The only thing that bothers me is the good cops generally wont call onto the carpet a cop who has bad behavioral traits because of some "I ain't no snitch" code the police collective has.
Although, it should not imply the next level of continuous whistle-blowing for irrelevant problems, just like turning everyone in the office in for ethics complaints from reciting last nights SNL skits should not happen.
In an office if you know a person takes few pens home now and again do you rat them out. No, it would be a silly thing to do so over. If they are embezzling 50k a year, then you have to.
The problem cops have this loyalty to each other and recognizing when one should be a rat verses when one should not becomes very murky because of it. At least that is from my observations.
They are mostly just people who are trying to do what they believe to be right.
When I embezzle a roll of toilet paper from the office, I generally run through the halls, yelling, "MWAHAhaha! I am embezzling toilet paper!" People pop out of their offices to applaud/shake their heads sadly. I often get comments on what an embezzlement piker I am.
Well you didn't actually disagree. You said that their natural loyalty makes it harder to recognize bad cops. That is different from not doing something about a bad cop when they are recognized. I think that that is nonsense by the way. Cops by virtue of their training should be the first to recognize illegal activity. They intentionally turn a blind eye to it to avoid being a rat.
But that's a technicality. If you are in a job where public lives depend on your integrity and you choose to turn a blind eye to corruption then you are yourself corrupt. If a cop knows another cop is bad and does nothing he is a bad cop and an evil human being.
Ratting a person out has consequences to the person being ratted out and the one who does the ratting.
Does not matter what your job is. No special requirements or consideration need be applied because they serve the public, that's a double standard and wrong to even consider.
A person has to evaluate what they think the consequences are and decide if they rat out the other person or do not.
Do you break a law to catch a guy you know has raped and will rape again, or do you let him get away and rape again?
I do not agree that a person is corrupt because they choose either of those choices, or corrupt by association.
So by the same logic Reardon was corrupt for selling his metal to Danager and Danager was corrupt for agreeing to get it. Anyone else who knew about it but did not report it was corrupt for not reporting it. Sounds like 1935 in Germany to me, in or out of a police department.
It has consequences for the person being ratted out. It only has consequences for the one who does the ratting if the culture of the organization excuses criminal activity but abhors ratting.
They take an oath to uphold the law. If they have a colleague breaking the law, and they know it and do nothing, at the very least they have violated their oath.
The Reardon example is completely irrelevant. Reardon never denied breaking the law. He admitted to doing activity that was illegal. He knew it was illegal when he did it. He won by naming the fact that it shouldn't be illegal.
It has nothing to do with Nazi Germany in 1935. It has to do with upholding the laws that police swore to do and protecting the public as they swore to do. And a police culture that places a higher value on silence than it does on goodness.
The irony is that maintaining the silence ultimately hurts the police in the long term as the public no longer trusts them.
On a separate point, ratting some one out has consequences in every culture no matter what the culture is. It could glorify ratting (1935 Germany) and you get food and praise for doing so, also true in Soviet Union. It could vilify it or it could not even care about it. Even in a society where ratting is rewarded other people will very quickly identify that hay, if I do some minor thing this guy is going to tell everyone, and others will then react accordingly to protect themselves, even if its just to protect their privacy. This effect is in place no mater what society recognizes about the subject.
I did -1 you for this because it is such an obvious bad argument that anyone should be able to recognize it.
Consequences always exist for every action, or inaction a person takes or does not take. Sometimes minor in nature but always exist.
1) Blinders are convenient for you. Cops are being asked and trained to do things they should not accept or do and cops who ignore those things are breaking the law. That has everything to do with Nazi Germany it is how Nazi power and control was established.
2) The Reardon example is completely relevant to the point I am making which is that laws are currently broken and cops are asked to follow laws and have attitudes they should not have.
3) You and I are not even in the same conversation I am in. You are talking about obvious breaking of natural law. IE Cop pulls his gun shoots a guy and covers it up. I am not. I am talking about some procedural crap that is in place and perhaps should or should not be followed. The obvious stuff is just that obvious and need not be discussed.
Well clearly we are not in the conversation as one could not imagine more ridiculous conclusions to draw than the three you just drew.
Well your response tells me three things.
"1) Blinders are convenient for you. Cops are being asked and trained to do things they should not accept or do and cops who ignore those things are breaking the law. That has everything to do with Nazi Germany it is how Nazi power and control was established."
Now YOU are in a completely different conversation. We are talking about police corruption and police doing illegal things and you are arguing that they should be breaking the law. That is a complete non sequiter from the rest of the discussion and from the topic at top.
"2) The Reardon example is completely relevant to the point I am making which is that laws are currently broken and cops are asked to follow laws and have attitudes they should not have."
Wow. Now you are really off the deep end and in the lala land of a completely different conversation. My point has been that cops that ignore and tolerate bad and corrupt behavior are themselves bad cops. The concept really isn't that difficult to understand although it might be for an obvious moral relativist like yourself.
