I spent about 7 years, total, serving in this country's military. I would readily prefer that over being a police officer.

At least, as a soldier in a war, you know who your enemy is. A cop may not be able to make that determination, until it's too late. Also, that same officer is fully expected to defend someone who could turn around and stab him in the back at the first opportunity.

For the most part, our police deserve every bit of respect we can offer.

When you talk about "victimless" crimes, are you looking only at the final transaction, or the entire food chain? It may be "victimless" to have sex with a prostitute, but if she has to give up her earnings to a pimp, I'd hardly say that there are no victims. If you're going to define a crime as victimless, there must be NO victims anywhere in that system. Only then would I support the elimination of laws interfering with "victimless" crimes.

I figured that you would write something engrossing and vivid for this post. I wasn't disappointed. Got to hand it to you for "surviving" in the prison system for as long as you did.

Well, I see that as being that the police man works for the Rulers .. the "government"; which claims "authority" which it gets from nowhere.
from Larken Rose in "Superstition"

Our difficulty these days, to a great extent is the corruption at all levels of government. Honorable men have a difficult time policing the rest of us when the outcome of any given incident does not result in consistent and equitable" justice for all". Under such conditions, those with limited vision are attracted to positions of power and authority and learn to live with the corruption, aka "go along to get along". Until the elementary corruption is made un-acceptable and not tolerated by "we the people", the job of the police will continue to be difficult and more honorable men will not apply for the job.

Oh I have no doubt that they by and large hate traffic duty. Though I am also convinced that some (the bad ones) like it.

All studies done by highway safety groups whether government, university or private sponsors have shown that traffic enforcement reduces crashes and fatalities. The more enforcement, the safer it is to travel. This applies to even minor offenses like speeding or squeezing through a pink light. Fines for infractions are the best way to make people pay attention. There is also a correlation between people who continuously break traffic laws and more serious crime. I arrested a man for a fresh bank robbery because he threw some trash from his car, littering.

So you propose guilty until proven innocent and big government cameras tracking our every move? To enforce traffic laws electronically would lead to even more government intrusion. It is a known fact that red light cameras have increased traffic accidents and it is really about the money.

As a former soldier and police officer I would submit one of the best essays I have ever read on why people are police officers. It is written by Colonel Dave Grossman, a man who has devoted his life to studying and training both soldiers and police. If you have never held either of those positions, it may help your knowledge base. http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

Most cops I have ran across seem to have a God complex. They seem to get off on you being intimidated by them and if you are not they get pissed. I once passed an off duty cop who was going well under the speed limit and at the next red light he rolled down his window and told me I better not pass him again. I did not go over the speed limit he just wanted to show me he was boss. As the light turned green I passed him again, he did nothing, he could do nothing.

That type of person seems to me to be the majority of police officers. "To serve and protect". . . No not really. Today it is "To enforce bs laws and bring more money into the coffers.

Having said all of that I do believe that the police will be one of the last lines of defense against an out of control government. The only question is will they ignorantly obey orders or will they protect the people? I have talked to several retired police officers and from what they have told me about the crop of cops we have now and how brainwashed and ignorant they are on liberty I believe they will probably obey.

Come on now, are you attributing such behavior to all police or to the rotten apples? You get them in every walk of life, only with the police because they have power, it is more personal.

Other than the typical cross-section of personalities and mental dysfunction that exists in our population (allowing for the possibility that some of the related ones may more highly represented in the front line law enforcement roles given who would be attracted - and the counter influence of whatever processes of testing and filtering for those that exist in recruitment), the MAIN PROBLEM WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS LIES IN THE LAWS THEY MUST CONTINUALLY ENFORCE - many of which require them to suspend their rational faculties (even if only semi-conscious) and moral sensibilities. After a while I believe that this does accumulating damage to their otherwise healthy psychologies and tends to contribute to the likelihood of improper overreactions to situations and other distorted thinking and behavior patterns. This is very similar to what extended time in correctional facilities (on either side of the bars) and in the active combat military environments does to people.

