Prostitution and drugs greatly endanger society because they are criminalized. In many nations (and even one US state) without such back asswards politicians trying to legislate morality prostitutes are regulated, screened and protected. The only way prostitution created a victim is by putting control of the issue in the hands of pimps and gang lords that don't care who gets hurt.
Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America
- Thread starter Scott Conklin
- Start date
ZingZang, when I lived downtown, the safest place I ever lived was an apartment building on the "stroll," an area worked by hookers. There was zero other crime. After the city changed the one-way streets around to make hooker-shopping more difficult and sent squad cars through regularly, people started getting held up and assualted by gang members. Just like the hookers, they could fade out of sight when the police came by -- at least the hookers, while icky, left everyone but their customers alone. The gang boys, on the other hand, saw everyone as prey. I know which I preferred.
If recreational drugs and prostitition were legal, they wouldn't be traded on street corners; such goods and services would be sold in bars, drugstores and hotels (etc.). The police could go back to addressing more conventional violations of the peace. (Amsterdam doesn't look to be awash in blood or slumping into the abyss due to their legalization of some dope and some whores. Yeah, nice people don't go where those things are sold. Not everybody's nice and there is no way to force them to be. But in Amsterdam, at least you've got a pretty clear idea of where not to go. And for most of the residents, the nice people, that may be exactly the point. There are plenty of negatives to Holland but it's a place where they're trying something different, some of which might be working out differently than we expect).
If recreational drugs and prostitition were legal, they wouldn't be traded on street corners; such goods and services would be sold in bars, drugstores and hotels (etc.). The police could go back to addressing more conventional violations of the peace. (Amsterdam doesn't look to be awash in blood or slumping into the abyss due to their legalization of some dope and some whores. Yeah, nice people don't go where those things are sold. Not everybody's nice and there is no way to force them to be. But in Amsterdam, at least you've got a pretty clear idea of where not to go. And for most of the residents, the nice people, that may be exactly the point. There are plenty of negatives to Holland but it's a place where they're trying something different, some of which might be working out differently than we expect).
No offense was intended and I do apologize if you have taken offense. Your private life is, of course, your own affair.
I will withdraw the implication if you will define "nice person" in such wise as to include intoxication and sex outside of wedlock. I was using the narrowest possible -- indeed, Victorian -- sense of the phrase, in a manner at least partially ironic. (If not, in fact, sneeringly sarcastic, whch may indicate I am not myself very nice).
I can certainly imagine many persons visiting, say, Amsterdam for the flesh and the herbs to be found there would be clean, civil, polite, well-spoken and use the proper fork at dinner. Indeed, they might be individuals I would find to be boon companions. Does that qualify as "nice?" It really depends on who is deciding what's nice!
I will withdraw the implication if you will define "nice person" in such wise as to include intoxication and sex outside of wedlock. I was using the narrowest possible -- indeed, Victorian -- sense of the phrase, in a manner at least partially ironic. (If not, in fact, sneeringly sarcastic, whch may indicate I am not myself very nice).
I can certainly imagine many persons visiting, say, Amsterdam for the flesh and the herbs to be found there would be clean, civil, polite, well-spoken and use the proper fork at dinner. Indeed, they might be individuals I would find to be boon companions. Does that qualify as "nice?" It really depends on who is deciding what's nice!
Scott Conklin
New member
My perspective would be "How much "safety" do you want?" And how much do you actually NEED? Personally, when I hear about how horrible all these things would be if they were not illegal, then I look at how horrible that illegality itself makes things, I frankly wouldn't mind taking my chances and to hell the whole "safety" thing. It's a fantasy anyway.
Prostitution can spread disease, but if its a legal and regulated business that can be dealt with by regulation and the patrons protected by insurance. Restaurants also can spread disease and food poisoning, but because of regulations (and potential litigation) those risks are usually minimized by the owners of the establishment. Same could be done with prostitution...if it were legal.
Interesting how you had to add an element (being behind the wheel) to make drugs seem so more dangerous than alcohol. Lets try that again without the bias...
Being spaced out on "recreational" drugs is no different than being drunk.