You now seem to be saying that bad and corrupt behavior by cops is good because it's analogous to what Reardon and Danager did in breaking the law about metal sales. I'm sorry but a cop ignoring or tolerating the fact that another cop is a thief, or beat a suspect, or shot an innocent unarmed person is completely different from Reardon and Danager violating laws that they believe shouldn't exist. But hey - I guess your Nazi gestapo snitch analogy means that cops should ignore any misbehavior by other bad cops. I hope you're not a cop but am beginning to wonder.
"3) You and I are not even in the same conversation I am in. You are talking about obvious breaking of natural law. IE Cop pulls his gun shoots a guy and covers it up. I am not. I am talking about some procedural crap that is in place and perhaps should or should not be followed. The obvious stuff is just that obvious and need not be discussed."
You finally realized that you are having a conversation different than the rest of the people in this thread/topic? Duh. Captain Obvious. Or is it Police Captain Obvious. Did you even read the article at the top. It is talking about the statistics about cop misbehavior in serious violent ways and the poster made the statement that cops are not the bad guys. I responded to that and said that some of them are the bad guys. And those among the police that tolerate those bad guys are bad guys as well. Pretty simple concepts.
As a former one of them I can state for a fact that some of the bad ones get a cover up for their acts which makes those that protect them part of that one percent. Since it was my case I objected to having my evidence tampered with to protect a friend or whatever. I had no problem of all in an interview with IAD (internal affairs) never did hear the outcome .The accused walked, last I heard those who tampered walked, I was laid off prior to that. But not before the IAD. No question the department was dirty.
The three victims. One in wheel chair for life. two on crutches for a long time and all three permanently disabled. I made sure the families had what they needed for the civil route.
The rest of the experience was positive. come to think of it that was just a hair more than one percent of my cases requiring a court appearance. Lo these near forty years ago.
Didn't bother to read your post past this line "Now YOU are in a completely different conversation" since you need to re-read the article that was posted, or more likely read it for the first time. Also the title kinda gives it away as well.
This thread was not about corrupt police but about the fact that they are being targeted for blame by the left.
It seems to me that you may have more in common with this guy than you have in common with me on the subject of police.
Any stop could get them killed. Were I in there shoes I too would consider anyone an adversary until proven wrong. It is the only way you could be and not end up dead.
You are not in the situation where the cop is likely to kill you. The cop is in a situation where they stop people that are likely to kill them. To compare the two is a very apples to oranges comparison.
Actually the people they stop are not likely to kill them. That's absurd and demonstrably false. Do you know how many traffic stops there are a year? Versus how many result in violence from the person being stopped?
There are something like 17 million people stopped at traffic stops every year in the US. In 2014, there were a total of 126 police officers total killed in the line of duty. That's every part of the line of duty - FBI, swat raids, apprehension of fugitives, responding to robberies and violent crimes, etc.
From the national law enforcement officer memorial fund: 56 of those were shot by firearms. 49 were traffic related incidents (like car crashes or being struck by a car). The number one single cause was ambush assaults of police officers at 15 of the 56 above.
The odds of a police officer actually being killed by a civilian during a traffic stop are comparable to the odds of you being killed by a police officer. Depending on how you slice the numbers they are both close to 1:300,000. Neither is a "likely" event.
I am at risk of them abusing their authority. Of them searching me or my car without probable cause. With them responding with force or violence if I make it clear that I understand my constitutional rights.
"It is the only way you could be and not end up dead." It's a dangerous job. Anyone's interaction with a stranger is potentially dangerous. We don't respond by avoiding going outside (we do with kids, but that's another sad development) and having our guns on feather trigger any time we talk to a stranger.
Isn't it strange that the "I ain't no snitch" mentality is precisely the same as the bad guys and gang members? The police are more like a fraternity that automatically gives slack to fellow brothers and sisters (mostly brothers). I'd say that 90% of police are good people doing a difficult job to the best of their ability. However, it's that bad 10% that defines them, which is unfortunate. If the current wave of cop killings grows, it will cause an increase in lawlessness as the police hold back in order to keep themselves out of danger. This is right up the alley of those who wish to foment revolution and the dissolution of American freedom. If this builds to martial law, stick a fork in America -- it's done.
It doesn't even need to be martial law in any formal sense. The most likely endgame I see is one where cops in America behave like the cops in most of Latin America always have -- they stand around on street corners armed with machine guns, and if you attract their attention you will probably regret it, because they don't like you. And you have to bribe them to get any help at all from them.
So, I've read the referenced article, the referenced WaPo data base, and the comments on this post. I then compared the WaPo data against another data base, "Killed By Police - 2015". The two data bases are dramatically different with WaPo making the cops look much less dangerous, much more justified in their actions, and report significantly less fatalities. A couple of points I'd like to suggest that others consider.
