Sheepdogs vs. Wolves : Law Enforcement, Predators and Prey, and Love or Hate Cops...

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Oops. I wasn't referring to your post. Someone else said they weren't in combat. I disagreed with that. Me being lazy. Sorry for the confusion, but I dig the pics

reply to post by ~Lucidity


It happens.

Nothing to see here.

Move along please.

Jedi Mind Trick

reply to post by ~Lucidity


LEO's would LIKE to be considered in combat. That is why it is called "The WAR on Drugs or the War on Terror." It is NOT war and it is not combat no matter how much someone may want it to be. Like the term RACIST or HATE have been degraded to be used for something that used to be called dislike. Calling what LEO"s do combat is changing and degrading the meaning of the term. "Oh I am a HERO because I am in combat all the time. I need APC's machineguns, grenade launchers to write tickets for someone speeding." Merely a means to aggrandize themselves to those who lack knowledge and are easily impressed.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
How do we force that to change though?

Honestly I'm not sure we can force a change. Regardless of how we went about it, or what we tried to change, we'd still have to trust that those in charge would do as they're supposed to which really would just put us right back where we're starting from. That's not to say that change isn't possible, I believe it is. It just would still require trust that things would happen the way they're supposed to.

When it comes to this travesty of justice this means a lack of money to defend someone who might merely be suspect through circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps public defenders just don't get paid in such a way that encourages them to work their hardest, or maybe they're just over-worked. It's been my experience that someone working on a salary does less work than someone doing the same job for commission or even just for hourly pay. They get paid the same whether they work their tail end off or sit around doing as little as possible. There's just no incentive to work hard.

A defense attorney you hire on your own however, gets paid more. In my state for example, a public defender makes $40k per year on average and are salary employees while a private attorney averages out around $70k and charge by the hour. (I went to Payscale.com for salary info and used the box at the bottom of the page if anyone else wants to look at salary differences. There's just no link to post without going through the entire calculator process and even then I'm not sure it would work right.) There's more incentive for a private attorney to work longer hours on a case. Not to mention they can choose their case load while a public defender may have more cases than they can handle and still do a good job. I just can't really put too much blame on public defenders knowing they don't really get paid well and often have more clients than they can defend well. It's the system that's broken, I think.


Edit: Holy grammar, batman!

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Jenna]

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
LEO's would LIKE to be considered in combat. That is why it is called "The WAR on Drugs or the War on Terror." It is NOT war and it is not combat no matter how much someone may want it to be.

You do realize that it wasn't a cop that named either of those 'wars' right? The 'war' on terror was Bush's brain-child and the 'war' on drugs was Nancy Reagan's with her "Just Say No!" campaign.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


As Jenna mentioned both of those "wars" were named as political ploys.

Nothing more.

A war is a battle which has a goal of eventually ending.

Neither the farcical War on Drugs or War on Terror has a plotted end.

Continual and unending funding are their motivation.

But that goes into both domestic and foreign policy.

A much deeper topic for this thread which has not built up to it.

Yet.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Being a LEO ranks number 12. hubpages.com... Sorry if it didn't embed correctly. Not good with computers.

As to you saying that setting a wolf trap was ugly just as using a lamb to bait it is. Read your own article. I believe it says something about how sheepdogs should be removed if they harm the littlest of lambs. Like I said no excuses, no reasons are acceptable. Or are you going to take your child down to them at their station and say "it is perfectly ok for the good of the sheep for you to take my child, turn my child into a drug user, and arrange for my child to be murdered." Until you do my words stand. No excuse, no reason is acceptable. Of course if they want to have their own kids killed to get a promotion that is fine with me. They won't of course. That is what the sheep are for right? A question for you. Is it all right for undercover agents to murder people to prove their credentials? Look up the House of Death in Juarez from 10 years ago. Or is it all right for those LEO's to rape underage girls so they can use them to get in with certain types of people? How about turning them into drug addicts so they can sell them? Where do you draw the line? Where do you say no they can not do that? I know where I do.

Originally posted by Jenna
Honestly I'm not sure we can force a change. Regardless of how we went about it, or what we tried to change, we'd still have to trust that those in charge would do as they're supposed to which really would just put us right back where we're starting from. That's not to say that change isn't possible, I believe it is. It just would still require trust that things would happen the way they're supposed to.

I believe a change is possible too.

It is just how to go about doing it.

But over all those within the system itself will buck that changes.

I do not trust those in charge to be willing to sit idle with a change.

That all depends as well who we're discussing with those being in charge.