That I'd agree with. But being drunk at home isn't a crime, and generally its not a huge problem. If I sit home and smoke a joint while watching TV, is it any worse than if I sit home and drink a bottle of Grey Goose while watching TV?
Not at all.
If I did partake in the activities discussed in this thread I certainly wouldn't post about it. On the other hand I do have issue with the idea that if a person enjoys activities others find morally reprehensible that others will erroneously believe the person in question cannot display and honorable character. A man in Nevada may enjoy the pleasures of a prostitute every weekend, he may spend his evenings gambling in Vegas but neither of those means the man won't volunteer his time to clean up a community park so children have a safe place to play. I hope that made sense.
No. Sexual intercourse can spread STDs. That in no way implies that prostitution must spread STDs. In places where prostitution is legal and regulated the ladies are screened on a regular basis.
Agreed. You would be hard pressed to find any advocate of drug legalization that blieves people should be allowed to drive high.
No moreso than the Brady Bunch's claim that the simple fact that you own a gun means you're likely to murder your neighbor.
edit: whoops, seems someone already pointed most of that out
I agree that if a user were to sit home and get high, I would have no problem with it. I guess my real complaint is that by using the "being high" is no different than being drunk argument, I get the feeling that the punishment for being high and driving will end up being the same as being drunk and driving. In other words: BUTTKIS, NADA. And we will have an greatly increased portion of the population out there driving under the influnce of something. (Both those that can't handle booze and all the newly legal users that can't manage to stay out of cars.) Maybe if the law would put some real teeth into DUI punishments, like consfication and hard time for repeat offenders, I would be more comfortable. I know the laws are there, they just don't seem to want to use them. (Might mean Teddy and his ilk would have to spend some time in the slammer. )
As for prostitution not spreading STD's. Like I said, it wouldn't if the "lady" is checked after each "John". I don't know how often checks are done, but I doubt if it's that often. Even on a once a week check, if the first John of the new week is infected, the rest of them until the next check are at risk.
)As for prostitution not spreading STD's. Like I said, it wouldn't if the "lady" is checked after each "John". I don't know how often checks are done, but I doubt if it's that often. Even on a once a week check, if the first John of the new week is infected, the rest of them until the next check are at risk.
Agreed. Though you must understand there is a serious problem with the current method. An arbitrary BAC number is a ridiculous way to charge someone for DUI. BAC tells you one thing and one thing only: the alcohol content in the blood. It is not an accurate measure of inebriation. Sober people can blow upwards of .08 and drunk people can blow far below that point. A more accurate method of measuring needs to be put in place.
First of all, if a person is willing to risk getting an STD that is their choice. I understand that it causes a problem if they are given free health care but I highly doubt that's the case in most situations. What is more likely to happen is that treatment is paid for by an insurance company and if you don't like your premiums going up because your insurance provider is willing to pay for STD treatment then it's up to you to find a provider that better suits your needs but it should not bar someone else from doing something that has no direct effect on any other individuals besides those copulating.
That being said, the girls are checked regularly. I don't know about every time but they are screened at least as often as porn stars. They are also required to use condoms, not something you'll find your average pimp doing. The point is that the danger to society is only enhanced by the criminalization. I'm not claiming it would be eliminated through legalization but it would certainly be drastically reduced.
As George Carlin so eloquently puts it: "Selling is legal. ****ing is legal. So why is selling ****ing illegal?"
No government has any business in my bedroom. Period.
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Special Weapons and Tactics (training)
If you don't know what it stands for how can you be arguing this subject.
If you are a patrolman on the street, you are not SWAT. If you are sworn you are not civilian. Simple
Someone mentioned disgust, because he see's himself as a person who is protecting the innocent and he is a civilian (then must not be sworn).
He is not worried about going home to his wife, child, he is only worried about doing his job.
Well I'll tell you something amigo when you have been on and are a patrolman and call for backup (SWAT) because you are not superman. They show up with the, SWAT, and you go home for the night, you are only kidding yourself and this board.
SWAT will usually back up DEA. But they are not as a general rule enforcing what DEA does. First off most of the BS that is printed in the local rag is by someone who is selling himself and papers. NOT doing what SWAT does.
DUI or DWI is every persons concern.
I feel the people who go out and dress up in cammies and play Para Military are more suspect then any LEO.
