Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny... the other "policeman"... should have known this.. but hey.. this is what street cops know.. and we dont really talk to other people who are posers
Hey, I never said you were not at a police officer, I simply said that the terms that you use, such as "radio cars" "coppers" and "dopesters" "magic smoke" have not been part of any west coast Police Officers vocabulary for at least the last 30 years. You got your knickers in a bunch and went on the offensive accusing me of lying about my former employment. Makes one wonder who the 'poser' really is, doesn't it?
Reading those "stories", as you call them (despite being backed up with evidence by good journalists) makes one support the law as it was written and meant to be used but the reality is simply pathetic and disgusting. Signing away your cash with no evidence of criminal malfeasance just to get your kid back? LOL.
You cops have a good thing (civil asset forfeiture) used for a good reason to generate money for cash-strapped departments and you screw it all up by getting greedy. It's pathetic.
As to the main query of this thread, I believe that cities & inner cities are under-policed, for sure. But the police I abhor the most are the revenue-generating punks in small bedroom communities and enclaves that are especially prevalent here in Texas. It's one thing to have overzealous enforcement, but it's another thing to have said overzealous law enforcement when you have inappropriately low speed limits below the 85th Percentile speed or poorly-maintained and poorly-visible signage.
And yes, notmeofficer, earlier on you mentioned that it's only 1% or so that engage in such behavior. While I agree it's a minority, I do believe it's higher than 1%. And anything other than ZERO PERCENT is too much. It seems as though people join law enforcement for the wrong reasons.
That being said, I guess on a personal note, I should be grateful for that pathetic Shavano Park revenue generator for pulling me over for driving at an appropriate velocity in an inappropriately-low speed zone. By doing so, my eyes were opened to the truth that is reality for many across the country. I was shocked when I found out. (I was in my early 20's at the time) Now before a long trip, I do research on speedtrap.org to see if any communities on my route disproportionately enforce the law & harass motorists. I take extra care in these communities, especially if I'm warned of misplaced signage or rapidly decreasing speed limits in an abnormally short distance.
I always post cops on Waze. ALWAYS. The public has a right to know when their money (& even more precious: time) is threatened. Some say they shouldn't have been breaking the law. Well, going 5-10 over really doesn't hurt all that much, especially if speed limits are lower than they should be. So it's not about safety, but revenue. Just saw a major ticketing blitz on I-10 the other day. Why aren't one or two cops out there all day long? Why place 8 cops in 4 miles for less than 1 day instead? Why hide if people slow down when you drive by?
It ain't about safety.
There is a huge problem with your understanding, statements and philosophy.
Take just the percentage of police who engage in illegal activities of a sort of those activities you see as incompatible with being a police officer.
You said in part "And anything other than ZERO PERCENT is too much. It seems as though people join law enforcement for the wrong reasons."
In the context you framed the statement, you're forgetting a few things. You appear to believe that people who become police officers are somehow different than the rest of the population. There appears to be so much concern about what police officers do and so little for what the criminal element of the population does.
We should at least get one thing straight. Criminal came first, police second. There is no chicken and the egg aspect here. Get rid of the criminals and the police aren't needed.
Now, what do you think there are more of, police who behave contrary to accepted norms or people who are criminals and necessitate having police? I think there are far more of the later than the former. If the later create the need for the former, then get rid of the later and in so doing also rid society of the remaining problems related to the discussion.
We can't do that though can we? So lets focus on the smaller problem instead of the larger one. Yeah, lets us know how that works since it hasn't worked since criminals have been around.
YES. This is a bone of contention in my town. In summer our population goes from about 15,000 year round residents to about 150,000 with tourists. Yet we have the same number of full-time policemen all year round, with the addition of "summer cops" in July and August, who are really young people who go through a 2-week training and cannot carry any sort of weapon, to patrol the boardwalk and keep an eye on the teens (they mostly try to pick them up, lol)
Why do we need the same number of police officers in February that we do in July?
Because apparently your leaders have determined the number of full time policemen you have are the minimum number required at any given time and supplement that in tourist season with "summer cops". Sounds like what you are wanting is fewer trained policement and even more of these "summer cops".