The article compares the 'Black Lives Matter' BullS$!t to the problem of police killing citizens. As if the lies and actions of the 'BLM' movement compare in anyway to the lies and actions of police in this country. The author then goes on to 'cherry pick' certain data from WaPo and to falsify other information allegedly gleaned from WaPo in an attempt to justify his 'Cops are Great Guys' nonsense.
Some things are indisputable: 1. The ratios of males killed as a percentage of their representation in the population is dramatically higher than that of females. 2. The highest ethnic ratio of number of killings by police as a percentage of their representation in the population is Native American. 3. The second highest is African American. 4. Asian American is insignificant. 5. The numbers of children and teens killed is atrocious. 6. The numbers garnered so far this year tell the story of the number of lies and hidden reports told by police and the DoJ, since Congress in 1993(?) directed DoJ to begin accumulating such information, as reported to the American Public since that time. 7. The danger to cops doesn't even make the top ten most dangerous jobs in this country. 8. Americans are much more likely to be killed by American cops than by any form of terrorism. 9. Cops have become drastically more aggressive towards American citizens than at any time in our history. 10. Americans who don't offer immediate supplicating compliance to a cop are in lethal danger regardless of the reason or cause of the interaction.
And most disgusting of all, this country bears very little resemblance to the country envisaged by our revolutionary founders or as imagined by AR, and there are a number of commenters and posters on this site that defend what we've become, and those amongst us that initiate force against us to make us comply.
Zen, regarding #10 on your list, I was stopped by the TN highway patrol a few years ago as I drove down the shoulder to make a right turn past a long line of traffic which was going straight. . the trooper asked me if I knew why I was there. I answered, "I am going home." . he explained that it was illegal to pass the stopped traffic by driving on the shoulder........ then, he asked to see my license. . I slowly retrieved it from my wallet and gave it to him. . he asked, "Do you have anything on this license?" . I replied that I must wear glasses and that I am permitted to drive a motorcycle. . he explained that he meant any recent infractions. . I replied, "No, not in the past 10 years or so." . he let me go with a verbal warning.
these guys speak a language all their own. . what's a henway? oh, about seven pounds. -- j .
Police aren't supposed to be the bad guys. But if they are equipped with surplus military equipment, trained and encouraged to assume violence will occur, prone to escalate situations rather than de-escalate them, and asked to enforce laws and activities that are egregiously unconstitutional like roadway checkpoints and explosive forced entries into homes...how do you think they are going to be seen and treated?
Let me start by saying that my response is to the statement, "The police aren't the bad guys", not the content of the op-ed piece titled that way.
I will put it bluntly. I do not trust the police. I just don't. Everyone says that 99.whatever percent of all cops are good with just a few bad apples mixed in getting all the media attention. It's an easy, comfortable platitude I guess, but it flies in the face of reality. Bad cops CANNOT exist in a world full of good cops. As long as "good" cops remain quiet behind their blue wall of silence, you have a few bad cops and a whole bunch of guys aiding and abetting. That makes them all bad cops, in my opinion.
As far as this notion that they have a dangerous job, I don't buy that either. It seems that as often as not when there is video evidence of the interaction, the cops are the ones escalating the situation to a violent confrontation. They are trained to do that. Your civil rights mean nothing, probable cause means nothing, the actual law as it is written means nothing. When a cop with an attitude shows up on the scene, he is the law. Make no mistake about what I am saying with that. The guy with the gun, taser, baton, pepper spray, handcuffs, and a radio to call in his boys is the law. The actual law is of no consequence at all. They will do whatever they please to whomever they want with no fear at all of any kind of retribution. They get to write up the story of what happened in their report after the fact to cover any misdeeds, and they all know that none of their fellow officers will say a peep if it is full of lies.
The good news is that there is a way to improve upon this in a big way. I wish I could find the YouTube video that made mention of it, but there was a town in California that tracked all complaints of wrongdoing for their officers. Before all of their officers were required to wear body cameras, citizens' complaints were through the roof. After the officers were required to wear body cameras, the number of complaints plummeted. Both citizens and cops were on better behavior when all the cops wore a tamperproof, impartial 3rd party witness that would tell the unbiased, unvarnished story. Sometimes the cops were guilty of wrongdoing. Sometimes, the videos completely vindicated the police. Either way, the numbers of incidences dropped dramatically, and internal investigators were able to deal with an objective witness instead of 20 cops all swearing by the same lie to protect a brother in blue.
I started by saying that I do not trust the police. I do, however, trust my own judgement and what my own eyes and ears tell me. I would feel much better if all cops were required to wear tamper proof videos of the entire time they are on duty and those videos were made publicly available. If the cops would actually do that, I think they would get more respect and more/better convictions instead of charges being plead down by defense attorneys.
Just my $0.02.