Most of the time that is what you see in SWAT Mag. Helping gunmakers and all the others sell their stuff to the citizen and civilian.
So if SWAT is what it is. What is SWAT Magazine all about?
When you are sworn to uphold the laws of the United States and its Constitution. Give every bit of information (to the soon to be employer) of your whole life. Investigated to the max and then SWORN and hired.
I believe that is quite different than, "you cannot ask me that question it is private and you have violated my rights as a citizen".
Sworn and civilian are quite different, you may not like it but that is the way it is.
It is all about Law and understanding how it came about.
You can try to enforce it on your board (private), but it still does not fly in the face of the Court System.
You can say all you want in the street, but when giving testimony in a court you are sworn, you lie and are caught you go to jail.
Used to be that way on a report, you lie to an officer and you may get arrested but it does not mean you are going to be found guilty without a trial.
Try lying in court and get caught, you do go to jail.
Again Sworn and civilian are not the same. Sorry.
HQ
If you don't know what it stands for how can you be arguing this subject.
If you are a patrolman on the street, you are not SWAT. If you are sworn you are not civilian. Simple
Someone mentioned disgust, because he see's himself as a person who is protecting the innocent and he is a civilian (then must not be sworn).
He is not worried about going home to his wife, child, he is only worried about doing his job.
Well I'll tell you something amigo when you have been on and are a patrolman and call for backup (SWAT) because you are not superman. They show up with the, SWAT, and you go home for the night, you are only kidding yourself and this board.
SWAT will usually back up DEA. But they are not as a general rule enforcing what DEA does. First off most of the BS that is printed in the local rag is by someone who is selling himself and papers. NOT doing what SWAT does.
DUI or DWI is every persons concern.
I feel the people who go out and dress up in cammies and play Para Military are more suspect then any LEO.
Most of the time that is what you see in SWAT Mag. Helping gunmakers and all the others sell their stuff to the citizen and civilian.
So if SWAT is what it is. What is SWAT Magazine all about?
When you are sworn to uphold the laws of the United States and its Constitution. Give every bit of information (to the soon to be employer) of your whole life. Investigated to the max and then SWORN and hired.
I believe that is quite different than, "you cannot ask me that question it is private and you have violated my rights as a citizen".
Sworn and civilian are quite different, you may not like it but that is the way it is.
It is all about Law and understanding how it came about.
You can try to enforce it on your board (private), but it still does not fly in the face of the Court System.
You can say all you want in the street, but when giving testimony in a court you are sworn, you lie and are caught you go to jail.
Used to be that way on a report, you lie to an officer and you may get arrested but it does not mean you are going to be found guilty without a trial.
Try lying in court and get caught, you do go to jail.
Again Sworn and civilian are not the same. Sorry.
HQ
Harley,
With all due respect to the overwhelming majority of good and decent LEOs, be they Special Weapons and Tactics team members or plain ol' ordinary officers, I have a question for you. When you write:
Public-safety employees acting under the color of law have far greater legal protection and far easier access to destructive instruments. It's not a matter of being "more suspect" but of being held to a higher standard. With power comes responsibility.
It would interesting to find statistical data on a per-department basis. It seems likely to me that a few very bad outfits are making all of 'em look bad.
_____________________________
* I am not claiming all is sweetness and light when all groups roughly fitting this description are considered; it includes plenty of people who hold and act on ideals I find repugnant. But as long as their acts are rallies, marches and beer busts, who cares? It keeps 'em out of making worse trouble.
With all due respect to the overwhelming majority of good and decent LEOs, be they Special Weapons and Tactics team members or plain ol' ordinary officers, I have a question for you. When you write:
...I have to ask: more suspect of what? How many people have cammo-clad civilians playin' paramilitary killed by mistake? How many have they killed on purpose?* What's the per-capita innocent death rate for such overgrown Boy Scouts compared to that of drug raiders, SWAT teams, or DEA? Joe Paramilitary is not generally in the door-kicking-down business.Harley Quinn said:
Public-safety employees acting under the color of law have far greater legal protection and far easier access to destructive instruments. It's not a matter of being "more suspect" but of being held to a higher standard. With power comes responsibility.