The President?

He would not listen, the current, or the next.

Congress?

Too many career politicians.

Judiciary?

They would probably feel threatened.

Originally posted by Jenna
Perhaps public defenders just don't get paid in such a way that encourages them to work their hardest, or maybe they're just over-worked. It's been my experience that someone working on a salary does less work than someone doing the same job for commission or even just for hourly pay. They get paid the same whether they work their tail end off or sit around doing as little as possible. There's just no incentive to work hard.

Of course not.

No one is willing to work harder for the little man.

The underdog, the common citizen, is seen as not worthy.

If they were there might be a fairer way to deal with that.

Until this is changed though criminals will hire top-notch lawyers.

And common citizens who might be guilty or might be innocent get screwed.

Originally posted by Jenna
A defense attorney you hire on your own however, gets paid more. In my state for example, a public defender makes $40k per year on average and are salary employees while a private attorney averages out around $70k and charge by the hour. (I went to Payscale.com for salary info and used the box at the bottom of the page if anyone else wants to look at salary differences. There's just no link to post without going through the entire calculator process and even then I'm not sure it would work right.) There's more incentive for a private attorney to work longer hours on a case. Not to mention they can choose their case load while a public defender may have more cases than they can handle and still do a good job. I just can't really put too much blame on public defenders knowing they don't really get paid well and often have more clients than they can defend well. It's the system that's broken, I think.


Edit: Holy grammar, batman!

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Jenna]

Of course.

A private attorney can bill by the hour.

Public Defender's go home at 5pm.

I know that is a gross generalization but it fits.

reply to post by Jenna


As those are not real wars neither is what LEO's do real COMBAT. That is my point. They are number 12 in most dangerous jobs. They do not need APC's, machine guns or rocket launchers yet they want you to believe they do. That their job is all so dangerous. This allows them to break the law ways we would lynch our neighbor for but it is ok because they are in such a dangerous job risking their lives for us. Just propaganda. No knock warrants, immunity from crimes which they would arrest us for, immunity for prosecutors who freely admit they falsified evidence at trial to convict a innocent man. Was up for the SCOTUS to decide but was paid off before they did last year.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Being a LEO ranks number 12. hubpages.com... Sorry if it didn't embed correctly. Not good with computers.[/url]

Your linking is fine.

Thank you for supplying the statistics.

I will send you a U2U with a link to learn the coding (Embedding).

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
As to you saying that setting a wolf trap was ugly just as using a lamb to bait it is. Read your own article.

I did read the article.

It was used as a reference point and as inspiration.

Bait is bait, just as fishing is fishing, just as a trap is a trap.

I never said I necessarily agreed with the concept.

You will note I am keeping my replies balanced.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
I believe it says something about how sheepdogs should be removed if they harm the littlest of lambs.

I am going to go out on a limb here.

I read your profile where you posted about your daughter.

I am going to guess based on your replies so far as well as your profile.

Your daughter was caught, in some minor crime, or even slightly less minor crime.

And I bet they "flipped" her?

Meaning they would let her off her charges, or reduce her charges, if she cooperated?

Am I close?

I read people real good because I was taught as well as learned profiling.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Like I said no excuses, no reasons are acceptable.

I agree.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Or are you going to take your child down to them at their station and say "it is perfectly ok for the good of the sheep for you to take my child, turn my child into a drug user, and arrange for my child to be murdered."

I cannot say with any degree how you might feel.

I am not a parent.

However, I can guarantee our parenting skills, thoughts on raising children, and the way we would handle our children would be different, wholly different.

Based on the way I was raised and by who I was raised and how I see life.

If my child or teenager was arrested they would sit in jail.

No bail.

No comfort.

But I believe in hard lessons are due for hard experiences.

My parents would have left me to rot in jail had I done anything stupid enough to land me there, and while I would have been mad, had it happened, in the long run it would have made me a better person, but I am male.

A female child needs different parenting than a male.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Until you do my words stand.

You words stands irregardless of what I do or do not do.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
No excuse, no reason is acceptable.

To you and your perspective.

I agree with you.

But we all have our own choices to make in life.

There are some things I have decided will or will not happen already.

Before my children are born.

Color me a heartless asshole.

I have been called worse.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Of course if they want to have their own kids killed to get a promotion that is fine with me. They won't of course. That is what the sheep are for right?

No leader usually send their children into any form of combat.

Politician's will not.

