Cop for a Day

reply to post by intrepid

Because drugs are not only NOT a victimless crime, you were probably ripped off by a crackhead looking for a score, they are the cause of many crimes.

Well, we will never know who "ripped" me off, since the police made it perfectly clear that no investigation would be happening regarding that very real and demonstrable crime of theft. Let's, for the sake of argument, say it was a "crackhead" who stole my property. The crime of theft still remains the crime of theft. It was not crack that stole my property, it was the so called "crackhead" you willingly assume stole my property. While motive certainly has play when prosecuting a person for a crime, the actual usage of crack was not the crime, the crime was theft.

Theft, violence, domination and/or control of prostitutes, Etc.

Theft is a crime. Violence, outside of self defense, is a crime. Dominating others against their will is a crime. Prostitution is not a crime, and if prostitutes are being dominated, it is usually by some "pimp" whose whole basis for existence is because prostitution has been invented to be a crime. Prostitution is known "as the world's oldest profession", and will always be around. If a prostitute willingly sells their body for sex, there is no victim and people have a right to contract. An unalienable right to contract.

I could go on. Drugs are a HUGE source of crime.

Poverty is a HUGE source of crime, why don't we just round up all the poor people and put them in prison? Do you have any idea how many sober people, drug and alcohol free all their lives, commit crime? If we are to use your logic, then it is arguable that sobriety is a HUGE source of crime. Why don't we just round up everyone and put them in prison?

I didn't even get into the dealing and distribution of them. Not to mention, um, they are illegal.

You surely don't have a problem with the dealing and distribution of pharmaceuticals. In fact, in the very public schools where the walls are plastered with slogans such as "just say no", there are school nurses making sure that students took their Ritalin. In fact, there are teachers who will threaten parents with social services, and even rely upon judges who will order parents to "medicate" their children with SSRI's, but hey, what the hell, that's perfectly legal, right?

Edit to Add: It should be noted that you are arguing that the police couldn't help me with the crime of burglary because their priority is to catch the "crackheads" who you then argue will steal my property, and what seems to get missed is that if the police were so effective in preventing crime by prioritizing on "crackheads" then how is it you believe it was a "crackhead" that stole my property? The argument becomes the police need to be excused from investigating real crimes, because they need to be investigating the supposed source of crime, and then we must further excuse them for failing to accomplish either.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Poverty is a HUGE source of crime, why don't we just round up all the poor people and put them in prison? Do you have any idea how many sober people, drug and alcohol free all their lives, commit crime? If we are to use your logic, then it is arguable that sobriety is a HUGE source of crime. Why don't we just round up everyone and put them in prison?

I'm sorry, I gave you more credit for "logic" than is warranted on this issue. I won't argue witless semantics.

Cops are unnecessary since private security can do the job better and is more accountable.

1. If I wasn't robbed blind to pay for police pensions, I could afford to subscribe to a private security agency that would respond just like the police to aid me should it be necessary. Since there would be no police in my make believe world, the market would provide the security services necessary.

2. Since there would be no cops, I could carry a gun with me to protect myself and not have to worry about retarded gun laws.

Having a gun and having private security services would suffice.

If I'm murdered, my family could hire a private investigator to track down the criminal. Since the PI would get paid based on his services, he would be highly motivated to find my killer - unlike our criminal police.

Bottom line, coercively funded police are bad - private security guards are good.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I've seen it too, and not just in bad areas.

A few years ago our neighbor was burglarized twice in a month. The police informed him that it was department policy to NOT take fingerprints from residential crime scenes, as it was not "cost effective", yet -- when the real estate office I worked at experienced minor vandalism, the same police department took fingerprints three separate times.

Not slamming the officers here, but it is an observable fact (In El Paso County, anyway) that property crimes are only treated seriously when it is corporate property that is involved.

reply to post by intrepid

I'm sorry, I gave you more credit for "logic" than is warranted on this issue. I won't argue witless semantics.

This is a cowards game. If you cannot argue logically, then be honest and admit that. Relying on logical fallacies as argument does not help you.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s

Not slamming the officers here, but it is an observable fact (In El Paso County, anyway) that property crimes are only treated seriously when it is corporate property that is involved.

Sadly, particularly the police of administrative agencies, have become glorified security guards, and are not truly interested in upholding the law. That law being the protection of people's rights.

Originally posted by intrepid

OK, I'll play. Let's see some links on this. Sorry for not taking your word for it.