I would say only a few are 100% good or 100% bad. Most have good intentions BUT they make assumptions such as "members of ethnic group X are usually bad guys" or "I must uphold my superiors' view of the law, even when it hurts people who are doing no harm", and those assumptions have bad consequences.

Of course in many departments, the merits of individual cops aren't what really matter because they have the kind of institutional corruption that made it impossible for Serpico to both stay honest and keep his job. When an organization is rotten to the core like that there's no substitute for shutting it down and starting over.

If I were designing a police department (and it had to be a monopoly like now, as opposed to something like the Icelandic system) I'd make it cover only one neighborhood, with say 2,000 population or less. I'd have the neighborhood hold weekly town meetings, and the public at those meetings would have direct authority and responsiblity for the employment discipline of police officers. (Which would therefore be completely public information, including the officer's name but not his home address.) Any complaint about corruption, use of unnecessary force, unwarranted bullying, etc. would be aired in public at the meeting, with both sides being heard, and the public would decide whether to suspend or fire the officer(s). Cases justifying prosecution would be referred to the legal system (and conversely, any officer who gets in trouble with the legal system first would have his case come before the town meeting after the legal system has made its decision, for any employment discipline the situation may call for).

But most importantly, there must be no more immunity of any kind for officials of any kind, from either lawsuit or prosecution. And victims or their families should have the right to prosecute cases themselves.

That goes back to too many laws. Too much spending. You're right, it turns police into tax collectors. Wanna bet that most of them hate traffic detail?

I go with something in between. Mainly because the vast majority of interactions that I have had with Officers is through the process of unreasonable traffic laws. Basically they are collecting taxes via writing tickets.

"Are you proposing no traffic violation laws?"
I know this is a little off topic, but I think they should enforce the traffic law electronically with zero personal discretion. If people want to create exceptions, like allowing 5-over, 1 sec max under a light that just turned red, one documented high-speed emergency per year, we would codify that in the law. There would be strict rules on who can access the traffic monitoring equipment (camera, radar, etc), to prevent people from accessing it to track people for political or personal reasons.

Right now the traffic laws aren't enforced well. Most people go 5 over but are subject to being stopped, fined, and searched "incident to the traffic stop" at the will of gov't officials. Most people get away with 10 over and failing to stop before right-on-red. A ticket for these offenses is just another back-luck peril like a flat tire. It erodes respect for the law. The law becomes either a random peril that strike the unfortunate or a tool for corrupt officials and a way to make police officers feel like they are the law rather the enforcers of the law.

During 1980 me dino with my journalism degree quit a Reagan-bashing newspaper and within a week got a construction job in the same Mississippi town.
The simple construction job actually paid more than I ever received with 7 years experience as a newspaper reporter mostly in Alabama.
In 1982 Alabama was building two new prisons and needed correction officers.
I was attracted by the step raises, its Blue Cross with a dental rider and the retirement system I enjoy now. Toward the end I was making $100 a day plus some repulsive mandatory overtime.
The academy in Selma called the Alabama DOC "the largest police force in the state."
Inmates called officers "police" and the stricter ones "real police."
I was never much of a businessman never mind an entrepreneur so this was just a job I put up with. At least I could write a good incident report.
The officers? They were a complete cross section of humanity, though many were permanently laid off steel workers at a maximum security prison with a third of the state's death row near Birmingham.
As a whole, we were the good, the bad and the ugly. Some were even dopers before the state started random drug testing during 1986. We were actually given a month to let any pot get out of our systems but we still lost a shift supervisor who just could not quit his cocaine habit.
Most were good guys and most quit within 5 years. It was really quite a thankless job. One who worked in a gun store asked my son if we were related and could not believe I managed to stay for 21 years.
Anyway, I've had to work with lazy curs, back stabbing butt kissers, bullies and actual criminals who left prison in handcuffs en route to the country jail. One now actually serves a life without parole sentence in protective custody at the Kilby state prison in Montgomery.
One notorious bully almost got me killed. After he got sucker-punched by one inmate, I wound up fighting another who stole his baton. Fortunately for me, all the other inmates just wanted to see the bully get beat up.
The highest compliment I believed I received from an inmate was "Some in the block think you're weak for being kind but I know better."
That was Two Block of six blocks plus other stuff.
A good day was catching tower duty.