Hey, I never said you were not at a police officer, I simply said that the terms that you use, such as "radio cars" "coppers" and "dopesters" "magic smoke" have not been part of any west coast Police Officers vocabulary for at least the last 30 years. You got your knickers in a bunch and went on the offensive accusing me of lying about my former employment. Makes one wonder who the 'poser' really is, doesn't it?
Hello poster..
We are going off topic... so Im not sure a moderator will allow my response.. since you are addressing me personally and it may violate TOS... but... just to be generally aware I never get my panties in a wad... because I wear men's ... and this is the internet and nothing matters .. and our time here can be both entertaining and educational... as such.. you can talk to me anytime you like
If you are responding to me directly I have respected your request not to speak to you in this forum or make note of your posts directly...nor did I here,,, but thank you for responding with your opinion
If you are choosing to speak directly to me .. and you have .. then comments are all fair game
As far as what vernacular police use... hey... not sure where you've worked ... nor do really I care... but the terms I use are still used daily.. by patrol officers that is... what people use who aren't police.. or dont know what the inside of a radiocar (the term used by fleet management) is.. hey.. cool.. have at it... invent your own language
Now.. back on point
I would like to live where there is robust service.. police... fire... and ems... because I know what its like to live on both ends of the spectrum. When there is minimal emergency services there is a higher potential risk.. and many aspects of police work are impacted,,,
Crime suppression...
Longer responses...
Less ability to investigate and take action...
Morale.. (and this is a biggie),,, if you're working a one man car and your patrol area is huge you are probably going from call to call and not shaking bad guys in car stops along the way
If you dont have a sister beat car as your backup because they are miles away you arent going to shake ("investigate" for those of you from Rio Linda to quote a talk show host) four parolees on a corner.. makes common sense not to get killed because there are bad people out there who will take your gun and stick it where the sun doesn't shine and kill you... and for some this is disheartening because ultimately most police want to prevent people who are bad from hurting real victims
So .. while areas of affluence maybe able to get away with less police presence they usually dont want to
and areas of poverty sometimes want less police because they feel the citizenry targeted they also need more police to reduce the issues of crime... one only need to look at Baltimore for a real time example
Police back off,, thugs go to work.. and crooks dont care about colors .. they care about being crooks,, they love it when there is chaos in society and police are constrained from effective practices
Profiling by the way works.. and works very very well.. I know who belongs in my community.. who lives and works there.. and I can read people very well who dont belong and are there to create chaos
We actually have dedicated task forces that do specific crime suppression...and they work very well... it cannot be called profiling because that has negative connotations.. but lets get real folks... in some ways it absolutely is.. regardless of what a politician says
There is a huge problem with your understanding, statements and philosophy.
Take just the percentage of police who engage in illegal activities of a sort of those activities you see as incompatible with being a police officer.
You said in part "And anything other than ZERO PERCENT is too much. It seems as though people join law enforcement for the wrong reasons."
In the context you framed the statement, you're forgetting a few things. You appear to believe that people who become police officers are somehow different than the rest of the population. There appears to be so much concern about what police officers do and so little for what the criminal element of the population does.
We should at least get one thing straight. Criminal came first, police second. There is no chicken and the egg aspect here. Get rid of the criminals and the police aren't needed.
Now, what do you think there are more of, police who behave contrary to accepted norms or people who are criminals and necessitate having police? I think there are far more of the later than the former. If the later create the need for the former, then get rid of the later and in so doing also rid society of the remaining problems related to the discussion.
We can't do that though can we? So lets focus on the smaller problem instead of the larger one. Yeah, lets us know how that works since it hasn't worked since criminals have been around.
Excellent analysis..
One addition
Criminals came first before criminal police... police work does not generally make people into criminals.. they came with that dysfunction
When I hear about other police getting arrested for crimes I think.. did they start out in the same place as the rest of us or did they get through the process and slip under the radar?
I think there might be a mix of both... but a crook is a crook is a crook.. and a tempting opportunity will make them reveal themselves...
Fortunately it is a very very small portion... of the population
and when weeded out dealt with... harshly... and I dont just mean by the criminal justice system
People talk about the blue fraternity all the time... try being a crook within it and see how that works... youll be lucky to get out without a beat down in some way or another...