Edit: Here's a YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UWud..., that makes the case I was saying about the drop in use of force incidents and citizens' complaints against the police. It's actually not the video i was referring to earlier in this post, but it says essentially the same thing. Also, if the use of force incidents drops so dramatically, how can anybody feel good about the police as they are today? If they know they are being recorded, suddenly they behave better? Presumably that means they were behaving worse before. One thing follows the other, no?
hello Iam You are right about bad cops can't exist as long as the majority are good cops. It is the very long tradition of covering up the bad cops that throws everything off. The 90% good cops are tainted by their willingness (with some exceptions) to put up with the miscreants in order to avoid being a rat or being shunned.
Thanks for the post. I do not share your distrust of the police based on my judgement and what my eyes and ears tell me. My experience with the local police in my area have been good. I have shooting buddies that are policemen and I have had some pretty candid conversations about training and their jobs. One of the 5 living cops I know is a bit of an ass in his personality but not bad, corrupt or wrong in what he does other than he treats people like an ass would universally. The other 4 are good guys that treat people well. The 6 cop I use to shoot with was shot when he stopped a meth dealer and girlfriend. When the meth dealer got out of the car, the girlfriend shot him through the rear window of the car. He is dead. He and his wife lived two houses down from me. He was a cop that got killed because people doing wrong shit like to kill a cop rather than get busted.
That is not to say that I do not think there is a bad eggs in there, or that there are not those that are attempting to (from the top) manipulate the police into something they never should be.
I like the idea of a Camera on every cop while on duty, It would likely help a great deal with making things stick to those that need it when talks with the judge occur as well as provide a much higher level of visibility.
To whatever level we may have an honest disagreement about the police, I think it is telling that we do agree on the one important takeaway from my earlier post, namely that we would all be better off if the police were required to wear body cameras during their shifts.
How would taxpayer money be better spent? A million bucks for police body cameras to improve their interaction with the public in general or a million bucks to settle the neverending use of force complaints against them?
I think the Oklahoma City police chief is approaching the body cam issue the right way. He had private meetings with his force about the subject, with city attorneys who explained how valuable the video will be in providing evidence of proper police conduct. He also pointed out to them how the camera would record things that the officer doesn't always have the liberty to remember, which could aid in establishing criminal activity. He also worked out the guidelines for disclosure to the public, so the officers were assured they wouldn't be subject to unending second guessing by sensationalist news media. The result is that the OKC police are actually looking forward to the program, with strong public support.
And if only 87.4% have had weapons, then how can only 0.96% have been unarmed?
How many people were shot (and didn't die?)? How many dogs were shot during no-knock raids? Why are there 20,000 no-knock raids in the US each year when they clearly violate the 4th Amendment?
The police may not be bad guys...(?)...but I am afraid of them. I can fight back against a criminal, but I am not allowed to fight back against a cop doing exactly the same thing.
Down this thread, there is a comment and a link by IamtheBeav. I think that if cops wore cameras, as the experiment in Rialto shows, then they would behave in a better manner.
I read the title of this thread just before I saw the story about three cops being arrested for killing a suspect in custody. That's on top of the CBS report that the cop who complained to her boss and the media that a teenage Arby's employee refused to serve her, culminating in calls by police to have the young man fired...only to find out the cop misunderstood a joke and the young man did absolutely nothing wrong. So are cops the bad guys? More and more....
Too many laws on the books that serve no purpose but to pit "us" against "them". The more the laws, the more the division until the division becomes self perpetuating. And a cause for more laws. Just as the corrupt crony capitalist system attracts more and more cronies on both sides of the system, corrupt, immoral and unjust laws attract corrupt, immoral and unjust people to the police department and make criminals out of the rest of us so that we have more and more contact with the corrupt elements of law enforcement. If you are a law abiding citizen the only contact you are likely to have with law enforcement is with someone trying to throw his weight around. You will never meet the cop who doesn't care if you're doing 5 to 10 MPH over the limit. Only the guy who wants to "make an example out of you" for doing 2 mph over. And the more laws there are, the more you will run into him.
It's almost like someone wants us to not trust each other.
Thanks! Best explanation I ever remember of the situation. And, perhaps, why Xenok and xthinker see things so differently. I would use "peaceable" instead of "law abiding" though.
I disagree. Police and military are the henchmen of a very oppressive government (USA). They serve the bureaucrats and help keep them in power. They also arrange for the imposition of fines which support the very government that passes the laws and runs the courts. Perhaps there are some "good" cops who want to protect my rights- but they work for a system bent on taking away my rights.
Are they that much different from the SS in Germany in principle? The rules here arent quite as bad as Nazi rules, but look at how our police use the anti-drug laws to break down your door in the middle of the night. Its brutal.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. . . .[P]ass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers. -- Dr. Floyd Ferris, Atlas Shrugged
A cop who ain't a bad guy won't pull me dino over for a malfunctioning brake light and ask if I have a large sum of cash. That bad guy cop would make a liar out of me. Christian me doesn't think God would have it in for me, either. Why? I take "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" quite literally. Should Daddy Warbucks be riding with me, he can speak for himself.