It would interesting to find statistical data on a per-department basis. It seems likely to me that a few very bad outfits are making all of 'em look bad.
_____________________________
* I am not claiming all is sweetness and light when all groups roughly fitting this description are considered; it includes plenty of people who hold and act on ideals I find repugnant. But as long as their acts are rallies, marches and beer busts, who cares? It keeps 'em out of making worse trouble.
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Roberta X
You mention,
Just so's ya know, I don't expect to live through a home invasion/wrong-address no-knock -- but I plan to take an honor guard with me. Knuckling under is for losers.
HQ mentions:
I would say you are correct in your accessment of the situation.
Unfortunatly mistakes are made.
The people left around after the incident will have to pick up the pieces and get the job done. Try to figure out why it went wrong and what to do for the next one they are involved in, and not have the same trajedy.
Sometimes it is the mistake of just one person, the others are victims also.
Bad shootings really mess up all and I mean all that are involved, on both sides of the shooting. Some will get over it others will not. Some might say he was bad so therefore it is ok, others might kill themselves over it and some will retire on a mental instability pension. Bad all around.
The cost to the taxpayer is very much part of the problem also. The mistake carries a high price, believe me.
Years ago many went to jail for long terms for MJ. It was a felony just to have a "joint". Some of the laws have changed, that is good. But when we are talking felony, you are talking somtimes getting shot, more so than other crimes.
As far as the statement about being "suspect", I am not sure what I ment, but it must have ment something.
I think you covered it well when you mentioned "have to be held to a higher standard". I believe that covers the question about "Sworn" and "civilian" to a T.
HQ
You mention,
Just so's ya know, I don't expect to live through a home invasion/wrong-address no-knock -- but I plan to take an honor guard with me. Knuckling under is for losers.
HQ mentions:
I would say you are correct in your accessment of the situation.
Unfortunatly mistakes are made.
The people left around after the incident will have to pick up the pieces and get the job done. Try to figure out why it went wrong and what to do for the next one they are involved in, and not have the same trajedy.
Sometimes it is the mistake of just one person, the others are victims also.
Bad shootings really mess up all and I mean all that are involved, on both sides of the shooting. Some will get over it others will not. Some might say he was bad so therefore it is ok, others might kill themselves over it and some will retire on a mental instability pension. Bad all around.
The cost to the taxpayer is very much part of the problem also. The mistake carries a high price, believe me.
Years ago many went to jail for long terms for MJ. It was a felony just to have a "joint". Some of the laws have changed, that is good. But when we are talking felony, you are talking somtimes getting shot, more so than other crimes.
As far as the statement about being "suspect", I am not sure what I ment, but it must have ment something.
I think you covered it well when you mentioned "have to be held to a higher standard". I believe that covers the question about "Sworn" and "civilian" to a T.
HQ
Scott Conklin
New member
Are you military, active or reserve? No? Then you are a civilian. Period. Moreover, you are a public servant, employed by and serving at the behest of all those other civilians you appear to presume you are "above".
As for oaths, I believe doctors take an oath. Hell, lawyers might, as well, though I am not sure. I know politicians do and I think judges do as well...so by your "definition" they are not civilians either? Nice. A "rulling class". How quaint.
As for oaths, I believe doctors take an oath. Hell, lawyers might, as well, though I am not sure. I know politicians do and I think judges do as well...so by your "definition" they are not civilians either? Nice. A "rulling class". How quaint.
Harley, you've made these statements from the beginning, and every time this subject comes up.
Officer (at law.com): 3) a law enforcement person such as a policeman or woman, deputy sheriff or federal marshal.