Not without pulling strings.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
A question for you. Is it all right for undercover agents to murder people to prove their credentials? Look up the House of Death in Juarez from 10 years ago. Or is it all right for those LEO's to rape underage girls so they can use them to get in with certain types of people? How about turning them into drug addicts so they can sell them? Where do you draw the line? Where do you say no they can not do that? I know where I do.

As I understand it an Undercover Officer is allowed to commit almost any crime, up to a felony, that is where the limit is, to retain their cover.

That is their cover identity.

Now, that to me is not acceptable, up to a felony?

Well, that is where politicians, not Police Officer's make decisions.

And by politician's, I am referencing Police Officer's, greedy to climb the corporate ladder.

As well as some podium supporting bastards.

It is in my opinion never allowable, correct, or even ethical to allow someone to be raped, no matter whether it is to maintain cover, whether to commit a crime to "get in good" with the crime lords, or just sit by.

And I give the same answer to the drug addict question.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
I do not trust those in charge to be willing to sit idle with a change.

Nor do I. If you try to buck the system and can be considered a legitimate threat to the status quo, you're demonized. Look at the wire-tapping the Bush administration was doing. Or Homeland Security's report on Right-Wing Extremism, or any other list/report they've come up with in the last few years. Or the Obama administrations request that people forward emails that criticized the health care bill. If you don't fall in line, you are dangerous. That is the message they are sending. The sad thing is that the demonization works.

I think I'm starting to ramble... Moving on, then.

No one is willing to work harder for the little man.

The underdog, the common citizen, is seen as not worthy.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. There are some who will work harder for the little man. But most won't. It requires some incentive to get them to do so. Like I said, humans are very selfish creatures.

A private attorney can bill by the hour.

Public Defender's go home at 5pm.

Pretty much, yeah.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


In my area, no they don't need any of that. But they also know better than to ask for it. We've had a one hostage situation in the last 10 years, and only around 20 murders in the last 5 that I can remember. Small towns are great like that. The most dangerous thing they do where I live is raid drug houses, which can be dangerous, but usually isn't here.

SWAT teams might have to deal with combat or combat-like (depending on what you view as combat) situations, but regular cops in my area most definitely do not. Of course, in my area if a cop screws up they're off the force too. Again, the benefit of a small town where everybody knows everybody else's business. (Except mine since I don't do anything worth talking about. )Hard to be a shady cop when the chief of police finds out within a few hours.

Originally posted by Jenna
Nor do I. If you try to buck the system and can be considered a legitimate threat to the status quo, you're demonized. Look at the wire-tapping the Bush administration was doing.

Yes, this is what those in power see, that ruffling their feather is a threat.

Not that they are stepping out of Constitutional bounds.

Each step towards tyranny is one less right we have.

I am going to recommend to you Glenn Beck's newest book.

The Overton Window

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a12d12443380.jpg[/atsimg]

Partial Amazon Review :

A plan to destroy America, a hundred years in the making, is about to be unleashed . . . can it be stopped?

There is a powerful technique called the Overton Window that can shape our lives, our laws, and our future.

It works by manipulating public perception so that ideas previously thought of as radical begin to seem acceptable over time. Move the Window and you change the debate.

Change the debate and you change the country.

I am not a Glenn Beck fan so do not hate me now.

I borrowed the book.

And not in the borrowed without returning sense either.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Overton Window

The Overton window, in political theory, describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on a particular issue.

It is named after its originator, Joseph P. Overton, former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

It is a real concept.

However, I believe Mr. Overton did not create it, he stole it.

Typical political type if you ask me, steal, borrow, but never create.

His "concept" is derived from the Hegelian Dialectic, Overton and Beck.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Hegelian Dialectic

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a three-fold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.

I know it well and it is easy to spot.

Originally posted by Jenna
Or Homeland Security's report on Right-Wing Extremism, or any other list/report they've come up with in the last few years. Or the Obama administrations request that people forward emails that criticized the health care bill. If you don't fall in line, you are dangerous.

Of course.

Anything which upsets the apple cart vendor's schemes and scam is seen as dangerous.

Color me non-extremist though.

And the M.I.A.C. Report is nothing short of repackaged COINTELPRO.

Different Law Enforcement organization, same tactics, same strategy.

Originally posted by Jenna
That is the message they are sending. The sad thing is that the demonization works.

It only works if we're too stupid to fall for the wolftrap.

Speak of violence and guns and you become a target.

However, speak of peace, and lawful protest, you become a target.

Find a good stance and stick with it.

Originally posted by Jenna
Unfortunately, I have to agree. There are some who will work harder for the little man. But most won't. It requires some incentive to get them to do so. Like I said, humans are very selfish creatures.

