistakes happen' is fucking despicable (if I've misinterpreted what you said, tell me; it wasn't entirely clear, but this is how I read your post). When it comes to murdering someone, there can be no mistakes. It's their goddamn job not to make mistakes - the gun should not ever, ever be "firing off in any direction." If a mistake happens, that sucks for everybody involved, but I guarantee it sucks more for the person who got shot, and again: the fact that it was an accident does nothing to detract from the officer's responsibility for the action they took.

 

[LeVen]

Reasonable self-defence, sure, shoot the guy. Don't aim to kill, but shoot the guy. But for running away from the people waving guns in their face? Seriously?

True. I can understand the logic, but I've never been in the situation so I can't really say what is right or wrong

 

[SlamifiedBuddafied]

@SlamifiedBuddafied - sorry, but I don't care how much police officers are "really really sorry, you guys" about shooting people.

I said not one thing about being sorry. One can ponder on the thoughts of killing a man and stress over it without being sorry. As you imply in your following statement in that post. Probably something I should have emphasized on. Though I believe guilt and feeling "sorry" can be two different categories. Guilt implies one is guilty of a crime, fictitious or real and they know what happened in whatever the situation may be. Remorse on the other hand is the act of knowing what you did was wrong, though still implying guilt it is placed in a different light.

Though that's a bit touchy and can be based on bad logic as a person and act one way but be another.

Edit: In the end killing is killing, the rest is circumstantial and conjecture.

 

[ᴛᴏᴄᴋᴀ]

I won't lie and say I've never dealt with asshole cops before. I used to live in a horrible neighborhood, but I had just graduated from high school and it was all I could afford on my own. I didn't have a car, so I had to take the bus to work. One day I was standing at the bus stop outside the little corner store at the top of my street which was known to be the drug dealer's hot spot, and one of them asked me for a cigarette. Being the naive little 17 year old I was, I didn't think anything of it, and handed him a cigarette, then went about my wait for the bus. Not five seconds later a cop pulls over accusing me of being a prostitute. o.o Started asking if the guy solicited me for sex, or if I propositioned him. Mind you I was dressed in my work clothes which was a pair of black slacks, a white button up shirt and a bow tie (I bussed tables at a five star restaurant....) After accusing me of accepting money for sex....he asked for my ID and I gave it to him. He checked if I had any warrants, which I didn't, and then asked if he could frisk me. Needless to say I let him, just because I wanted to see him look like the asshole that he was when he realized all I had on me was my cigarettes, bus pass, and a few bucks for dinner.

Yes, there are asshole cops out there, but there are good ones as well. I had one a few weeks ago who helped me jump start my car when my battery died at the gas station. And a few who have come to my door when there's an accident in front of my house asking if I minded if the people involved in the accident waited in my drive way for tow trucks. They're people like everyone else, you have your nice guys, and your douche bags. =/