You've said:
Main Entry: po·lice
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): po·liced; po·lic·ing
Etymology: in sense 1, from Middle French policier, from police conduct of public affairs; in other senses, from 2police
1 archaic : GOVERN
2 : to control, regulate, or keep in order by use of police
3 : to make clean and put in order
4 a : to supervise the operation, execution, or administration of to prevent or detect and prosecute violations of rules and regulations b : to exercise such supervision over the policies and activities of
5 : to perform the functions of a police force in or over
Main Entry: of·fi·cer
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin officiarius, from Latin officium
1 a obsolete : AGENT b : one charged with police duties
2 : one who holds an office of trust, authority, or command <the officers of the bank> <chief executive officer>
3 a : one who holds a position of authority or command in the armed forces; specifically : COMMISSIONED OFFICER b : the master or any of the mates of a merchant or passenger ship
Main Entry: police officer
Function: noun
: a member of a police force
Here's where it gets convoluted:
Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Function: noun
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force* b : OUTSIDER 1
- civilian adjective
That would tend to make one think that the police are not civilians, correct? Not so fast there buddy! What do other Dictionaries have to say about the word civilian?
From the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: n. 1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police**.
2. A specialist in Roman or civil law.
adj. Of or relating to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary: civilian clothes; a civilian career.
From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.:
n. a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
adj. of or relating to civil law as distinguished from common law
From WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University: adj : associated with or performed by civilians as contrasted with the military; "civilian clothing"; "civilian life" [ant: military] n : a nonmilitary citizen [ant: serviceman]
What we can see is that only on some common usage, are the police distinguished from civilian. When we get to the standard usage or the usage in law, a police officer is a civilian.
The common definition used to be: civilian - anyone who is not in military or religious service. It is only recently that dictionaries separated the police from its civilian application.
Yes Harley, it does depend "all about Law and understanding how it came about."
When one looks at legal definitions, we find that a police officer is a Minister of Civil or Judicial process, and may at times act as both. A police officer is not however anything other than a civilian given authority to uphold the laws of the jurisdiction to which he has sworn.
The swearing of an oath does not remove the civil nature of the person so swearing. Until such a time that the legal definition changes, like it or not, you are a civilian.
_____
* Added in the 10th edition copyright © 2005. Not present in the 9th edition. used to read: 3. One whose pursuits are those of civil life, not military or clerical.
** Added in the 4th edition Copyright © 2000. Not present in the 3rd edition.
Officer (at law.com): 3) a law enforcement person such as a policeman or woman, deputy sheriff or federal marshal.
You've said:
Now let's look at some other definitions, as they apply to some of the words we use (from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary):Harley Quinn said:
Main Entry: po·lice
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): po·liced; po·lic·ing
Etymology: in sense 1, from Middle French policier, from police conduct of public affairs; in other senses, from 2police
1 archaic : GOVERN
2 : to control, regulate, or keep in order by use of police
3 : to make clean and put in order
4 a : to supervise the operation, execution, or administration of to prevent or detect and prosecute violations of rules and regulations b : to exercise such supervision over the policies and activities of
5 : to perform the functions of a police force in or over
Main Entry: of·fi·cer
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin officiarius, from Latin officium
1 a obsolete : AGENT b : one charged with police duties
2 : one who holds an office of trust, authority, or command <the officers of the bank> <chief executive officer>
3 a : one who holds a position of authority or command in the armed forces; specifically : COMMISSIONED OFFICER b : the master or any of the mates of a merchant or passenger ship
Main Entry: police officer
Function: noun
: a member of a police force
Here's where it gets convoluted:
Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Function: noun
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force* b : OUTSIDER 1
- civilian adjective
That would tend to make one think that the police are not civilians, correct? Not so fast there buddy! What do other Dictionaries have to say about the word civilian?
From the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: n. 1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police**.
2. A specialist in Roman or civil law.
adj. Of or relating to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary: civilian clothes; a civilian career.
From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.:
n. a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
adj. of or relating to civil law as distinguished from common law
From WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University: adj : associated with or performed by civilians as contrasted with the military; "civilian clothing"; "civilian life" [ant: military] n : a nonmilitary citizen [ant: serviceman]
What we can see is that only on some common usage, are the police distinguished from civilian. When we get to the standard usage or the usage in law, a police officer is a civilian.
The common definition used to be: civilian - anyone who is not in military or religious service. It is only recently that dictionaries separated the police from its civilian application.
Yes Harley, it does depend "all about Law and understanding how it came about."
When one looks at legal definitions, we find that a police officer is a Minister of Civil or Judicial process, and may at times act as both. A police officer is not however anything other than a civilian given authority to uphold the laws of the jurisdiction to which he has sworn.
