Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There are quite a few female cops in my area, they are all nasty, one is a pervert

pics?

LunaHound wrote:Im not trying to make any claims but, atleast from youtube comments, it does seem like there are a high % of Americans that dislike cop / police. I would like to know why, im sure they cant be THAT bad or corrupted?.

In defense of US police agencies, it's a matter of the 99% of bad cops painting the 1% of good cops in a bad light.

//I keed, I keed

gman1401 wrote:I am a college student studying Criminal Justice and so am always searching YouTube for police in action types of videos. A majority of the results when you type in, say "police shootout" or "police arrest" or something end up being about how all cops are pigs who should all die and what not.
I am very appreciative of police and the work they do for us. Now, I realize that police brutality exists, but am also keen enough to realize how isolated it actually is and how quickly liberal media scoops up stories and go to town with them. This is really beginning to get on my nerves!
Every business has bad seeds, yet I don't see people dubbing every coach a child molester after this UPenn incident or every foorball player a dog abuser after Vick.

I think America should be more respective of police in general. End rant.

I'm going to play Devils Advocate with the majority of people in this thread and say that I'm a law abiding citizen with no criminal record, and I genuinely dislike the Police.

I have numerous tales and anecdotes of minor run ins with the police, but I wont bore you with most of them, most amusingly one that springs to mind is when me and two mates were locked out of his girlfriends house after we had been to the pub cos we beat her home. We sat on her wall for ten minutes and then a police van and 2 cars pulled up. The coppers were ridiculously aggressive, and one of them stood about two inches from my face and starting being massively aggro. I worked with the PSNI for a great length of time and recieved 9 weeks training pre deployment to Northern Ireland, and we were taught law enforcement techniques such as "chat up" techniques, how they teach you to stand at an angle to any would be aggressors instead of taking a square on stance as it can escalate the situation, to lean backwards and speak softly to try and avoid conflict. And this guy was doing the exact opposite and I told him so. Its like they want us to swing for them so they have an excuse to beat you up.

Basically it boils down to this, I believe that our police are staggeringly unprofessional. They really do get away (on occasion, clearly not for major felonies) with breaking the laws that they are supposed to uphold, their training is a joke, they don't have regular fitness tests, and most importantly, it seems to me that years ago policemen were all rough and tumble working class blokes who knew everyone from the local community. Nowadays it's a good job, with a good pension, so you get women with degree's in History doing it or spotty skinny types who got bulled at school and have a chip on their shoulder, they are scared of their own shadows, and this fear makes them act in a ridiculous manner. I have seen some of them visibly shaking at the football matches when it gets a wee bit dicey, and as a result they will gas your face off soon as look at you.

Not all cops are bad, Ive met a few good one's, but loads of them are, and as a result I try to avoid speaking to them or interacting with them at all. Respect has to be earned, and I have very little for the police. I would also add that I never phone them as a result, and I know loads of people who are the exact same, so the crime figures are probably way higher than they suggest!





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote: but in the end I think people still generally side with cops over criminals at least...

This much is true however, and I can fully understand WHY cops act unprofessionally after dealing with scum ALL day, some clearly find it hard to switch their "im dealing with animals!" button over to "now im talking to a nice citizen" and I think that's half the problem.

I reckon in the UK at least, political interference is damaging to the morale and cohesion of the Police force. The British government seems to like micromanaging every state body instead of letting the professionals in the different fields make decisions.

There needs to be a proper balance between oversight and independence.

I got hooked in watching White Chapel on BBC on demand.....

I think one can also make the point that, since the 1950s, there has been a pretty strong seam of anti-authoritarianism running through popular culture, specifically in film and pop music. As one of the most potently symbolic apparatuses of state paternalism, it seems fairly understandable that teenage rebellion (the wellspring of late 20th century western popular culture) would focus upon the police as a figure to be rebelled against. Culture is powerful - it's formative to young people. If you grow up consuming cultural texts that give you the impression that the police are the enemy, then in some cases that message will be embedded from an early age, and reinforced by experience. It can certainly affect one's perspective.

I actually feel that there's a rising tide of militarism in western popular culture, incidentally.

I'm just going to leave this here.