I'll snap some cellphone pictures next time I'm passing by the high school I worked at as an EA for a few years, and see police randomly frisking all the teens out at smokers' corner -- bloodshot eyes, throwing a temper tantrum while the kids stand around laughing. Somehow none of them ever get arrested... although its obvious that they smoke it there all day -- the whole area wreaks of it. I also find it suspicious that when they do a lockdown, everyone is asked to clear the hall -- not even the faculty is allowed in the hallways with police escort... and in a school of 2,500 students, they very rarely find anything. My son also found it very suspicious that after his last suspension, a lockdown was conducted, and when he returned to school his lock was cut and his dime bag was mysteriously missing.

What links do you want? Links to other people sharing stories like mine?

I look forward to your next onslaught of one-liners.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by Magnum007

 

Police = Group of serial killers.

Plus i have worked for them, lol.

Ok, so I just came back from my job of serial killing... Not a very productive night, no kills... No saves either, so I'm even for the night... Maybe I'll get to the quota later in the week...

Come on... Serial killers? Really?

Magnum

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by intrepid

 

I could go on. Drugs are a HUGE source of crime.

Poverty is a HUGE source of crime, why don't we just round up all the poor people and put them in prison? Do you have any idea how many sober people, drug and alcohol free all their lives, commit crime? If we are to use your logic, then it is arguable that sobriety is a HUGE source of crime. Why don't we just round up everyone and put them in prison?

edit on 26-10-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

Um... no... Poverty is not a huge source of crime... The mix between poor and rich classes are... It's called ... Relative deprivation ... Here's another link about it Every cop who went to college knows this very well...

Magnum

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Cops are unnecessary since private security can do the job better and is more accountable.

1. If I wasn't robbed blind to pay for police pensions, I could afford to subscribe to a private security agency that would respond just like the police to aid me should it be necessary. Since there would be no police in my make believe world, the market would provide the security services necessary.

2. Since there would be no cops, I could carry a gun with me to protect myself and not have to worry about retarded gun laws.

Having a gun and having private security services would suffice.

If I'm murdered, my family could hire a private investigator to track down the criminal. Since the PI would get paid based on his services, he would be highly motivated to find my killer - unlike our criminal police.

Bottom line, coercively funded police are bad - private security guards are good.

edit on 26-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

And hence starts anarchy and vendettas... "He killed my brother so when I saw him in the street I got justice" "He punched me so I shot him" Without government oversight to set standards of law, there would be complete craziness in the place... WILD WILD WEST...

Magnum

reply to post by mnemeth1

The problem with police is that they are not held accountable to market forces. A bad police department that consistently treats the public like crap will stay in business. A bad cop who treats his customers like crap will not get fired. There are no market forces working to ensure proper behavior of police officers. Further, the public has no recourse to deal with abusive officers outside of the court system - which is like getting into a lawsuit with your neighbor, only to find out the judge is his brother. The courts are not independent of the police, thus, they will condone abusive behavior unless the public outcry makes it politically inconvenient to do so.

I don't know about where you live, but here in quebec, as a police officer I am liable under :

1. The Canadian Criminal Code,
2. Le Code de Déontologie du Québec
3. Le Code d'éthiques Policier du Québec
4. My police department's internal code of conduct and discipline
5. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
6. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
7. The Quebec Civil Code

AND WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN BE CHARGED UNDER ALL THOSE LAWS AND BE FOUND GUILTY OF THEM... DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT APPLY TO QUEBEC POLICE OFFICERS...

Don't come tell me that we are not accountable for our actions... May officers try not to do too much or go too far for fear of reprisals because they don't fully understand their powers and duties... That's right I said POWERS and DUTIES... Add citizens who have a distorted vision of policing and you have a pretty interesting mix...

I've been to déontology many times for things I did right because people complained. I won in all those instances because I do my job properly and honestly... Those who do a crappy job are weeded out pretty fast, don't worry...

Further, the police engage in all manner of constitutional abuses on a regular basis. In fact, I would go so far as to say the majority of public interaction with the police is for crimes that have harmed no one. List of crimes where no property damage has occurred and no physical violence has occurred:

-Drunk driving
-Gun law violations
-Drug law violations
-Traffic law violations
-Non-moving vehicle violations
-Vehicle registration violations
-Tax violations
-Property code violations

Drunk driving kills so many people a year, it maims even more... You obviously never saw a drunk driver survive a crash while the poor family in the other vehicle lost half of their members in an instant... It's called PREVENTION...

