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.
One thing this thread highlights is the stupidity of the avg American. As if having a bachelors degree will fix everything... that's why this generation is up to its eyeballs in debit now with thinking like that. Nothing is wrong with actual police training as you can never rid departments of the bad employee just as with any occupation. I do believe that the law enforcement hiring process is better than most jobs. Matter of fact there's a lot of people that will never apply due to the intense background check that LEO jobs conduct. As I stated earlier the last few years of incidents like this shows that law enforcement has been blindsided by social media and the more left wing press. They are still acting like this is the 1990s " Its under investigation".
^^^^^^ this
Like it or not, “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”
Along with better training, how about changing policy on the reasons for pulling people over in the fist place? Why does anyone need to be pulled over for a broken tail light? More than likely, the vehicle owner already knows its broken and them getting fined isn't going to make them fix it faster anyway.
Interesting story years ago in college for criminal justice studies, now work in psych ha. Anyways drug mules for some reason smash one of their taillights out. Remember a former police officer telling us this. How he pull these individuals over and those who's cars were low to the ground.
There's also the theory that they don't want the best and brightest, since hiring the average or less cognitively gifted makes for better order followers.
Not saying that would always be the case, but definitely to some degree. I don't want to be too cynical, but I also don't want to be naive and assume the whole law enforcement apparatus really cares a lot about treating citizens well. They care about getting their job done so they can go home.
But overall, I'd say police policy looks to be more aggressive now...I still absolutely hate the policy of automatically shooting dogs. Or if one cop shoots, the rest all fire away...most likely to a) take responsibility off of the first shooter, and b) to make sure the suspect is dead and can't testify against them for shooting him. Easy way to cover things up.
Most cities don’t want to spend the money on training their police and have cut back on the number of officers on their payroll because of budgets. Taxpayers don’t want tax increases so where’s the money going to come from?
You speak the sad truth. We don't invest much in our capitalist society. We're all broke. If we aren't we need to save it for the next recession.
Public perception could use some work in conjunction. It's a two-way street. We all need to meet half way to fixing it. Maybe citizens should be required to spend two years on a block watch or ride along.
Some officers go beyond already. They have started to education teams of officers in public relations so that people will help them out. Also, the officers learn what it's like from their side. A lot of low-income areas have people who keep their mouths closed in fear of getting hurt from their peers.
There are a lot of things we can do to try and bring down the casualties in this war on crime. Some statically are unavoidable.
I think coming together will bring a solution quicker than all this divide and hate. That I know for sure.
You should be happy with what you get as a police officer. You basically are living off of stolen money to begin with anyway. I wouldn't be pressing my luck, or people may wise up and realize that they don't actually need you.
sorry, I don't quite follow what you are talking about?
I don't think it is productive to discuss libertarianism because everybody has different definition.
How very true: people have to realize, no party is 100% representative of their members: We all can identify with the party that best fits our overall views and yet not totally agree with platform. This is the same as belonging to a religion: none of us will ever totally accept or believe exactly what our religion tries to instill or teach us.
Along with better training, how about changing policy on the reasons for pulling people over in the fist place? Why does anyone need to be pulled over for a broken tail light? More than likely, the vehicle owner already knows its broken and them getting fined isn't going to make them fix it faster anyway.
Holy Cow; if they know it is broken and haven't bothered to get it fixed, they deserve to be fined. Of maybe then didn't know it; the cop was considerate enough to pull them over and tell them. Driving with something like a broken tail light can be dangerous. Keep your car in decent repair and if you can't afford to, then you had better depend on public transportation until you can afford to get it fixed.
I don't think it is productive to discuss libertarianism because everybody has different definition.
The key principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. That's what makes a libertarian or not. Many "Libertarians" don't even know what the NAP is, or it isn't very important to them.
It's like claiming to be a communist, but you often support capitalism. You can call yourself a communist, but you're kind of going against the whole philosophy.
The key principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. That's what makes a libertarian or not. Many "Libertarians" don't even know what the NAP is, or it isn't very important to them.
It's like claiming to be a communist, but you often support capitalism. You can call yourself a communist, but you're kind of going against the whole philosophy.
I agree with you. The bolded. But I don't think this is a proper thread to discuss libertarians.
The poster I quoted claimed to be a Libertarian, In my opinion, There are fundamental differences between Libertarians and Anarchists. But this is another topic
How about we try your little experiment first with Federal Workers in Washington, DC. I'm sure you'd have a lot of applicants!
Cops aren't all angels, but the real problem is lowlifes have inserted themselves into the Democrat Party.
And the Democrats will gladly accept their votes no questions asked.
I know you were trying to be clever (you weren't) but essentially the little experiment is a slight variation of term limits, which itself is a variation of mandatory retirement.
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.
If we aren't we need to save it for the next recession. 