The swearing of an oath does not remove the civil nature of the person so swearing. Until such a time that the legal definition changes, like it or not, you are a civilian.
_____
* Added in the 10th edition copyright © 2005. Not present in the 9th edition. used to read: 3. One whose pursuits are those of civil life, not military or clerical.
** Added in the 4th edition Copyright © 2000. Not present in the 3rd edition.
Yes, it can be and often is a high monetary cost. But what of the cost in lives destroyed, injured or disrupted? Can you put a price tag on that?Harley Quinn said:
The over usage of para-military SWAT teams in conducting ordinary civil processes is counter-productive to the health and safety of the public. One innocent life lost, makes the other 40,000 SWAT engagements null. Only those that rely upon statistics and monetary cost will rally behind the usage.
You want to go back to the original uses of SWAT, then I'm all for it. But not for the current ideas of usage. Current usage is not about officer safety. That's the raison d'etre. Current usage is all about the show of overwhelming force. Period.
Did you even bother to read Balko's white paper?
I had written:
In response:
While I have no problem at all accepting that I'm probably going to die quickly if I face serious home invasion by criminals -- and in would in fact prefer to fall fighting than to die slowly and painfully after whatever evil such individuals might wreak upon my person -- it bothers me no end that I must also be prepared to defend myself to the death from public safety officers.
Your take is "Unfortunately mistakes are made." Doesn't it bug you just a little bit that private, law-abiding, innocent citizens have to fret over getting killed after having their door kicked down in the dark of night by shotgun-toting "peace officers?" Doesn't that strike you as being even a little off the mark for America?
"Mistakes are made." Hmpf. Used to be, as a society and in government, innocence was assumed and the goal was to err on the side of not harmin' the innocent, even if the guilty occasionaly got away because of it. Now it seems that for some in police work (and elsewhere among the civil service) the standard is, "Can't make an omlette without breaking eggs." If that's freedom, what's tyranny?
In response:
Harley Quinn said:
While I have no problem at all accepting that I'm probably going to die quickly if I face serious home invasion by criminals -- and in would in fact prefer to fall fighting than to die slowly and painfully after whatever evil such individuals might wreak upon my person -- it bothers me no end that I must also be prepared to defend myself to the death from public safety officers.
Your take is "Unfortunately mistakes are made." Doesn't it bug you just a little bit that private, law-abiding, innocent citizens have to fret over getting killed after having their door kicked down in the dark of night by shotgun-toting "peace officers?" Doesn't that strike you as being even a little off the mark for America?
"Mistakes are made." Hmpf. Used to be, as a society and in government, innocence was assumed and the goal was to err on the side of not harmin' the innocent, even if the guilty occasionaly got away because of it. Now it seems that for some in police work (and elsewhere among the civil service) the standard is, "Can't make an omlette without breaking eggs." If that's freedom, what's tyranny?
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Sworn and civilian
That's just the way it is, and was, on the job I was on. Simple
Stuff happens everyday that bothers me, lives being lost for a bad cause, bad drivers killing innocents. Many things are accidents and they do happen.
Gang activity that is taking the youth by storm. Like I say many things. I have seen enough death, thanks very much. Up close and personal.
Yes, most of those professions are held to a higher standard.
If you cannot understand what I have written, you want to attack me personally, well go for it. It is pretty much the norm of late.
Forget the Dictionary on this one. You need to go to the penal code.
Roberta X you have arrived just in time to get on the band wagon I see.
HMMM
Yes, I am a civilian now, but when an officer for the city I was sworn and it is/was different then civilian, simple. Rich mentioned it before. Big cities do things different.
Paramilitary is right. Heck they now wear their ribbons, if in the service for all to see. They have chevrons on their sleeves, heck of an observation.
I am not saying it is the best or the worst. It is from my own personal experience. You don't care for it take it up with that city.
Rich how about this one. Funny really. I seem to remember this in the past a little closer though.
HQ
That's just the way it is, and was, on the job I was on. Simple
Stuff happens everyday that bothers me, lives being lost for a bad cause, bad drivers killing innocents. Many things are accidents and they do happen.
Gang activity that is taking the youth by storm. Like I say many things. I have seen enough death, thanks very much. Up close and personal.