I would have to know if they were very real looking toy weapons or toy looking and what people did. I mean if guy pulls a toy Mac-10 out that looks complete like the real thing and starts to level it off at the cop.... that guy getting shot and killed is not a surprise.
It is also not surprising to me that 23 people might be stupid enough to do just that in the course of a year.
I would bet that at least one of them is not anything like that however. Its more like an obvious toy and a twitchy cop in a tense situation and someone gets nailed because they "played" at the wrong time. That is sad
Seems like this black supremacist is like white supremacists and mostly supremely ignorant.
Buffalo are not really "picked off" by lions. The indigenous Maasi (black by the way), are not afraid of lions, but they will NOT mess with buffalo. The only buffalo lions get are young and sick, or an individual male that is pounced on by a pride. Lion vs buffalo goes badly for the lion in general.
I hope the BLM movement does turn to cowardly terrorist behavior. It will undo any misguided sympathy anyone every had.
You are probably right. I simply detest that we simply focus on black lives matter, and not on all lives and the objective problems. Every time we make significant distinction we extend the problems of discrimination another 10 years.
Should they quit if they believe themselves to be good people? Or should they "Go off the reservation" and continue to wear the badge and do as "they" please?
I believe that what happened to Garner in New York was wrong (the arrested man who died; he had been put in a chokehold). But I don't think it has been put on trial yet, and I am not sure it will be.
Every month when I go to an Objectivist meet- ing, I get stopped by a cop. I can't drive (epilepsy); so I put my bike on a bike rack on the GRTC (Richmond city) bus, ride out to a certain shopping center, and bike from there to a certain restaurant (which takes maybe about 45 minutes). Afterwards, on my way back to the shopping center, some cop always stops me to criticize the bike light (flashlights at this time, can't afford regular), or gives patronizing counsel about the danger from car drivers, etc. But I behave politely and respectfully, and even- tually get to the bus stop.--Still, I wouldn't call that police brutality. I think sometimes the cops are wrong, some- times the suspects are wrong. Cameras are probably a very good idea.
It would appear that it makes sense that cameras while on duty improves performance and improves public perception of law enforcement.
In light of that, I propose that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer occupying the White House be required to wear a camera and that the public be able to access.
I know, I know, fat chance and there are national security issues. But look at what a missing 18 minutes of WH audio tape did.
Thanks to Mr. Halling I have been able to listen to Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum lectures. As a result I am of the opinion that our society culture is in a state of deterioration that is accelerating so fast that it will not be stopped to reverse anytime in the distant future. Of course all of these shooting can be put jobs by the unmentionables in the cesspool area of the country so they can continue to have a stronger voice to rid the country of the private ownership of fire arms.
Some Police depts. are out of control. My brother-in-law came home one day and found his front door was open. He went to a neighbor's house and called the SWAT team, and they came! The whole street was evacuated and barricades set up. Nothing was found in his house. Nothing! I asked him why in the world did he call SWAT instead of the regular police? He said he just wanted to "lay it safe". What bothers me the most is not my BIL calling them, but that they responded instead of passing it to the local police dept! Ridiculous waste of tax dollars!
It's disgusting what is happening today and most of it is based on some thug and criminal that is also a liar. "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" movement was just an excuse to riot and have a good time for the rest of the thugs and criminals. The movement was not just a coincidence and surely got it's start from that liars comment. Sure there are bad cops, but we can's throw them all under the bus for it. We've just got to obey or prosecute based on our laws, for both sides, period. Just because blacks murder more, blacks are not all murderers. America needs a real wake up call, something is happening that is getting totally out of control that will eventually severely hurt this country. Being divided now, about half the people are blinded and can't see it coming. Perhaps we really need a Trump in the White House, someone that will bully the place back into shape. I wonder if he will use the Secret Service or use his own security force if he's elected.
The percentage is one percent of police out of 800,000 the same as the one percent of wrong doers out of the entire national population across the entire spectrum of crime. the one percent varies from .5 to 1.5. Cato Institute and I put the whole thing right here in the gulch back in May. Yes it's important to improve the statistic where police are concerned. But it's not on the front burner for this administration, the one before that and the one before that back to 1993-1994. I can only conclude it isn't important to the majority on either side of the Government Party's supporters. They keep electing the same do nothings the GUMPs of the Demo and Dumbo factions.
The only thing that bothers me is the good cops generally wont call onto the carpet a cop who has bad behavioral traits because of some "I ain't no snitch" code the police collective has.
Although, it should not imply the next level of continuous whistle-blowing for irrelevant problems, just like turning everyone in the office in for ethics complaints from reciting last nights SNL skits should not happen.
In an office if you know a person takes few pens home now and again do you rat them out. No, it would be a silly thing to do so over. If they are embezzling 50k a year, then you have to.
The problem cops have this loyalty to each other and recognizing when one should be a rat verses when one should not becomes very murky because of it. At least that is from my observations.
They are mostly just people who are trying to do what they believe to be right.
Jan
example you set, young woman, for the employees there. -- j
I AM JOKING.