Gun law violations are there to prevent accidents from happening... Why do you think so many people die in the US from gun violence... Heck just look at preventable accidents... Here in Canada we have these strict gun laws to protect people from doing just that!

Drugs create crime around them... Sure someone on coke is ok (*cough cough)... But to get that coke to the guy, you need to beat the money out of this guy, then this guy gets killed and then this other guy owes money to the other guy, who needs to steal to get his drugs... Get my drift? Ever deal with a guy on PCP? The OTR protocol for dealing with a violent person on PCP is 2 in the chest + 1 in the head, you know why? Because the guy on PCP will take 10 in the chest and will still fight like he is 5 guy strong...

As for traffic law, non moving violations and the likes... You like getting cut off on the road? You like when people put their flasher to turn right on 1 second before turning from the center lane? You like when people go through red lights and you almost hit them? Or when the guy's muffler is going to fall off in front of you? My guess is no... So I won't even get into that...

Tax violations is not my domain so I can't comment on that although it does pay my salary!

Property code violations... Holy geez... Man, have you ever walked into a house that smelled like a port-o-potty? Where the walls are soft from the mold? Where the place's stench burns your nose and you know that the home-made wire that the light fixture is using might cause a fire at any time? Imagine this being your neighbor; and I've seen it in middle-class neighborhoods before... That's why we have building codes... To protect the people inside and around from any fires, explosions, health risks, etc...

You only have the rights that you give to YOURSELF... If you limit yourself to certain rights and believe that we, the police are to blame, then hey, so be it... Just remember, you are only as free as you want to be...

Magnum

reply to post by Magnum007


that video cracks me up. i'll be sure to call a cop the next time i need to put together a bike or deliver a baby. just laughable that someone would spend money on a ridiculous video when they should be spending money training their officers to be polite and professional. 20 to 1 odds those officers in the commercial were actors.

reply to post by snusfanatic


I know, I find it funny too... We don't usually get calls for bike repairs, I usually stop to help if I see something like that...

As for the baby delivery part... Usually it happens when we catch a man speeding through red lights and then once the car is stopped and there is noticeable crowning, then we have to deliver it... Or when the dispatcher sees that we are close to the house/location and we can get there faster than most other services, we get dispatched...

We are multi-talented! Next time you get bad service at wallmart or at a restaurant, make sure you open a thread and rant about that too...

reply to post by Magnum007


1. i didn't open this thread.
2. walmart and applebees don't tax me to fund campaigns about how nice their workers are, and even if they did, i'm not dependent on them, i can shop or eat somewhere else. can't choose which cops pull me over or who to call.
3. i know there's plenty of good cops out there. i'm sure you're one of them. but.....
4. if cops have an image problem, which obviously they do, they should be fixing it with better training and professionalism like i said, not with actors to convince people that what they experience didn't happen, or doesn't matter because really they're all just "awesome" once you get to know them.

cops are part of the state man, they have a monopoly. people have a right to demand courtesy from their public servants and the state should be responsive to that criticism, not dismissive of it.

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I don't know about where you live, but here in quebec, as a police officer I am liable under :

1. The Canadian Criminal Code,
2. Le Code de Déontologie du Québec
3. Le Code d'éthiques Policier du Québec
4. My police department's internal code of conduct and discipline
5. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
6. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
7. The Quebec Civil Code

AND WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN BE CHARGED UNDER ALL THOSE LAWS AND BE FOUND GUILTY OF THEM... DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT APPLY TO QUEBEC POLICE OFFICERS...

Don't come tell me that we are not accountable for our actions... May officers try not to do too much or go too far for fear of reprisals because they don't fully understand their powers and duties... That's right I said POWERS and DUTIES... Add citizens who have a distorted vision of policing and you have a pretty interesting mix...

I've been to déontology many times for things I did right because people complained. I won in all those instances because I do my job properly and honestly... Those who do a crappy job are weeded out pretty fast, don't worry...


Drunk driving kills so many people a year, it maims even more... You obviously never saw a drunk driver survive a crash while the poor family in the other vehicle lost half of their members in an instant... It's called PREVENTION...

Gun law violations are there to prevent accidents from happening... Why do you think so many people die in the US from gun violence... Heck just look at preventable accidents... Here in Canada we have these strict gun laws to protect people from doing just that!