Selfish to the end's the the Earth.

Only mankind plots their own self-destruction.

What do you get when you throw 10,000 attorney's into the Mariana Trench?

A good start.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Your daughter was caught, in some minor crime, or even slightly less minor crime.

And I bet they "flipped" her?

No. Not true. Just as the over 300 women murdered and buried in Juarez were not caught in a crime. Good attempt at a cop out though. Blame the victim. Are you a LEO perhaps? As to your suggestion. Even if such a thing was true doing such a thing to 15 year olds is still illegal. Lots of charges if someone other than a LEO was to do it. Or a CI protected by LEO's. IF a prosecuter would allow charges.

Thing is it was part of a criminal enterprise being run by LEO's. Sheriff quit HIS job to keep HIS family from being killed. Others got involved to take out the bad LEO's. A very complicated story and where my investigation was heading was a guarentee of me dying. Our dear LEO's tried to get me to take on the Las Zeta's and they were not involved.

The thing is most LEO's are not aware of what goes on in their own departments. I have found most do not want to know. They are interested not in protecting the sheep but in protecting themselves and their jobs. They are not the sheepdogs of your story. They are not hero's. They are not in danger all the time, they are not in combat. There are a few who are but they are in the minority, not the majority. It is a case of a few good apples and the rest bad. Even the good ones are bad.

I do suggest you do not go out on limbs anymore though. Making assumptions like that is usually why LEO's get the wrong people. It is also why people start to HATE LEO's. They do not want to work and find evidence. They would prefer just to drive a innocent person bankrupt so they will take a plea than work and find the guilty. Easier that way. For them.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
No. Not true. Just as the over 300 women murdered and buried in Juarez were not caught in a crime. Good attempt at a cop out though. Blame the victim. Are you a LEO perhaps?

No, I am not a Law Enforcement Officer, I could have been though.

Rodeo Clown Commercial


Not a "cop-out" either.

I never blamed your daughter.

I based all of my comments upon your comments.

And made an educated guess.

Since you're being very vague I might have guessed wrong.

We're either going to do a few things here.

Keep playing guessing games, and run around in circles, or actually discuss it.

Remember, you brought your daughter into this discussion, not me.

By including all sorts of commentary about your distrust of Law Enforcement.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
As to your suggestion. Even if such a thing was true doing such a thing to 15 year olds is still illegal. Lots of charges if someone other than a LEO was to do it. Or a CI protected by LEO's. IF a prosecuter would allow charges.

I never said it was legal or illegal now did I?

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Thing is it was part of a criminal enterprise being run by LEO's. Sheriff quit HIS job to keep HIS family from being killed. Others got involved to take out the bad LEO's. A very complicated story and where my investigation was heading was a guarentee of me dying. Our dear LEO's tried to get me to take on the Las Zeta's and they were not involved.

Well, now that you've included more detail, it is appreciated.

Remember, someone discussing something needs fact, you left a lot out.

That is not an accusation it is an observation based around your replies.

As well as you now attacking my credibility.

And I asked questions, without accusing, yes I assumed, but I did not accuse.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
The thing is most LEO's are not aware of what goes on in their own departments. I have found most do not want to know. They are interested not in protecting the sheep but in protecting themselves and their jobs. They are not the sheepdogs of your story. They are not hero's. They are not in danger all the time, they are not in combat. There are a few who are but they are in the minority, not the majority. It is a case of a few good apples and the rest bad. Even the good ones are bad.

That is your perception of course.

Remember, I began starting this thread stating perceptions, it is a part of it.

There are always percentages of those within power who are corrupt.

Always.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
I do suggest you do not go out on limbs anymore though. Making assumptions like that is usually why LEO's get the wrong people. It is also why people start to HATE LEO's. They do not want to work and find evidence. They would prefer just to drive a innocent person bankrupt so they will take a plea than work and find the guilty. Easier that way. For them.

Hey, first of all, thanks for the warning, you're not someone I can trust.

You left out all sorts of details.

I can go out on limbs and admit I am wrong too.

It is a part of being human.

And I did ask questions.

That is a part of communicating via this venue.

Your daughter could be innocent.

If I was wrong I can apologize as well.

But if all you're going to do is disparage me I will assume you're lying.

We can both call this water under the bridge and forgive each other.

Or you can keep an axe to grind.

I am not going to go out of my way to attack you but I will defend myself.

That is a part of being human.

And I know you and I can discuss this civilly.

Or not.