Are you proposing no traffic violation laws? If the police don't give them, who will? Victimless crimes are still crimes. Either eliminate them or prosecute them. There's no such thing as crime without punishment. However, I think I know where you're going. If there's no victim, there's no crime. I can go with that.

There are cops who believe they are above the law, probably always have been. They sometimes openly violate the law as if it did not apply to them. They make it hard to trust any cop unless you know them personally, because you might just be dealing with one of these. In the minute I've been writing this I can recall three specific instances of these "I'm above the law" types that have entered my life.

One in particular comes to mind as he took it upon himself to drive his police car over 100 MPH just for fun (he was not on any kind of call) and killed two young girls. His punishment was to lose his driver's license (no jail time) and he still has the nerve to keep going back to court whining that he should get it back. With cops like him it is hard to trust any of them unless you know them personally - He and his kind besmirch the uniform for all cops. And until 'good' cops ferret out the bad we are left distrustful of all of them.

By the way, I'm a 73 year young white male with a nephew who is a cop.

Absolutely, Herb! As a child, the police came to my rescue during an incident that I was involved in. They were, and still are, my heroes. I wouldn't want to do the job that they do. And I certainly wouldn't want to be one of them in Cleveland right now.

I say that before we judge the cops, we relieve them from collecting fines for traffic violations that go to the cities that hire them (is that a conflict of interest or what). Secondly, we eliminate prosecution for all victimless crimes.

After that, the cops would be there to protect our rights. THEN we can judge the cops on that basis.

Heros? No, I definitely respect them but they get compensation for their service. It just fits their skill set and individual needs. I wanted to be a police officer though my physical characteristics wouldn't allow it. But it isn't that I wanted to be a hero. I just aligned, mentally, with the job.

I wonder what the black community is going to do when one calls 911 and it takes forever for a police officer to show up white or black since they are both vulnerable. Then again the same may very well happen in white communities. They the police officers will always have in the front of their mind not the back if they might be set up. Being a big strong rough man does not protect you from a snipers bullet. If these people were to have a decent education and ultimately a job that would reduce the incidence, and that is not the case because the government of the USA has made it so.

A cop by definition is a criminal. Almost everything they do on a daily basis is a crime. To see this you must drop the subjective and only look at the objective.

Subjective : You were driving too fast, these men are just keeping us safe. We cant have everyone driving too fast. You deserve the ticket. He is just doing his job

Objective (reality and facts):
A man wearing a blue costume and carrying a loaded gun pulls you over, then he steals your money by threat of violence and force and drives away. If you refuse to pull over for the highway robber in the blue custume, he will call many other members of his organization, all men wearing blue custumes and carrying loaded guns, they will run your down or shoot you down. If you just don't want to be robbed and just try and get home, you end up kidnapped and locked in a metal cage or dead.

This is not rhetoric, its not exaggeration. It is quite literal. Any argument made that justifies this, is a subjective argument. that doesn't mean its wrong, just that your not gonna refute it with anything objective, because I objectively stated in truth what happens, you can only refute with subjective ideas.

what is the definition of a crime?
I hope you will agree it is when one person aggresses on another persons or their property. In order for there to be a crime, there must be a victim.

2/3 of all people in jail have committed no crime, there is no victim

so objectively speaking, if you define a crime as when one person aggresses on another person or property, then if a man smokes a joint or sniffs cocaine or sells heroine, they have committed no crime, then a man with a blue costume uses force to kidnap one of these men using or selling drugs and locks him in a metal cage, that is by definition a crime.

So by simple definition all cops are criminals. Almost every single thing they do that people misunderstand as public safety, is actually a crime when one removes the brainwashing of the state and sees the world objectively.
they are the hench men of the state, nothing more.
America locks up more of its own citizens per capita than any other government on planet earth. And most of these citizens have commited no crime, there is no victim, no person in court claiming any injury. Yet they get locked up anyway. Who does this dirty work?
The police man!

I remember reading that.