Drugs create crime around them... Sure someone on coke is ok (*cough cough)... But to get that coke to the guy, you need to beat the money out of this guy, then this guy gets killed and then this other guy owes money to the other guy, who needs to steal to get his drugs... Get my drift? Ever deal with a guy on PCP? The OTR protocol for dealing with a violent person on PCP is 2 in the chest + 1 in the head, you know why? Because the guy on PCP will take 10 in the chest and will still fight like he is 5 guy strong...

As for traffic law, non moving violations and the likes... You like getting cut off on the road? You like when people put their flasher to turn right on 1 second before turning from the center lane? You like when people go through red lights and you almost hit them? Or when the guy's muffler is going to fall off in front of you? My guess is no... So I won't even get into that...

Tax violations is not my domain so I can't comment on that although it does pay my salary!

Property code violations... Holy geez... Man, have you ever walked into a house that smelled like a port-o-potty? Where the walls are soft from the mold? Where the place's stench burns your nose and you know that the home-made wire that the light fixture is using might cause a fire at any time? Imagine this being your neighbor; and I've seen it in middle-class neighborhoods before... That's why we have building codes... To protect the people inside and around from any fires, explosions, health risks, etc...

You only have the rights that you give to YOURSELF... If you limit yourself to certain rights and believe that we, the police are to blame, then hey, so be it... Just remember, you are only as free as you want to be...

Magnum

Thanks for proving my point for me.

You basically just created a list of justifications for cops. However, your self-justifications don't change the fact that people hate cops.

I am simply explaining why people hate cops.

Right or wrong, the simple truth is the public views your code enforcement as harassment.

You guys should be more like the fire department. - only come out when you are called.

Then people might actually start to like you once again.

As for your comments about being held accountable to the law, give me a break. No cop is held to the same standard as a civilian. Cops can bloody well get away with murder. Their power is vast.

reply to post by Magnum007


It is ironic, and worth noting that where one poster accused me of arguing semantics, that you have actually made the choice to do so. Intrepid's understanding of what semantics are has nothing to do with how semantics are defined:

1. Linguistics The study or science of meaning in language.

2. Linguistics The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.

3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

Webster's definition of Semantics.

When I countered Intrepid's argument that "drugs" lead to crime with the argument that poverty leads to crime, and then to illustrate the absurdity of the argument, pointed to sobriety and sober people who've committed crimes, I was not arguing over the meaning or interpretation of a word, or words, but was speaking directly to the reasoning of his argument. You, however, have chosen to argue over the meaning of poverty...

1. The state of being poor; lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.

2. Deficiency in amount; scantiness: "the poverty of feeling that reduced her soul" (Scott Turow).

Webster's definition of Poverty.

...and hope to distinguish it from deprivation:

1. a. The act or an instance of depriving; loss. b. The condition of being deprived; privation.

Webster's definition of Deprivation.

Regardless of its relativity, poverty is a form of deprivation. This is semantics. That said, it is interesting that the Wikipedia article you linked is intended to equate "Relative Deprivation" with "Left Realism". It is horrifying for those not at all comfortable with left wing ideology to be informed that "Every cop who went to college knows this very well", suggesting that, at the very least, the college educated cop has been indoctrinated with left wing ideology and uses this ideology as the basis for their decision making.

Even more telling is the Wikepedia's explanation as to how "Left Realism" began:

Left Realist Criminology emerged out of Critical Criminology as a reaction against what was perceived to be the Left's failure to take a practical interest in everyday crime, leaving it to the Right Realists to monopolize the political agenda on law and order.

Far from being a causative theory germane to any valid hypothesis, it is, at least according to the Wikipedia article you linked, a reaction to perceptions of failure and "Right Realists" hegemony. Being reactive is never cause, and always effect.

Even more telling are the tenets of "Left Realism" beginning with their "theoretical" tenets, explained by Wikepedia as such:

Theoretical
1. 'The basic triangle of relations which is the proper subject-matter of criminology [is] - the offender, the state and the victim' (Young, 1986) (since altered to include society at large, see The Square of Crime)
2. Theoretical explanations must be symmetrical - there must be the same explanation for social action and reaction.
3. 'Man is a creator of human nature' (Young, 1987), and therefore explanations of crime should not be deterministic and people should be seen as being responsible for their actions.

