How should Bmore Cops, fight crime proactively? (Baltimore: neighborhoods, prices)

[tgs_bg]

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

Enforcing the law is enforcing the law - proactive or not. That is really a BS issue - if that is what they are saying. Being proactive does not mean you have to violate people's rights. There are other ways; or are they saying the killing a few blacks every month, and violating the rights of asians, hispanics - and yes- even white people is the BEST way for us to do our jobs?

If so, again - they need to go.

I'm not sure where you are getting this violating people's rights from. That isn't the issue. That isn't what is preventing cops from being proactive.

[blktoptrvl]

Originally Posted by tgs_bg

I'm not sure where you are getting this violating people's rights from. That isn't the issue. That isn't what is preventing cops from being proactive.

If you don't understand where I am getting "violating people's rights", then you obviously don't understand the issues.

[tgs_bg]

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

If you don't understand where I am getting "violating people's rights", then you obviously don't understand the issues.

Your "issue" might belong in another thread, but not this one. This isn't what is holding back cops from being proactive. Cops arn't banding together to do less work because they want to use excessive force all of the time on the street. The vast majority of police enforce the laws without violating the public's constitutional rights. Start a new thread if you want to talk about police corruption because that isn't what the issue is with proactive policing.

[blktoptrvl]

Originally Posted by tgs_bg

Your "issue" might belong in another thread, but not this one. This isn't what is holding back cops from being proactive. Cops arn't banding together to do less work because they want to use excessive force all of the time on the street. The vast majority of police enforce the laws without violating the public's constitutional rights. Start a new thread if you want to talk about police corruption because that isn't what the issue is with proactive policing.

Then for what reasons are they banding together and deciding not to work to the best of their ability? I am not addressing a "issue" of police violence. I am addressing the "issue" being discussed here that somehow, police cannot be proactive. The inference from this thread is that police cannot be "proactive" because they are being handcuffed by administration and lack of citizen support - which of course if BS.

The police can take all the "proactive" measures they can think up - as long as they are legal.

You all are erroneously equating "rough policing" to being proactive and using that as a excuse to justify police not doing their jobs - PROPERLY. My input to that conversation is: Fire them if they can't do their jobs honestly.

[steppinthrax]

Originally Posted by designer_genes

Thanks for making a whole slew of assumptions about me, but I have more than a few relatives that are survivors of the Holocaust, so yes, I've read my fair share of books about it and I do not throw that label around lightly.

I've also been to several other countries before, including Third world African nations.

Steppinthrax is advocating that cops have full immunity from the law. How is that not fascism?

Grow up and quit your name calling garbage, troll. I didn't say that cops in this country are equivalent to Nazi Germany. I said that what steppinthrax is advocating is something that the Nazis would definitely support, like suspending the Constitution.



Oh you mean I actually do something productive with my life and contribute to society instead of spending all day crying about liberals on the internet and crapping all over Baltimore and contributing nothing to society like you do?

Productive?????

You mean actually produce a breakthrough in the following....

Cancer
HIV/AIDS
Cardiovascular Diseases
Autism

Instead of gobbling up US grants on research that leads to nowhere.

[steppinthrax]

Originally Posted by LSone

So what. Those are your relatives, not you. They should be ashamed of you for blabbing out the Nazi Card, hysterically like this, over every little thing. What an insult to the true Holocaust.



Doesn't seem that way based on how quickly you played the Nazi Card.



That was comedy relief, you can't be that gullible, can you?



Too funny, you just did exactly what you just complained about...hypocrite.



Yet you take the time out of your busy, society saving schedule to post almost immediate responses to this thread, while complaining about how I shouldn't be doing the same....yet you failed to even recognize this. Too funny, hypocrite.

[blktoptrvl]

They really can't do a better job of being "proactive" until they clean their own house...

Here is someone they should interview first to get a feel for cop/citizen relations and go from there.

It would be nice if some of these claims are not true, but...

[tgs_bg]

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl

Then for what reasons are they banding together and deciding not to work to the best of their ability? I am not addressing a "issue" of police violence. I am addressing the "issue" being discussed here that somehow, police cannot be proactive. The inference from this thread is that police cannot be "proactive" because they are being handcuffed by administration and lack of citizen support - which of course if BS.

The police can take all the "proactive" measures they can think up - as long as they are legal.

You all are erroneously equating "rough policing" to being proactive and using that as a excuse to justify police not doing their jobs - PROPERLY. My input to that conversation is: Fire them if they can't do their jobs honestly.