.
oh. . I see now. . ask the gulch. . all non-conservatives. -- j
.
But that's a technicality. If you are in a job where public lives depend on your integrity and you choose to turn a blind eye to corruption then you are yourself corrupt. If a cop knows another cop is bad and does nothing he is a bad cop and an evil human being.
Does not matter what your job is. No special requirements or consideration need be applied because they serve the public, that's a double standard and wrong to even consider.
A person has to evaluate what they think the consequences are and decide if they rat out the other person or do not.
Do you break a law to catch a guy you know has raped and will rape again, or do you let him get away and rape again?
I do not agree that a person is corrupt because they choose either of those choices, or corrupt by association.
So by the same logic Reardon was corrupt for selling his metal to Danager and Danager was corrupt for agreeing to get it. Anyone else who knew about it but did not report it was corrupt for not reporting it. Sounds like 1935 in Germany to me, in or out of a police department.
They take an oath to uphold the law. If they have a colleague breaking the law, and they know it and do nothing, at the very least they have violated their oath.
The Reardon example is completely irrelevant. Reardon never denied breaking the law. He admitted to doing activity that was illegal. He knew it was illegal when he did it. He won by naming the fact that it shouldn't be illegal.
It has nothing to do with Nazi Germany in 1935. It has to do with upholding the laws that police swore to do and protecting the public as they swore to do. And a police culture that places a higher value on silence than it does on goodness.
The irony is that maintaining the silence ultimately hurts the police in the long term as the public no longer trusts them.
On a separate point, ratting some one out has consequences in every culture no matter what the culture is. It could glorify ratting (1935 Germany) and you get food and praise for doing so, also true in Soviet Union. It could vilify it or it could not even care about it. Even in a society where ratting is rewarded other people will very quickly identify that hay, if I do some minor thing this guy is going to tell everyone, and others will then react accordingly to protect themselves, even if its just to protect their privacy. This effect is in place no mater what society recognizes about the subject.
I did -1 you for this because it is such an obvious bad argument that anyone should be able to recognize it.
Consequences always exist for every action, or inaction a person takes or does not take. Sometimes minor in nature but always exist.
1) Blinders are convenient for you. Cops are being asked and trained to do things they should not accept or do and cops who ignore those things are breaking the law. That has everything to do with Nazi Germany it is how Nazi power and control was established.
2) The Reardon example is completely relevant to the point I am making which is that laws are currently broken and cops are asked to follow laws and have attitudes they should not have.
3) You and I are not even in the same conversation I am in. You are talking about obvious breaking of natural law. IE Cop pulls his gun shoots a guy and covers it up. I am not. I am talking about some procedural crap that is in place and perhaps should or should not be followed. The obvious stuff is just that obvious and need not be discussed.
Well your response tells me three things.
"1) Blinders are convenient for you. Cops are being asked and trained to do things they should not accept or do and cops who ignore those things are breaking the law. That has everything to do with Nazi Germany it is how Nazi power and control was established."
Now YOU are in a completely different conversation. We are talking about police corruption and police doing illegal things and you are arguing that they should be breaking the law. That is a complete non sequiter from the rest of the discussion and from the topic at top.
"2) The Reardon example is completely relevant to the point I am making which is that laws are currently broken and cops are asked to follow laws and have attitudes they should not have."
Wow. Now you are really off the deep end and in the lala land of a completely different conversation. My point has been that cops that ignore and tolerate bad and corrupt behavior are themselves bad cops. The concept really isn't that difficult to understand although it might be for an obvious moral relativist like yourself.
You now seem to be saying that bad and corrupt behavior by cops is good because it's analogous to what Reardon and Danager did in breaking the law about metal sales. I'm sorry but a cop ignoring or tolerating the fact that another cop is a thief, or beat a suspect, or shot an innocent unarmed person is completely different from Reardon and Danager violating laws that they believe shouldn't exist. But hey - I guess your Nazi gestapo snitch analogy means that cops should ignore any misbehavior by other bad cops. I hope you're not a cop but am beginning to wonder.
"3) You and I are not even in the same conversation I am in. You are talking about obvious breaking of natural law. IE Cop pulls his gun shoots a guy and covers it up. I am not. I am talking about some procedural crap that is in place and perhaps should or should not be followed. The obvious stuff is just that obvious and need not be discussed."
You finally realized that you are having a conversation different than the rest of the people in this thread/topic? Duh. Captain Obvious. Or is it Police Captain Obvious. Did you even read the article at the top. It is talking about the statistics about cop misbehavior in serious violent ways and the poster made the statement that cops are not the bad guys. I responded to that and said that some of them are the bad guys. And those among the police that tolerate those bad guys are bad guys as well. Pretty simple concepts.
The three victims. One in wheel chair for life. two on crutches for a long time and all three permanently disabled. I made sure the families had what they needed for the civil route.
The rest of the experience was positive. come to think of it that was just a hair more than one percent of my cases requiring a court appearance. Lo these near forty years ago.