What is telling by this left wing ideology is that the first tenet, at least as explained by Wikipedia, places the state above the victim in terms of the proper subject-matter of criminology, actually placing the offender as the primary emphasis in this triangle as opposed to the victim, of whom without there is no crime. The relationship between offender and victim is inextricable, but the state only exists by consent of the people, and without the state the relationship between offender and victim would still exist.

Second is the tenet that the theoretical explanations must be symmetrical, with an explanation for social action and reaction when taken in context of this so called "war on drugs". This declaration that drug use leads to crime is not at all symmetrical in its theoretical explanation and it necessarily ignores the fact that are plenty of people who use drugs who do not victimize any one through violence, theft, or any other crime. Some people who use drugs have a proclivity towards criminal actions, just as some people who do not use drugs have a proclivity towards criminal actions. The problem with the second tenet and its relationship to this so called "war on drugs" is further demonstrated by the third tenet.

The tenets assertion, at least as explained by Wikipedia, that people must be seen as being responsible for their own actions flies in the face of drug prohibition. The argument that drug use leads to crime is necessarily predicated on the idea that drug users cannot be held responsible for their actions when using drugs and therefore it is drugs that must be criminalized so that the the fear of future criminality can be reduced. Of course, as it is increasingly becoming clear, this so called "war on drugs" has accomplished the exact opposite of its supposed intent, and the increase in crime due to drug prohibition is demonstrable, not any decrease of crime because of prohibition.

The "political" tenets of "Left Realism" as explained by Wikepedia are as follows:

Political

1. Crime is a real problem and especially to working-class people who suffer disproportionately from personal crime, such as robbery, assault, burglary and rape.
2. The 'left' should attempt to develop a credible (populist?) approach to crime control in order to prevent the 'right' from having a monopoly of the 'crime problem'.
3. The purpose of theorizing should be to make practical interventions into law and order issues.
4. In order to reduce crime there is a need to achieve a higher level of cooperation between police and public, and this will be best achieved by a democratization of local control of the police."

en.wikipedia.org...

While I agree with the first tenet in that "working-class" people tend to suffer disproportionately from personal crime, it is not because they are being victimized by rich people, in terms of robbery, assault, burglary, and rape, for the most part, but because they are being victimized by people afflicted with poverty.

The second tenet of the political theory of "Left Realism" only illustrates its reactive function, of which that purpose is to keep the "right" from holding a monopoly on criminology. The third tenet speaks to its positive nature of intervention before a crime happens, as opposed to how justice can only truly work, which is in the negative. Justice cannot prevent crime, it can only hope to offer a redress to the aggrieved.

The fourth tenet of the political theory, and particularly in regard to the imprudent drug war, only demonstrates how antithetical the drug war actually is to "Left Realism" ideals. Far from fostering a level of cooperation between police and public, and given the nature of the federal response to the "war on drugs", arguably far from a democratization of local control of police, the drug war has fostered an "us and them" mentality between much of the public and the police, and of course, voter ballots such as the current Proposition 19 demonstrates just how "democratized" the local police actually are, as the federal government has repeatedly made clear that they will not tolerate "decriminalization" of marijuana, regardless of what the people in any particular state have to say on the matter.

While my purpose in pointing to poverty as a possible cause of crime was not intended to actually discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of finding some sort of positive preventive measure of crime by fighting poverty, but instead to speak to the absurdity of the argument that a non crime leads to crime. Further, the "war on poverty" is no more a war on poverty than the "war on drugs" is a war on drugs. The former may have some social value, only it seems that such a war is truly just political sloganeering for left wing wealth redistribution schemes, the latter is flat out a war on people, albeit people who use a particular substance by choice rather than prescription, it is undeniably a war on these people.

However, that said, you have provided links to a political theory, apparently in an attempt to distinguish poverty from relative deprivation, now I will provide some links to studies that show a link between poverty and crime:

Poverty’s effects on crime can be explained through a variety of reasons. “There is a higher rate of mental illness in the poor than in the rich” (Brill 40). Poverty can lead to high levels of stress that in turn may lead individuals to commit theft, robbery, or other violent acts. Moreover, poverty may lead to an actual or perceived inferior education, which would cause youth to count on less access to quality schools, jobs, and role models, decreasing the opportunity costs of crime and increasing the probability of youth spending time on the street associating with gangs, etc (Ludwig 1).