We dont like crooks of any type
Now... I have done special duty in relatively safe areas that required special event high profile policing.. a beach for example where alcohol is not allowed (and can we all understand from current spring break events why its a good idea to ban alcohol on the beach)... anyway.. it requires a high percentage of police/citizen ratio and its expensive.. but the businesses want it so the city gets pressured how to figure out how to fund it.. viola.. citations..
and now you have officers writing a lot of alcohol on the beach tickets and all the other cites that go along with mass people being in one location
Simple economics driven by need and the will of those in the community that drive progress
Reading those "stories", as you call them (despite being backed up with evidence by good journalists) makes one support the law as it was written and meant to be used but the reality is simply pathetic and disgusting. Signing away your cash with no evidence of criminal malfeasance just to get your kid back? LOL.
You cops have a good thing (civil asset forfeiture) used for a good reason to generate money for cash-strapped departments and you screw it all up by getting greedy. It's pathetic.
As to the main query of this thread, I believe that cities & inner cities are under-policed, for sure. But the police I abhor the most are the revenue-generating punks in small bedroom communities and enclaves that are especially prevalent here in Texas. It's one thing to have overzealous enforcement, but it's another thing to have said overzealous law enforcement when you have inappropriately low speed limits below the 85th Percentile speed or poorly-maintained and poorly-visible signage.
And yes, notmeofficer, earlier on you mentioned that it's only 1% or so that engage in such behavior. While I agree it's a minority, I do believe it's higher than 1%. And anything other than ZERO PERCENT is too much. It seems as though people join law enforcement for the wrong reasons.
That being said, I guess on a personal note, I should be grateful for that pathetic Shavano Park revenue generator for pulling me over for driving at an appropriate velocity in an inappropriately-low speed zone. By doing so, my eyes were opened to the truth that is reality for many across the country. I was shocked when I found out. (I was in my early 20's at the time) Now before a long trip, I do research on speedtrap.org to see if any communities on my route disproportionately enforce the law & harass motorists. I take extra care in these communities, especially if I'm warned of misplaced signage or rapidly decreasing speed limits in an abnormally short distance.
I always post cops on Waze. ALWAYS. The public has a right to know when their money (& even more precious: time) is threatened. Some say they shouldn't have been breaking the law. Well, going 5-10 over really doesn't hurt all that much, especially if speed limits are lower than they should be. So it's not about safety, but revenue. Just saw a major ticketing blitz on I-10 the other day. Why aren't one or two cops out there all day long? Why place 8 cops in 4 miles for less than 1 day instead? Why hide if people slow down when you drive by?
It ain't about safety.
I am curious, how do you "disproportionately enforce the law". You either enforce it or you do not.
I am curious, how do you "disproportionately enforce the law". You either enforce it or you do not.
It means having overzealous enforcement of possibly (but not necessarily) inappropriate laws & regulations. Speed limits that are too low for the design and conditions of the road, police forces that are disproportionate to the size of their community & focus on generating revenue on motorists instead of focusing on actual crime.
Of course, in many communities, there isn't any (or very little) crime, so they focus on travelers through their town to bring the crime. It's especially how civil asset forfeiture is said to work. Despite the fact that instead of confiscating a convicted drug dealer's property, they seize a guy's college fund or car fund for no other reason than them having a "large" amount of cash on their person and an automatic assumption that such a "large" amount of cash could only have come from drugs. *rolls eyes*
Because apparently your leaders have determined the number of full time policemen you have are the minimum number required at any given time and supplement that in tourist season with "summer cops". Sounds like what you are wanting is fewer trained policement and even more of these "summer cops".
It means having overzealous enforcement of possibly (but not necessarily) inappropriate laws & regulations. Speed limits that are too low for the design and conditions of the road, police forces that are disproportionate to the size of their community & focus on generating revenue on motorists instead of focusing on actual crime.
Of course, in many communities, there isn't any (or very little) crime, so they focus on travelers through their town to bring the crime. It's especially how civil asset forfeiture is said to work. Despite the fact that instead of confiscating a convicted drug dealer's property, they seize a guy's college fund or car fund for no other reason than them having a "large" amount of cash on their person and an automatic assumption that such a "large" amount of cash could only have come from drugs. *rolls eyes*
Interesting about the large amounts of cash.
I say that because of the current way the banks are set up. You can't even have a bank account anymore for free.
I definitely think we need to cut back in certain cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