This thread was not about corrupt police but about the fact that they are being targeted for blame by the left.
It seems to me that you may have more in common with this guy than you have in common with me on the subject of police.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...
Conversation is over.
I don't think that that is a path we want to go down.
There are something like 17 million people stopped at traffic stops every year in the US. In 2014, there were a total of 126 police officers total killed in the line of duty. That's every part of the line of duty - FBI, swat raids, apprehension of fugitives, responding to robberies and violent crimes, etc.
From the national law enforcement officer memorial fund: 56 of those were shot by firearms. 49 were traffic related incidents (like car crashes or being struck by a car). The number one single cause was ambush assaults of police officers at 15 of the 56 above.
The odds of a police officer actually being killed by a civilian during a traffic stop are comparable to the odds of you being killed by a police officer. Depending on how you slice the numbers they are both close to 1:300,000. Neither is a "likely" event.
I am at risk of them abusing their authority. Of them searching me or my car without probable cause. With them responding with force or violence if I make it clear that I understand my constitutional rights.
It's a dangerous job. Anyone's interaction with a stranger is potentially dangerous. We don't respond by avoiding going outside (we do with kids, but that's another sad development) and having our guns on feather trigger any time we talk to a stranger.
I'd say that 90% of police are good people doing a difficult job to the best of their ability. However, it's that bad 10% that defines them, which is unfortunate. If the current wave of cop killings grows, it will cause an increase in lawlessness as the police hold back in order to keep themselves out of danger. This is right up the alley of those who wish to foment revolution and the dissolution of American freedom. If this builds to martial law, stick a fork in America -- it's done.
The article compares the 'Black Lives Matter' BullS$!t to the problem of police killing citizens. As if the lies and actions of the 'BLM' movement compare in anyway to the lies and actions of police in this country. The author then goes on to 'cherry pick' certain data from WaPo and to falsify other information allegedly gleaned from WaPo in an attempt to justify his 'Cops are Great Guys' nonsense.
Some things are indisputable:
1. The ratios of males killed as a percentage of their representation in the population is dramatically higher than that of females.
2. The highest ethnic ratio of number of killings by police as a percentage of their representation in the population is Native American.
3. The second highest is African American.
4. Asian American is insignificant.
5. The numbers of children and teens killed is atrocious.
6. The numbers garnered so far this year tell the story of the number of lies and hidden reports told by police and the DoJ, since Congress in 1993(?) directed DoJ to begin accumulating such information, as reported to the American Public since that time.
7. The danger to cops doesn't even make the top ten most dangerous jobs in this country.
8. Americans are much more likely to be killed by American cops than by any form of terrorism.
9. Cops have become drastically more aggressive towards American citizens than at any time in our history.
10. Americans who don't offer immediate supplicating compliance to a cop are in lethal danger regardless of the reason or cause of the interaction.
And most disgusting of all, this country bears very little resemblance to the country envisaged by our revolutionary founders or as imagined by AR, and there are a number of commenters and posters on this site that defend what we've become, and those amongst us that initiate force against us to make us comply.
Jan
highway patrol a few years ago as I drove down the shoulder
to make a right turn past a long line of traffic which was
going straight. . the trooper asked me if I knew why I was there.
I answered, "I am going home." . he explained that it was
illegal to pass the stopped traffic by driving on the shoulder........
then, he asked to see my license. . I slowly retrieved it from
my wallet and gave it to him. . he asked, "Do you have anything
on this license?" . I replied that I must wear glasses
and that I am permitted to drive a motorcycle. . he explained that
he meant any recent infractions. . I replied, "No, not in the
past 10 years or so." . he let me go with a verbal warning.
these guys speak a language all their own. . what's a henway?
oh, about seven pounds. -- j
.
I will put it bluntly. I do not trust the police. I just don't. Everyone says that 99.whatever percent of all cops are good with just a few bad apples mixed in getting all the media attention. It's an easy, comfortable platitude I guess, but it flies in the face of reality. Bad cops CANNOT exist in a world full of good cops. As long as "good" cops remain quiet behind their blue wall of silence, you have a few bad cops and a whole bunch of guys aiding and abetting. That makes them all bad cops, in my opinion.
As far as this notion that they have a dangerous job, I don't buy that either. It seems that as often as not when there is video evidence of the interaction, the cops are the ones escalating the situation to a violent confrontation. They are trained to do that. Your civil rights mean nothing, probable cause means nothing, the actual law as it is written means nothing. When a cop with an attitude shows up on the scene, he is the law. Make no mistake about what I am saying with that. The guy with the gun, taser, baton, pepper spray, handcuffs, and a radio to call in his boys is the law. The actual law is of no consequence at all. They will do whatever they please to whomever they want with no fear at all of any kind of retribution. They get to write up the story of what happened in their report after the fact to cover any misdeeds, and they all know that none of their fellow officers will say a peep if it is full of lies.