I dislike cops because on more than one occasion I have seen them lie outright in court. There are plenty of stories where cops are even proven to be lying outright in court, and nothing happens.

While these might be outliers, the fact that other cops cover for them or turn a blind eye to their misconduct is unacceptable.

as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become


if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM

Albatross wrote:I think one can also make the point that, since the 1950s, there has been a pretty strong seam of anti-authoritarianism running through popular culture, specifically in film and pop music. As one of the most potently symbolic apparatuses of state paternalism, it seems fairly understandable that teenage rebellion (the wellspring of late 20th century western popular culture) would focus upon the police as a figure to be rebelled against. Culture is powerful - it's formative to young people. If you grow up consuming cultural texts that give you the impression that the police are the enemy, then in some cases that message will be embedded from an early age, and reinforced by experience. It can certainly affect one's perspective.

I actually feel that there's a rising tide of militarism in western popular culture, incidentally.

Militarism perhaps, certainly there has been an increase in conservatism and authoritarianism in the past 10+ years.

The British reaction against the police can be traced to Thatcher's user of them as paramilitary shock forces to suppress the miners' strike of the early 80s.

The drug laws are also to blame. Many people in all levels of society are well aware that drugs aren't worth the penalties the police are compelled to exact against them.

Kilkrazy wrote:The drug laws are also to blame. Many people in all levels of society are well aware that drugs aren't worth the penalties the police are compelled to exact against them.

What many people in all levels of society are not so aware of is that police don't necessarily arrest every single offender who has broken drug laws.

In many cases, drug arrests are used on individuals who have one of three things going on:
1) Ties to illicit organizations, who can be used as a leveraging point to get them to turn witness against the organization in question.
2) Repeated "under the influence" offenses or repeated instances of a single officer letting the individual slide for the offense.
3) The individual cannot be arrested for a greater crime due to lack of evidence, thus the lesser crime is used to keep the individual out of society for a period of time.

Ordinary people don't necessarily make much distinction between the police, the courts and the government. They are all "The Man".

DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM

I can't see a problem with modern policing--outside of the crummy pay, the lack of educational and ethical admission standards, the constant hate shoveled their way, the attempts by protesters to always coordinate it so that the police are videotaped "throwing the first punch" whilst the police video which is unedited and not available to the general public will show that the protesters had been trying to ramp up the situation for hours beforehand, etc.

Seriously. You want better police? You have a better pay standard, a better protection system within the organization for those willing to compromise the "wall of silence" to report issues they've observed, etc.

As it stands now, whistleblowers will generally not come forward. Why? The job's stressful enough without having to worry about knives at your back from the people who are supposed to be watching it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Ordinary people don't necessarily make much distinction between the police, the courts and the government. They are all "The Man".

Then maybe ordinary people need to wise up.

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The drug laws are also to blame. Many people in all levels of society are well aware that drugs aren't worth the penalties the police are compelled to exact against them.

What many people in all levels of society are not so aware of is that police don't necessarily arrest every single offender who has broken drug laws.

Perhaps the USA could learn from this country that you speak of, where is it again? The number of people found with drugs on them that were just given a warning would have to be such a small number as to be almost insignificant.

Kanluwen wrote:1) Ties to illicit organizations, who can be used as a leveraging point to get them to turn witness against the organization in question.

This ties into the drug laws being woefully inefficient, if not downright encouraging of these types of organizations to exist. Prohibition leads to Al Capone, legal alcohol leads to Budweiser.

Ahtman wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The drug laws are also to blame. Many people in all levels of society are well aware that drugs aren't worth the penalties the police are compelled to exact against them.

What many people in all levels of society are not so aware of is that police don't necessarily arrest every single offender who has broken drug laws.

Perhaps the USA could learn from this country that you speak of, where is it again? The number of people found with drugs on them that were just given a warning would have to be such a small number as to be almost insignificant.

If you think that every single individual found with drugs on them are actually arrested--I do not know what to tell you.

Kanluwen wrote:1) Ties to illicit organizations, who can be used as a leveraging point to get them to turn witness against the organization in question.

This ties into the drug laws being woefully inefficient, if not downright encouraging of these types of organizations to exist. Prohibition leads to Al Capone, legal alcohol leads to Budweiser.