If you choose not to well that is your choice.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


What kind of police officers are you referring to that want the big guns because their jobs are so dangerous? At my work and with members in all forms of LE in my family there's a consensus that it's not the weapons that make the jobs easier but the ability to communicate effectively that allows for better productivity and safety in the workplace.

- There's nothing like knowing that because of politics, your own department in a large metropolitan city doesn't have a radio dispatcher so you get situations where three deputies arrive on the scene of a burning taxi (by chance mind you, and SF Sheriff's Deputies don't have patrol jurisdiction) and a Captain not on the scene is calling a Code 4 while they're still pulling burning bodies out of the car. They were also operating on one channel also so SFPD and the rest of the SFSD were oblivious to the incident. The only reason the 911 got notified was because of deputies that heard the Code 3 and the citizen that was assisting on scene, all by personal cell phone BTW.

- Then there's this, I'm a civilian employee in the SFSD yet I wear a uniform that is near identical to CHP's with SFSD department patches. Also, I'm mobile (walking) most of the time and while my supervisors and downtown knows this I still don't have a radio because there aren't enough radios to go around for even new deputies. And while I have to make the best of a situation by using my words and body language because I have no defensive tactics training or any defensive utilities per policy the truth of the matter is I don't want them (except a radio of course).
Believe it or not the people who are more surprised by the fact that I do what I do aren't other LEOs (surprising I know since all cops want maximum DPS on a perp :@@ but seriously are the people that I've met in and out of custody and the general public. This is because every single LEO I've known (co-worker and family) use the power of words over any other option even when someone's being non-compliant, up to a point of course. Politeness and professionalism go miles further than skull and hip cracking.

Oh damn... I've been rambling. Sorry, one of the effects of my pain meds. My concern still stands about what LEOs WANT to have the M-16s and ability to do more "shady" things? Quite simply in my experience those that want those things are in SWAT or SRT and only want to use them when the situation demands it. Your average beat cop (my dad for one) doesn't like using tools that have the chance to injure someone when verbal commands work just as well. It stays with you knowing a situation turned physical when you recollect that there may have been the possibility to use a lesser force option, even if what you did was complete in compliance with law and policy.

To the OP, thank you for posting that story of the sheep and wolves, it made my day and speaks to me in the sense that I've always had a sense of duty to help people in need whether they deserve it or not. S+F

Originally posted by mistafaz
To the OP, thank you for posting that story of the sheep and wolves, it made my day and speaks to me in the sense that I've always had a sense of duty to help people in need whether they deserve it or not. S+F

Ramble on all you want.

You were on topic as far as I saw.

And no problem about the story.

I spent a long time trying to find it seeing as I got it as a print out originally.

It got taken back too.

Your story does not surpirse me in the least.

As I see it a Law Enforcement Officer's first three weapons should be :

1) Their brains.

2) Their persona.

3) Their ability to use communicative skills.

Not necessarily in that order.

Before they ever lay a hand on a gun, baton, handcuffs, or taser.

It was a part of what I had planned to say when I was considering Police Academy.

I ended up not going in after all.

Between paperwork, a relationship, and other nonsense I walked away.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I brought my daughter into this? I spoke in generalities until you went to my profile and brought my daughter into this. As to details. I can give you a lot of them. There would still be a lot I do not know and therefore could not give you. Than there is the mater of proof. Funny there was a broadcast made on broadcast tv that there was no record of at the station within 7 days. Lots of people made copies. Part of the reason I didn't lose my security clearance.

I was speaking in generalities of things I have seen myself. I understood about the implication about my daughter as something like what you suggested happened on the East coast a few years back with the girl being shot to death. LEO's tried to cover up their involvement and would have been able to if she had not left records of what had happened to her. The LEO's who set her up claimed they were not at fault even though they blackmailed her over a couple of joints into a life and death situation without backup and got her killed.

My point is LEO's do this all the time. Most LEO's are not aware of it and when they do finally find out what their brethren do they are horrified. They also cover it up. Not for publication. So even if they do anything about it they hide it from us and say just trust us.

As to you being offended about me suggesting for you not to make assumptions. No one should make assumptions about anything. However it is a standard police tactic to turn the victim into a criminal stating that it was the victim's fault. Do not take my word for it. Just look at the threads on here. Bedridden grandmother on oxegen taking a hostile stance lying in bed. She caused the tazing didn't she. There are many others. That was why I asked if you were a LEO.

If you are saying I was not civil than I believe you have a very low boiling point. Just my belief. I doubt you could show that.