The good news is that there is a way to improve upon this in a big way. I wish I could find the YouTube video that made mention of it, but there was a town in California that tracked all complaints of wrongdoing for their officers. Before all of their officers were required to wear body cameras, citizens' complaints were through the roof. After the officers were required to wear body cameras, the number of complaints plummeted. Both citizens and cops were on better behavior when all the cops wore a tamperproof, impartial 3rd party witness that would tell the unbiased, unvarnished story. Sometimes the cops were guilty of wrongdoing. Sometimes, the videos completely vindicated the police. Either way, the numbers of incidences dropped dramatically, and internal investigators were able to deal with an objective witness instead of 20 cops all swearing by the same lie to protect a brother in blue.
I started by saying that I do not trust the police. I do, however, trust my own judgement and what my own eyes and ears tell me. I would feel much better if all cops were required to wear tamper proof videos of the entire time they are on duty and those videos were made publicly available. If the cops would actually do that, I think they would get more respect and more/better convictions instead of charges being plead down by defense attorneys.
Just my $0.02.
Edit: Here's a YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UWud..., that makes the case I was saying about the drop in use of force incidents and citizens' complaints against the police. It's actually not the video i was referring to earlier in this post, but it says essentially the same thing. Also, if the use of force incidents drops so dramatically, how can anybody feel good about the police as they are today? If they know they are being recorded, suddenly they behave better? Presumably that means they were behaving worse before. One thing follows the other, no?
You are right about bad cops can't exist as long as the majority are good cops. It is the very long tradition of covering up the bad cops that throws everything off. The 90% good cops are tainted by their willingness (with some exceptions) to put up with the miscreants in order to avoid being a rat or being shunned.
That is not to say that I do not think there is a bad eggs in there, or that there are not those that are attempting to (from the top) manipulate the police into something they never should be.
I like the idea of a Camera on every cop while on duty, It would likely help a great deal with making things stick to those that need it when talks with the judge occur as well as provide a much higher level of visibility.
How would taxpayer money be better spent? A million bucks for police body cameras to improve their interaction with the public in general or a million bucks to settle the neverending use of force complaints against them?
How many people were shot (and didn't die?)? How many dogs were shot during no-knock raids? Why are there 20,000 no-knock raids in the US each year when they clearly violate the 4th Amendment?
Down this thread, there is a comment and a link by IamtheBeav. I think that if cops wore cameras, as the experiment in Rialto shows, then they would behave in a better manner.
Jan
So are cops the bad guys? More and more....
It's almost like someone wants us to not trust each other.
Are they that much different from the SS in Germany in principle? The rules here arent quite as bad as Nazi rules, but look at how our police use the anti-drug laws to break down your door in the middle of the night. Its brutal.
-- Dr. Floyd Ferris, Atlas Shrugged
That bad guy cop would make a liar out of me.
Christian me doesn't think God would have it in for me, either. Why?
I take "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" quite literally.
Should Daddy Warbucks be riding with me, he can speak for himself.
It is also not surprising to me that 23 people might be stupid enough to do just that in the course of a year.
I would bet that at least one of them is not anything like that however. Its more like an obvious toy and a twitchy cop in a tense situation and someone gets nailed because they "played" at the wrong time. That is sad
Man if I were I cop I would find a different line of work. The redirect you hear from black lives matter and black supremacist groups... like this guy
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...
Buffalo are not really "picked off" by lions. The indigenous Maasi (black by the way), are not afraid of lions, but they will NOT mess with buffalo. The only buffalo lions get are young and sick, or an individual male that is pounced on by a pride. Lion vs buffalo goes badly for the lion in general.
I hope the BLM movement does turn to cowardly terrorist behavior. It will undo any misguided sympathy anyone every had.
He made the comment in the video that BLM did not go far enough. He is going to take it further, or at least encourage others to take it further.
His stupid buffalo bit was funny, I was thinking as he gave it that they only get the weakly ones and the buffalo do not have guns.
was wrong (the arrested man who died; he had been put in a chokehold). But I don't think it has
been put on trial yet, and I am not sure it will be.
Every month when I go to an Objectivist meet-
ing, I get stopped by a cop. I can't drive (epilepsy); so I put my bike on a bike rack on
the GRTC (Richmond city) bus, ride out to a
certain shopping center, and bike from there to
a certain restaurant (which takes maybe about
45 minutes). Afterwards, on my way back to
the shopping center, some cop always stops
me to criticize the bike light (flashlights at this
time, can't afford regular), or gives patronizing
counsel about the danger from car drivers, etc.
But I behave politely and respectfully, and even-
tually get to the bus stop.--Still, I wouldn't call
that police brutality.
I think sometimes the cops are wrong, some-
times the suspects are wrong. Cameras are
probably a very good idea.
In light of that, I propose that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer occupying the White House be required to wear a camera and that the public be able to access.
I know, I know, fat chance and there are national security issues. But look at what a missing 18 minutes of WH audio tape did.