Actually it ties into the fact that these organizations are organized(gasp!) in such a way that they are unable to be prosecuted without testimony from insiders or these groups have to royally feth up to be brought down.

Kanluwen wrote:If you think that every single individual found with drugs on them are actually arrested--I do not know what to tell you.

So not only can you not read, you also don't have anything to back up your statement. Very good.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually it ties into the fact that these organizations are organized(gasp!) in such a way that they are unable to be prosecuted without testimony from insiders or these groups have to royally feth up to be brought down.

Look at organized crime before Prohibition, during, and after and you see a significant difference in each phase. The same is true here. Again, you seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension, as my argument in no way stated organized crime would completely cease to exist, but that our laws exacerbate the problem, not lead to solutions, much like how Prohibition was supposed to help curb societies ills but instead made us a nation full of criminals, either through being part of the selling of alcohol or by purchasing and drinking it. We've been waging a failing "War on Drugs" for years now and it hasn't slowed down drug use and it has created larger organized criminal organizations to boot.

I dislike the cops over here because they have repeatedly come out and complained/searched/moved me on but when being chased down a street by a bunch of d***s with knifes wouldn't come out at all.

Howver they have also pursued my friends mugging with an unholy zeal so they are a double edged sword.

Nom

I've no criminal record to speak of, but I do not like cops much at all. Biggest reason for that is because they're simply human. It's very possible that you will get a ticket based on how attractive you are. This ties with the concept that a cop has the right to give you a warning or a ticket. I've seen people get warnings who knew they were doing something bad, but still got out of it, and I've seen people who make normal mistakes and get punished for it. I rode with a black friend once while I was in the back seat about 11 or so at night, and a cop pulled him over "Just to make sure he wasn't doing something bad". Yeah right.

Cops get paid to do two things, catch bad people doing bad things, and capitalize on the mistakes good people make.

Ahtman wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If you think that every single individual found with drugs on them are actually arrested--I do not know what to tell you.

So not only can you not read, you also don't have anything to back up your statement. Very good.

I can read just fine.

You know, much like you can apparently not actually provide a point to refute.

Ahtman wrote:Perhaps the USA could learn from this country that you speak of, where is it again? The number of people found with drugs on them that were just given a warning would have to be such a small number as to be almost insignificant.

There's nothing to refute there. Just a smartmouth comment implying that the police arrest every single individual with drugs found on them.

Oh, and by the way?

Per the decision by the US Supreme Court in 1992 for the case of "Minnesota v. Dickerson", officers cannot frisk an individual beyond what is allowed by the decision established in 1968 for Terry v. Ohio.

What that means is that "a frisk that goes beyond what is allowed under Terry is not valid. In this case, the search went beyond the 'pat-down search' allowed by Terry because the officer 'squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the packet's content' before knowing it was cocaine".

Terry allows for a protective search without a warrant and on the basis of reasonable suspicion "less than probable cause and must be strictly limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby".

TL;DR version for you:
If police cannot readily identify it without having to resort to manipulating the object, even after an individual is seen leaving a known crackhouse (as was done in this case), then there is no possibility to admit it into evidence without some form of warrant or informant tipping them off about it.

Think about that. Proper procedure can be defeated by putting something into a black plastic baggy or a film canister.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually it ties into the fact that these organizations are organized(gasp!) in such a way that they are unable to be prosecuted without testimony from insiders or these groups have to royally feth up to be brought down.

Look at organized crime before Prohibition, during, and after and you see a significant difference in each phase.The same is true here.

Yeah...not really.

Again, you seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension, as my argument in no way stated organized crime would completely cease to exist, but that our laws exacerbate the problem, not lead to solutions, much like how Prohibition was supposed to help curb societies ills but instead made us a nation full of criminals, either through being part of the selling of alcohol or by purchasing and drinking it.

Prohibition was an act brought about to try to create a set of "moral laws". There's no way it was going to succeed, especially not with the "moral ill" being readily available from doctors at the time as a perscription.

We've been waging a failing "War on Drugs" for years now and it hasn't slowed down drug use and it has created larger organized criminal organizations to boot.

We've been waging a failing "War on Drugs" because we've actually done nothing about the production of the crops which are used either to directly create those drugs or create those drugs as a side effect.