How exactly is it BS? That is exactly what the problem is. This is not a clear-cut black and white issue like you are making it out to be. The powers to be have already displayed their desire for the street cop to be less proactive after Freddie Gray's death. You have a mayor who ordered the police to give "protestors" their space to destroy property, then order them to stand down when the riots occurred. You have an overzealous prosecutor pushing a social agenda with her "no justice no peace" speech when addressing the public to her rushed decision to charge the officers with Freddie Gray's death (a proactive police encounter/arrest). Both are clear examples of the powers to be appeasing the public and are not in the interests of peace and the proper enforcement of law. It also shows the distrust that command staff has with their troops as they don't feel that they can do their job properly.

"Rough policing" is sometimes inevitable is what I am trying to say. In a perfect world there would be no crime and everyone would comply with an officer's lawful commands. But this isn't a perfect world and people challenge authority -- sometimes physically and people get hurt. For proactive policing to happen, command staff will have to acknowledge that the more encounters cops have with criminals, the more use-of-force incidents are bound to happen (the vast majority being lawful of course). The cops that will be involved in these use-of-force incidents at present time do not trust command staff to support them if they did their job correctly but there is public outcry. The Baltimore Police Department has a long history of clearing their officers of any wrong-doing when investigated for excessive force complaints, but will turn around and cut a check for a couple thousand to those that complain when they threaten to sue since it would be cheaper to do that then for the department's lawyers to fight the civil suit. This obviously sends the wrong message.

Like I said before. Go on a ride-along. Don't be so quick to form an opinion before seeing first hand how it is to police in high-crime areas where the public doesn't like you. Get an officer's opinion who works in that area. I guarantee you that your outlook would change when you experience just 1 shift of what they do every day.

[blktoptrvl]

Originally Posted by tgs_bg

How exactly is it BS? That is exactly what the problem is. This is not a clear-cut black and white issue like you are making it out to be. The powers to be have already displayed their desire for the street cop to be less proactive after Freddie Gray's death. You have a mayor who ordered the police to give "protestors" their space to destroy property, then order them to stand down when the riots occurred. You have an overzealous prosecutor pushing a social agenda with her "no justice no peace" speech when addressing the public to her rushed decision to charge the officers with Freddie Gray's death (a proactive police encounter/arrest). Both are clear examples of the powers to be appeasing the public and are not in the interests of peace and the proper enforcement of law. It also shows the distrust that command staff has with their troops as they don't feel that they can do their job properly.

"Rough policing" is sometimes inevitable is what I am trying to say. In a perfect world there would be no crime and everyone would comply with an officer's lawful commands. But this isn't a perfect world and people challenge authority -- sometimes physically and people get hurt. For proactive policing to happen, command staff will have to acknowledge that the more encounters cops have with criminals, the more use-of-force incidents are bound to happen (the vast majority being lawful of course). The cops that will be involved in these use-of-force incidents at present time do not trust command staff to support them if they did their job correctly but there is public outcry. The Baltimore Police Department has a long history of clearing their officers of any wrong-doing when investigated for excessive force complaints, but will turn around and cut a check for a couple thousand to those that complain when they threaten to sue since it would be cheaper to do that then for the department's lawyers to fight the civil suit. This obviously sends the wrong message.

Like I said before. Go on a ride-along. Don't be so quick to form an opinion before seeing first hand how it is to police in high-crime areas where the public doesn't like you. Get an officer's opinion who works in that area. I guarantee you that your outlook would change when you experience just 1 shift of what they do every day.

As I said, this attitude reflects a view that cops have to be "free to commit crime" in order to stop crimes. It is not worthy of "argument."

No, I don't need a ride-along. I have lived in enough "high-crime" areas, and known enough cops good and bad to know that this argument is just an excuse for not doing their jobs legally or justly. A work slowdown - or lack of proactive policing because they are pissed they can't do their jobs as they see fit is just criminal. I would rather they just turn in their badges and leave.

[retiredcop111]

Bottom line is no matter what any politician says a police officer will respond to a call and do their jobs on that 911 call. However you cant control what a cop sees or doesn't see. Is a cop going to risk making a mistake on whether a knife is legal or not and getting arrested for it while acting in good faith? By answering the 911 call they are doing their jobs. You cant fire them. In fact you cant do a dam thing to them. You wanted a less aggressive police force and now you have it. You made your bed so no sleep in it. Of course just dodge the shots that come through your window!!! You can go on and on about what the cops should do and if they don't do it then fire them. The fact is you are wasting your time! Lastly stop blaming the cops for the increase in crime, Look at your own community and take responsibility for the first time in your life!!