Yes, most of those professions are held to a higher standard.
If you cannot understand what I have written, you want to attack me personally, well go for it. It is pretty much the norm of late.
Forget the Dictionary on this one. You need to go to the penal code.
Roberta X you have arrived just in time to get on the band wagon I see.
HMMM
Yes, I am a civilian now, but when an officer for the city I was sworn and it is/was different then civilian, simple. Rich mentioned it before. Big cities do things different.
Paramilitary is right. Heck they now wear their ribbons, if in the service for all to see. They have chevrons on their sleeves, heck of an observation.
I am not saying it is the best or the worst. It is from my own personal experience. You don't care for it take it up with that city.
Rich how about this one. Funny really. I seem to remember this in the past a little closer though.
HQ
Harley -- I "arrived in time to get on the bandwagon?" Say wha?
I'm not a bandwagon-rider. My notions are quirky, unpopular, individual. Sometimes, on some narrowly-focused topics, they happen to be similar to other people's ideas; but I thunk 'em up all by myself and they're mine.
If you think you're being ganged up on, think again! Could be a couple of noids have snuck in your cellar while you were looking the other way. They'll do that, especially on the 'net, but just 'cos it is an intimate medium doesn't mean it's about you -- or me, either.
For the record, I will always be opposed to kicking in doors as a means of keeping the peace unless the suspects have hostages on the other side -- and then only if the hostages are counted as good as dead if direct and rapid action isn't taken.
One indication of not living in a police state is if, when there's a knock on the door at 5:00 a.m., you can be sure it's either a lost drunk, a family member, a neighbor in serious trouble or the milkman. If it's most likely to be the police, you're not living in a free country any more. I don't think the States are at the second condition now, but there are clear trends in that direction. You can be neutral, strive to slow it down or push even harder that direction, but it would be polite to stop sniping and pick a side.
I'm not a bandwagon-rider. My notions are quirky, unpopular, individual. Sometimes, on some narrowly-focused topics, they happen to be similar to other people's ideas; but I thunk 'em up all by myself and they're mine.
If you think you're being ganged up on, think again! Could be a couple of noids have snuck in your cellar while you were looking the other way. They'll do that, especially on the 'net, but just 'cos it is an intimate medium doesn't mean it's about you -- or me, either.
For the record, I will always be opposed to kicking in doors as a means of keeping the peace unless the suspects have hostages on the other side -- and then only if the hostages are counted as good as dead if direct and rapid action isn't taken.
One indication of not living in a police state is if, when there's a knock on the door at 5:00 a.m., you can be sure it's either a lost drunk, a family member, a neighbor in serious trouble or the milkman. If it's most likely to be the police, you're not living in a free country any more. I don't think the States are at the second condition now, but there are clear trends in that direction. You can be neutral, strive to slow it down or push even harder that direction, but it would be polite to stop sniping and pick a side.
Lets face it. We have to protect society from civilian scum. After all, the boys in black go home at the end of the shift. With this in mind, I modestly propose the following:
1. Lets end the drug war hypocrisy. It is time to treat Tobacco, Alcohol, caffeine, trans fats and sugar as the drugs they are. First offense, 1 year minimum, 5 year max, $100,000 fine.
2. Lets make out of wedlock sex illegal. After all, if you can't have sex for cash, how can it be legal to have sex for lobster?
3. Lets make 55mph the maximum governed speed in all cars (except non-civilian models).
4. We need to seize all civilian firearms. After all, studies now show they lead to aggression in males. Only non-civilians are "professional" enough.
5. Lets feed the children of unwed mothers to the poor.
1. Lets end the drug war hypocrisy. It is time to treat Tobacco, Alcohol, caffeine, trans fats and sugar as the drugs they are. First offense, 1 year minimum, 5 year max, $100,000 fine.
2. Lets make out of wedlock sex illegal. After all, if you can't have sex for cash, how can it be legal to have sex for lobster?
3. Lets make 55mph the maximum governed speed in all cars (except non-civilian models).
4. We need to seize all civilian firearms. After all, studies now show they lead to aggression in males. Only non-civilians are "professional" enough.
5. Lets feed the children of unwed mothers to the poor.