In some cases (Peru and Colombia immediately spring to mind) there's nothing which actually CAN be done without a full fledged regime change, overhaul of the country's agricultural production, et al.

Edit was to fix the year on Terry v. Ohio

I have no clue why I put 1969 instead of 1968. Fat fingers musta done it.
Second edit was because I realized I didn't actually finish a sentence.

Kanluwen wrote:

DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM

I can't see a problem with modern policing--outside of the crummy pay, the lack of educational and ethical admission standards, the constant hate shoveled their way, the attempts by protesters to always coordinate it so that the police are videotaped "throwing the first punch" whilst the police video which is unedited and not available to the general public will show that the protesters had been trying to ramp up the situation.

And why do you think the video from the police is need available? During recent protests there have been a ton of cops running around with video cameras, but no footage that shows that they were innocent?

We have had court battles here in oklahoma to force cops to release their footage, and they are fighting it tooth and nail. If they have footage that shows a guy punching a cop it will be on the news on he same day, but I'd he cop puts a paramedic in a choke hold they refuse to release the footage.

If the cops were innocent, they would have already released the footage, footage that should be public record anyway and should be released after a FOI request but usually isn't.

d-usa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM

I can't see a problem with modern policing--outside of the crummy pay, the lack of educational and ethical admission standards, the constant hate shoveled their way, the attempts by protesters to always coordinate it so that the police are videotaped "throwing the first punch" whilst the police video which is unedited and not available to the general public will show that the protesters had been trying to ramp up the situation.

And why do you think the video from the police is need available? During recent protests there have been a ton of cops running around with video cameras, but no footage that shows that they were innocent?

We have had court battles here in oklahoma to force cops to release their footage, and they are fighting it tooth and nail. If they have footage that shows a guy punching a cop it will be on the news on he same day, but I'd he cop puts a paramedic in a choke hold they refuse to release the footage.

If the cops were innocent, they would have already released the footage, footage that should be public record anyway and should be released after a FOI request but usually isn't.

You missed what I actually was saying.

Protesters purposely go out of their way to edit their videos so that it is always showing the police in the most negative light possible. The video is likely not available to the general public because it's being utilized as part of an open investigation within the department by the Internal Affairs office to clear the officers or confirm that they were, in fact, behaving inappropriately.

But hey. Let's make that public record. While we're at it let's make it so that whenever some moron gets filmed throwing a punch at a cop and the cop retaliates, the video can only be released showing the moron throwing the first punch.

Boys, I'm going to give a first and last warning here. Stay polite.

Warnings will follow up quickly, OT has been a little too feisty this weekend.

Kanluwen wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

DIDM wrote:as tired as you are, there are many many more who are tired of what the police have become
if you can't see a problem with modern policing then you are one of THEM

I can't see a problem with modern policing--outside of the crummy pay, the lack of educational and ethical admission standards, the constant hate shoveled their way, the attempts by protesters to always coordinate it so that the police are videotaped "throwing the first punch" whilst the police video which is unedited and not available to the general public will show that the protesters had been trying to ramp up the situation.

And why do you think the video from the police is need available? During recent protests there have been a ton of cops running around with video cameras, but no footage that shows that they were innocent?

We have had court battles here in oklahoma to force cops to release their footage, and they are fighting it tooth and nail. If they have footage that shows a guy punching a cop it will be on the news on he same day, but I'd he cop puts a paramedic in a choke hold they refuse to release the footage.

If the cops were innocent, they would have already released the footage, footage that should be public record anyway and should be released after a FOI request but usually isn't.

You missed what I actually was saying.

Protesters purposely go out of their way to edit their videos so that it is always showing the police in the most negative light possible. The video is likely not available to the general public because it's being utilized as part of an open investigation within the department by the Internal Affairs office to clear the officers or confirm that they were, in fact, behaving inappropriately.

But hey. Let's make that public record. While we're at it let's make it so that whenever some moron gets filmed throwing a punch at a cop and the cop retaliates, the video can only be released showing the moron throwing the first punch.

And you missed my point completely. Police videos showing criminals acting bad ALWAYS get released to the media, even if he investigation is still ongoing.

Police videos showing cops breaking the law is never released, citing ongoing investigations that could be harmed by the release.