Crime offers a way in which impoverished people can obtain material goods that they cannot attain through legitimate means. Often threat or force can help them acquire even more goods, this induces them to commit violent acts such as robbery, which is the second most common violent crime. For many impoverished people, the prize that crime yields may outweigh the risk of being caught, especially given that their opportunity cost is lower than that of a wealthier person. Thus, poverty should increase crime rates.

Later in this study some very revealing statistics are offered:

The estimated coefficient of poverty now yields crime-poverty elasticity. The ln(Total Crime) model shows that holding the other variables constant, a 1% increase in poverty leads to a 2.16% increase in total crime. This coefficient is significant at the 0.6% level. The ln(Violent Crime) model shows that a 1% increase in poverty leads to a 2.57% increase in violent crime and is significant only at the 5.1% level.

The results of this analysis are consistent with other studies that have been conducted by economists, for example: [Studies] found that homicides were disproportionately concentrated in areas of poverty. Three of these (by Bullock [1955], Beasley and Antunes [1974], and Mladenka and Hill [1976]) studied violent crime in Houston. Like Shaw and McKay [1969], each reported high correlations between violent crime rates and measures of poverty. Areas in Houston with high rates of violent crime were also characterized by high population density and a high proportion of black residents. (Short 51)

economics.fundamentalfinance.com...

The severity of poverty often goes hand in hand with the amount of crimes committed. Money is often reinvested from the open market to the black market to bring about high yet risky return in urban areas. Risks such as these are even higher when this activity is controlled by violent mob-type organizations and gangs, whose existences are structured around capitalizing on the poverty of others. Realistic and reachable role models are far and few between, if any exist at all, which causes the children of those who live in these areas to look up to more unsavory figures who are living the high life through low living. Read more: Does Poverty Cause Crime? | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

www.ehow.com...

The second article I have linked, in its considerations, offers not just a link between poverty and crime, but speaks to the very real problem of prohibition laws that demonstrably lead to black marketeers, and how they prey on the poor, and how their ability to prosper due to the black market, coupled with the reality that there are fewer viable role models in an area afflicted with poverty, only adds to crime, not reduce it.

However, and let me make this perfectly clear, I am not at all arguing that LEO's should be in the business of alleviating poverty, and most certainly should not be in the business of wealth redistribution, quite the contrary, I am arguing that LEO's can only do one of two things: Either investigate and bring to justice the offenders of crime, (real crime such as violence, theft, rape, and property damage), or to prevent an offender from actually committing a crime because it is self evident that such a crime is about to happen, (real crime such as violence, theft, rape, property damage, as opposed to imaginary crimes where an action is perceived to be a cause of some future crime committed at some unforeseen later date.)

If law enforcement is more concerned with controlling peoples behavioral proclivities than they are in solemnly protecting the rights of individuals, it is certain that those law enforcement personnel will at some point wind up abrogating and derogating the rights of individuals rather than protect them.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Thanks for proving my point for me. You basically just created a list of justifications for cops. However, your self-justifications don't change the fact that people hate cops. I am simply explaining why people hate cops. Right or wrong, the simple truth is the public views your code enforcement as harassment. You guys should be more like the fire department. - only come out when you are called. Then people might actually start to like you once again. As for your comments about being held accountable to the law, give me a break. No cop is held to the same standard as a civilian. Cops can bloody well get away with murder. Their power is vast. edit on 27-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

This list of justifications are not for cops, they are to help the people! Why do you automatically think that we are out to get you? Why do you think we are so bad because we are mandated to PROTECT and SERVE?

Prevention is the most important part of our work. If we can stop a crime from happening, or if we can help people prevent things from happening to them, maybe we can help make it safer for the people... PROTECTION...

I am held accountable under those 7 laws I mentioned, you can look it up and see for yourself... We are not above the law, we are not below, we are just mandated to applying it.

If you are not happy with the laws, then don't get angry at us, get angry at your politicians who enact the laws... I took an oath and promised to uphold the law and apply it as best I can; and I do just that... To be told that we need "Excuses" to apply the law, or that we are dirt, scum, and such makes me sick.

