I abhor wise guys...and I've had my share. Conversely, I have seen more of the opposite. However, I know the brain set, strict adherence to "Rules"; man made rules, nothing to do with safety, nothing to do with anything really bad...just had to give a ticket.
But I will say this...probably because I am a normal citizen and never lived in a city, never was into drugs, I never had the occasion to witness the kind of stuff we see on lamestream, never seen any really bad behavior...just stupid behavior on occasion.
Since I have really started investigating and writing, every policeman I meet, I thank them for their service and explain the cultural situation we are in and ask them, if TSHF to please stick with the community and do not follow government nor their union leaders...most of them appreciate that.
Whether they will or not, remains to be seen...guess we must be careful and hope for the best.

Sorry folks, im 100% pro police. Yes im biased because while not directly part of the police I was an armed security guard watching and taking care of city electrical systems. Yes, there are bad guards and good guards just like the police. We did have to move along homeless folk from dangerous utility vaults where they just tried to stay warm. Some anti-utility protestors tried to destroy transformers and steal copper lines that were hot and we had to herd them away from personal danger...our thanks? Rocks, bottles, and various body fluids. We were assertive but never mean or abusive. So, I wonder where we fit into this. There are many people that dont understand that in some cases we have to use physical force (but not deadly force) to actually protect these people from greater harm.

Excellent comment, and one no one has put forth so far.

Ayn Rand commented that condemning an entire group is a form of collectivism. This is just one reason why, among others, I started this thread. It seems to have hit a nerve.

and that is my problem;;; my analogy which shows
how the police get out of control so easily. . they must
stay on the leash of the rule of law, as you say, or
there can be awful consequences....... -- j

p.s. the "rules of engagement" for the military really
do not lend themselves to "nation-building," do they?
.

"the police are kinda the military of the local government and, as such, must "control themselves" according to complex rules of engagement"
This is how we think of it today, but I say it's the wrong approach.

Military rules of engagement are for dealing with the enemy. Ordinary policing should be completely different. The rule of law should control them. If police think of themselves as a military, the people they serve become the enemy.

Those figures are just staggering. Working in this environment, I imagine it's hard to be a law-abiding police officer.

I agree. I have had a few "close calls" where I had actually done nothing wrong and had to use my people skills to prevent being taken down for nothing. I've never even had a speeding ticket - squeaky clean record. But, I've run into some agitated cops and that really opened my eyes. Those who don't have the people skills probably find themselves in trouble. Had a motor cop go absolutely nuts at me one time. I looked at him after a minute of taking his verbal abuse and drove off. I figured, "Well...if I've done something wrong he'll pull me over." He didn't. I once had three guys giving me the evil eye at a restaurant when I was out with my family (no reason at all). Maybe they thought I was somebody else. But, I was starting to think I was about to get into it with three young guys. Turns out they were plain-clothes cops. That would have turned ugly in a hurry.

I'm friends with a couple cops who are good guys. One just retired. I also know a few of the younger ones who are real douchebags.

From what you're saying, it sounds more like a policy issue than a personnel issue. Bad regulations/laws/procedures, make bad cops.

the police are kinda the military of the local government
and, as such, must "control themselves" according to
complex rules of engagement -- not easy! -- j
.

Well, when I was going to Objectivist meetings one night a month (before my bike tire went flat; a long bus ride, and then about 30-45 minutes between the bus stop and the meeting place--there are bike racks on Richmond buses now), it seemed like every time, on the way back to the bus stop,some cop would stop me and give me a lot of patronizing nonsense about how I was endangering myself, etc. (I had flashlights taped to the bicycle because I couldn't afford regular lights).Still, they never gave me a ticket.
I haven't gone since December because of
the flat. But it was a cop from the precinct in
my neighborhood who was kind enough to repair it for me. (Unfortunately, it went flat again). I was
mugged a few weekends ago, and the punks
took my seabag and the groceries in it. And a
detective from the station came to my house
with a small backpack and some good food in
it.
I don't think the cops are always right. (I don't
think they were right in that choking case in New
York). I don't think they are always wrong, eith-
er. One should look at the facts of the case.
At least they are one of the few legitimate
functions of government.
But I suppose I am getting to have a sort of
personal bias lately. In fact, the station has be-
come a sort of hangout for me. I don't have to
buy something as an excuse to hang around.

I'm finding all the rhetoric this election-cycle kind of daft. If low-income areas are having spikes in crime, they demand more services. (Which is what lead to the crime bill the Dems supported and promoted in the nineties)

Now that those communities are getting those services they respond by using it as a political position, claiming that their communities are unfairly being targeted.
You can't get more of an non-issue to run circles around than this.

Very insightful. I hate to have to agree, but I agree.

Sounds pretty much like most jobs.

See what I mean?

First of all, thanks for doing two tough jobs. Tackleberry? Never came across the word before, But I get it from the usage in the sentence. I have an idea that for every example of police over-reach, I could come up with two or three opposite examples, but I'm too lazy to do the research.
As to the military, with all the stupid things the administration expects soldiers sailors, and marines to do, I think they lose track of the real purpose for their existence. In the defense of their country they are to kill people and break things. Sounds harsh and simplistic, but when you strip away all the nonsense, that's all that remains.

Unfortunately, today the primary job of the government is to protect itself. And the best proof that the government does not trust its citizens is the concerted effort to negate the Second Amendment and to disarm the citizens. Many cops also see this in that light - they see the citizens as a threat and would rather have them disarmed, as opposed to trusting the citizens, working along with the citizens and feeling comfortable with armed citizens. Alas, the days of Barney Fife are gone...