Just because he cops are having an internal investigation, that does not change that whatever happened in the video happened. Cops are trying to hide their mistakes using 20th century tactics when everyone around them is using 21st century technology.

Actual "police videos"(as in: videos taken by the police) actually DON'T get released to the media by and large, especially if an investigation or a trial is ongoing. The few examples I can think of are identifying tapes from instances where an officer is shot during a routine traffic stop or things of that nature.

Evidence such as bank security tapes, etc DO get released--but they only get released in the interest of "public awareness" as they are used for 'hotlines' to get people calling in if they recognize the individual.

Warnings will follow up quickly, OT has been a little too feisty this weekend.

THink its the full moon perhaps?

There's a definite line between holding the police accountable and cop bashing. Not all cops are bad but as servants of the public they are held responsible by the same.
I think what really grates on my nerves are swat teams. There is such a thing as too much. The other thing is Tasers. Tasers make cops lazy and citizens less compliant. When the choice was compliance or a pretty solid beating on the end of a baton both police and citizen had room to pause and think, " do I really want to go there?" Tasers take the necessity of compromise off the table for both sides. The cop doesn't have to resolve the issue peacefully and the citizen knows that instead of a bone crunching beating the worst that will happen is some electric shock and some pepper spray.

AustonT wrote:There's a definite line between holding the police accountable and cop bashing. Not all cops are bad but as servants of the public they are held responsible by the same.
I think what really grates on my nerves are swat teams. There is such a thing as too much. The other thing is Tasers. Tasers make cops lazy and citizens less compliant. When the choice was compliance or a pretty solid beating on the end of a baton both police and citizen had room to pause and think, " do I really want to go there?" Tasers take the necessity of compromise off the table for both sides. The cop doesn't have to resolve the issue peacefully and the citizen knows that instead of a bone crunching beating the worst that will happen is some electric shock and some pepper spray.

I wouldn't say that tasers "make cops lazy".

I would say, however, that it does make cops a little bit less tolerant of people's crap.

But if we're going to be honest about it: you see this of almost anyone(police or private citizens both) who possesses a taser or pepper spray--rather than talk things out, rationally it's far easier to just taze or spray them and call it a day.

The only difference is that now tasers are considered by police departments to be the 'best defense' of their officers to any potential hostility from individuals they're confronting.
Why? Because if a cop lays hands on someone or beats them senseless with a collapsible baton--that someone can claim they've been heavily mistreated and/or that the officer was "trying to kill them".

However we know that tasers are not lethal, barring certain circumstances (individuals with pacemakers, weak hearts, extreme respiratory issues and/or the potential for seizures) which cannot necessarily be foreseen.

I do very little in terms of illegal activity and have nightmares and an extreme paranoia in regards to cops. They bug me. I have little respect for them by default and I'm open about it. They can ticket you for no reason, which can absolutely kill someone's budget. Why does some random guy have that kind of power over me? It's silly. I've been stopped multiple times while walking and upon asking why I was stopped they said they were just making sure I was being safe, etc yet they asked for my ID. Why are they trying to randomly ID me? What the hell? Is running or walking in exercise shorts and no shirt illegal or something? I thought they weren't supposed to be able to do that. Whatever.

In regards to your stoppage thing: look into "Terry v. Ohio" Cannerus.

Landmark case about stops, mostly dealing with context.

And actually they need a reason to ticket you. You don't just get ticketed "because", and if you do--you can challenge it.

Kanluwen wrote:In regards to your stoppage thing: look into "Terry v. Ohio" Cannerus.

Landmark case about stops, mostly dealing with context.

And actually they need a reason to ticket you. You don't just get ticketed "because", and if you do--you can challenge it.

It's called they open their magic book of bs and choose a reason to give you a ticket. If you want to challenge it, there's no guarantee of getting out of anything and it costs your time and effort to get it dismissed OR ELSE YOU GET A WARRANT AND GET ARRESTED. Does anyone think this is remotely fair? I heard a police chief tell me that he told every trainee they had that if you couldn't find a reason to ticket someone after observing them driving/walking for one city block, then you were a bad cop. If I hadn't heard and seen that proven, I wouldn't hold this view. I'll look up that case.