I work hard, I work honestly and so do 99% of the people in my profession... I refuse to be the scapegoat for the 1%. This is why I keep doing my job the way I do, I love my job, I love the good work that I and my co-workers do, I love serving and protecting. But I am in no way afraid, nor do I stand down when I do my work for fear of reprisal or legal problems, you know why? Because I read the law, I read court decisions, I read about what I can and can't do. I know my powers, I know my responsibilities, I know the limits that black letter law and common law set for policing. I also know how to be a diplomat, a good leader, and a role model. I know how to talk to people, I know how to use the biggest and baddest weapon that I carry with me every day... You want to know what that weapon is? You won't believe it, but it's my mouth.

This is the difference between a good cop, and a whiny person who despises the police for the same reasons as always : they think they know their rights, but never do they look at the reality of what the law and court decisions say.

There's no question that it's your right to despise the police, but there's also no question that it's your right to look like a fool because you have no reason (or at least you haven't shown any reason) to do so...

Magnum

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Some of your quotes are saying exactly what relative deprivation is... People wanting more and more and need to get it through crime because they don't have the means to obtain it otherwise... If there is no need, (IE seeing the people across the tracks with nice things) then poverty is less likely to develop crime...

As far as why we are taught this in college, it's not to control or change behavior. It's to be aware of the reasons behind crime. We were taught a myriad of criminology theories as well as sociological and psychological theories. It's a way to eliminate the old school policing where brawn was used more than brain. If you understand the reasons behind crime you may be more efficient in preventing it. I think that better educated police officers are always better at doing their jobs than the less educated ones. I can say that I am proudly educated which contributes to the reasons why I am a good police officer.

reply to post by Magnum007



Hi, Mag,

I am totally supportive of upright police - it is unfortunate that there are too many bent cops.

And without the police, the world would have turned to chaos long ago.

reply to post by Magnum007

Some of your quotes are saying exactly what relative deprivation is... People wanting more and more and need to get it through crime because they don't have the means to obtain it otherwise... If there is no need, (IE seeing the people across the tracks with nice things) then poverty is less likely to develop crime...

Which is why I spoke directly to the Wikipedia article you linked rather than addressing the article on relative deprivation written by Jack Young. I would like the opportunity to re-read the Young article at a later date to seriously give consideration to any merits it may have, or lack. I read that article first and then read the Wikipedia article, and frankly I am not so certain the Wikipedia article did Young and his theory justice. I will have to, as I said, re-read Young's article and consider it more fully.

That said, I fail to see where "relative deprivation" dispels the notion that poverty leads to crime, and in failing to see that, I am compelled to remind you I don't believe LEO's should have any active role in reducing poverty. Law enforcement have enough to do just protecting the rights of individuals. Social engineering should not be imposed upon LEO's on top of the role protecting rights and investigating crime, (real crime), and bringing those criminals to justice.

As far as why we are taught this in college, it's not to control or change behavior. It's to be aware of the reasons behind crime. We were taught a myriad of criminology theories as well as sociological and psychological theories. It's a way to eliminate the old school policing where brawn was used more than brain. If you understand the reasons behind crime you may be more efficient in preventing it. I think that better educated police officers are always better at doing their jobs than the less educated ones. I can say that I am proudly educated which contributes to the reasons why I am a good police officer.

I can accept that what you were taught in college was not for the intention of indoctrinating you and convincing you that it is the police officers job to control or change behavior, but in being aware of the reasons behind crime, I would hope you understand that "Relative Deprivation" is a theory, and not an established law or axiom. It may, or may not, be valid as a plausible reason for the root of crime, and a better educated police officer should inherently understand this. I am not making any judgments on your understanding, I'm just saying, that's all.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that brain is better than brawn in the matter of effective policing, although one would think a certain amount of brawn is required as well. I have no reason to doubt that you are proudly educated, and will give you any benefit of the doubt and assume that you are one who understands that "Left Realism" is one approach to a multifaceted and complexly layered problem. Further, I certainly have no reason to doubt that you are a great police officer, let alone a good one, so I am more than willing to assume that you are indeed a great police officer.

I am hard, and very critical of law enforcement within the United States for a number of reasons. I understand that you are a police officer in Canada, and I can not intelligently speak to the issue of law enforcement in Canada. However, I am an ardent defender of the unalienable rights of all people, and regardless of what approach Canada takes to rights, whether they be viewed as "civil rights" granted by government, or they be viewed as unalienable, matters not to me, as far as I am concerned people in Canada have the exact same rights that people have the world over, regardless of what government says about it.

If you, irrespective of any stance the government of Canada takes on unalienable rights, agree with my stance, then I am certain that you are a most excellent police officer who deserves the highest respect.