To me, soldiers, police, firemen are a special breed. All three can be involved in life threatening actions. I know that it is not what I would want to do to make a living. So, I have to be grateful that there are men and women who want to do their job. They are given a certain degree of power which is a two-way street. They can abuse their power, but also, they are easy targets for lawsuits not to mention violence. If abuse of power is endemic to the job, then steps should be taken to see that doesn't happen.

The primary job of government is to protect its citizens. If the people cannot trust the protectors, then there's no point in having the government. What was that Latin Phrase? "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"

Having been in a business that took trade-ins as well as buying merchandise outright, I have cooperated with the police in obtaining stolen merchandise on a couple of occasions. As to government officials -- don't get me started.

My experience has been similar to yours - without the jailed relatives. Although some of them should have been.

Herb,

I grew up, respecting police officers, though I had my share of run-ins with them...none of them ever landed me in a jail cell. I even worked for the local sheriff's department, installing and repairing their radios for 5 years. I also worked closely with jail inmates and learned a lot about why they were where they were, though not exactly in the same light as they saw it.

I have 2 brothers and a son who've done jail time. All three of them deserved it. I also know an innocent man who was taken down by the police, but his fault was that he was "ambulance chasing" with his scanner and got a little too close to the bust of a big drug dealer. He was immediately released (I testified as to his innocence to a local investigator), but it was a learning lesson for him.

Of all the "bad" incidents I've seen, the suspect was generally involved in doing something either sneaky or wrong, when the police took action. Yes, there are those cases of police overstepping their bounds, but they are rare.

I'm not saying that we should turn a blind eye, but we shouldn't jump on the bandwagon every time someone claims police brutality. Perhaps we should step back and take in the entire scenario, before passing judgment on those boys in blue.

As I see it, there is a real problem between the police and the citizenry, but the problem is actually deeper – it is the problem between the government and the citizens. Living in America and being in the midst of this issue since one can remember oneself, it is not so noticeable, but taking a look from the outside it is hard not see the problem staring in on one’s face – American government has long ago seized being the “government of the people by the people” – instead, it is its own monstrosity and the people have become feed for the monster. The police, being a government agency, have long ago stopped serving the citizens; it’s only customer is the State. Not only has this been confirmed by the courts (the police have no responsibility in protecting the citizen), but is obvious in most interactions between the police and the people. The financial and promotional incentives are setup up at the expense of the citizen – quotas for giving out tickets, for example – the entire concept seems criminal, yet is practiced by many municipalities. Cops protecting their own – criminal acts non-withstanding – when Catholic priests protect child rapists in their midst, when sports coaches protect rapists in their midst, when Hillary’s minions protect their boss, when Obama’s drone’s protect their boss – do we not call them criminals? Why, then, do we call a cop who knowingly protects his criminal coworker a “good apple”? The system is corrupted, much of it beyond the control of individual police officers. But many of these officers happily take advantage of the corruption by placing themselves above and beyond the law and its limitations – they lie in court, they lie to the citizens (supported in this by the courts), take material advantage of being outside the law and often treat citizens (not criminals) with disdain. There is a reason why schools try to portray cops as the “good guys” – I call it damage control. But, you know what, some children grow up and see reality for what it is – the police force is here to serve the State and to protect it from the citizen.

I am with you, Herb, yet there is individual variation
and great memory for negative interactions, it seems
to me. . I have been helped and irritated by police
individuals, but never heavily pissed. . other government
officials, however, have left enormous negative wakes
behind their actions. . for "bureaucrats," they are
quite fine -- especially since they are walking targets
with personal conflicts over the life-and-death nature
of their jobs! -- j
.

The police are a brotherhood, like lodges and other community-managing social subgroups. They have loyalty to their own first and foremost. Considering the hazards of a job that deals with life and death, it's understandable. Police are, in essence, the white blood cells, the antibodies of the communal organism.

I was taught as a child that police are our friends and protectors, and indeed I have had only a couple of negative encounters.

It is a human attribute that when given power over others, a certain attitude emerges that justifies abuse of that power, whether unequal administration of justice, playing favorites, covering up, exploiting the helpless, and overstepping boundaries. The police are, after all, internal agents of force where the military are external. They need to be a collective function to exert control over individuals or smaller groups.

As with everything that involves living things, escalation and complexification happen. Our freedoms become limited, rules and laws become too numerous and restrictive, people get more rebellious and aggressive, police get more defensive, attitudes harden.

I would venture to predict the same course evolving if all we freedom lovers built our own Gulch, our own closed community. First we'd appoint or hire guardians, administrators of law and order (the "oath" or social contract), and then watch individual personalities grow into their functions and soon exceed them. Heck, it happens right here in this virtual Gulch.

Policemen used to be viewed as heroes. That and firemen were what boys wanted to grow up to be, doing good in the community. Then there is the small number who just wanted a license to be bullies. A policeman I knew (relative of a friend) would brag about the thrill of breaking down doors in SWAT raids.

Living bodies need defenses, an immune system. When they turn against their host, lupus and other diseases set in. The ethical principle of the Golden Rule, reformulated as Galt's Oath, from the simple meme of "do no harm", needs periodic refreshing, if only for mutual benefit. Then we wouldn't have to lose good men's lives and reputations in endless social conflict.

Yes, I am the incurable idealist, and proud of it. Policemen at heart are little boys who want to do good; they need love, too.