The continuing militarization of police

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way, it DOES matter how a LEO dresses as well as comports himself. If he dresses like an SS Stormtrooper with intimidation as the goal (more speculation, eh) he is already comporting himself in an unacceptable manner.

Where is the friendly officer these days? (still here, and you'd know that if you ever approached him in a friendly courteous manner) The thin blue line has become the black line as more departments change to the intimidation color as the dress of the day. :rolleyes:

Sir Robert Peel, a relative of mine, laid out the Nine Principles of policing many years ago. He stated that without the police adhereing to those principles the public would hold them in disdain and lose respect for the police and the law. (1st of all, I think they are good principals, but for a point, who made him GOD?)

How many of the Nine Principles are still in effect in American policing today?

Judge for yourself:


SIR ROBERT PEEL'S NINE PRINCIPLES

-----------------------------------------------------

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
The courts have ruled that you are absolved from this duty Nothing like throwing your interpretation (bias) on their words, eh?
The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
That approval diminishes with every abuse (dopers and criminals are "the public" too, and make quite a bit of noise them selfs)

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
They cannot do this if respect for the police diminishes (criminals don't tend to respect the law, period)

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Self explanatory ("There, see!", nice arguement.....) :rolleyes:

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
Mollen Commission, Christopher Commission, Knapp Commission

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
Again, self explanatory (again, self-biased)

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Not if the police are "The Brotherhood" and the public are "civilians" ( hello! bias, labeling, and speculation. You know, good old ASSumption)

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
Today, we call that "street justice" (yes, we need to point out your bias and assumption, again)

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Now that is one of the principles that has gone completely by the wayside. (what have you done to make things better)
Click to expand...

TBO

1
 
Notwithstanding the cultural, sociological and political differences between Robert Peels era and our own.

But hey hes a pithy guy and his writings fit an agenda he must be gospel then

remember Clubber Williams!

WildmorestudylessrhetoricAlaska
 
Eight pages and no one has changed his mind or position. Somehow I doubt anyone will either.
Face it; right or wrong, like it or not, much of the American public distrusts the police agencies they are forced to support. This distrust is growing too and history has shown that distrust breeds fear which, in turn, leads to hate which eventually leads to confrontation. While most police agencies are better trained than the people they supposedly serve, they are also uniformed and more easily identified and/or targeted.
If something positive doesn't change this trend soon, being a police officer may become an uninsurable profession. If that happens we can be sure a whole lot of other bad things will happen too. I would hope my children and grandchildren don't have to deal with any of this but I don't really see anyone trying to make that positive change.:(
 
Face it; right or wrong, like it or not, much of the American public distrusts the police agencies they are forced to support
Click to expand...

Rantings on message Boards dont represent "much of the american public"

Sorry OP...

By the way hese a harris polll, (which i trust even less :))

"When Americans are asked whether or not they would generally trust a list of people in different professions and occupations to tell the truth, the largest numbers say they generally trust teachers (86%), clergymen or priests (85%), doctors (83%), scientists (79%) and judges (79%). Professors (77%) and police officers (75%) closely follow these."

WildbuytheywhtciteapollidonttrustAlaska
 
There's a certain irony in the fact that teachers ranked highest in that poll, yet receive some of the most vociferous complaints from the general public about how they practice their profession ... there's a sociological/anthropological study in this somewhere.

I speculate that public visibility and the level of public trust and/or criticism are related in some fashion. Nobody comments much on the work performance of say, archivists, a pretty publicly invisible category (I know because I am one).

Maybe "making yourself a target" is more than a phrase ...
 
Leif, Wild, good posts and good points.

One of the main points of contention is that some individuals are so biased as to be unable to function (w/o knowing it).

IE: who are "The Police?
ThePolice.jpg
These guys?



Law Enforcement agencies across the nation are formed primarily (but not exclusively) by:

-Municipal Police Dept's

-Township Police Dept's

-Sheriffs Dept's

-State Police Agencies (State Patrol/Troopers/Police/Marshals/Rangers)

-Federal (FBI, ATF, DEA, US Marshals)

There are thousands of independent Agencies with hundreds of thousands of LEO's. They are administered by different Bosses, have different jurisdictions, different missions, are in different areas of the US, in different States that each have their own State guidelines, State laws, State Supreme Courts, and State Standards, yet the Biased individuals would have you believe there is such a thing as "The Police". Ludicrous!

The Broad-brush is out of control here, able to paint the entire country with a single stroke, and in the same movement spit in the face of the thousands of decent Law Enforcement Officers out there, in effect calling every one of them "JBT's". You could do no greater disservice.

As someone mentioned earlier, a certain segment of society seems to have a basic need to have a "Big Brother" to fear (or to blame for not getting farther in life). Neither are an excuse for broad-brush behavior.

TBO




http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38304
 
Sir Robert Peel, a relative of mine, laid out the Nine Principles of policing many years ago. He stated that without the police adhereing to those principles the public would hold them in disdain and lose respect for the police and the law. (1st of all, I think they are good principals, but for a point, who made him GOD?)
Click to expand...
I never said he was God; but he was the creator.
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
The courts have ruled that you are absolved from this duty Nothing like throwing your interpretation (bias) on their words, eh?
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no duty to protect any individual nor to prevent any crime.
Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
They cannot do this if respect for the police diminishes (criminals don't tend to respect the law, period)
Click to expand...
I was not speaking of criminals or I would have used the word "criminals". I was speaking of the law-abiding citizenry and so was Sir Peel.
The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Self explanatory ("There, see!", nice arguement.....)
Click to expand...
Is it my fault that you cannot decipher the obvious?
Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
Mollen Commission, Christopher Commission, Knapp Commission
Click to expand...
Hmm, it seems there is no comment there. I wonder why?
Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
Again, self explanatory (again, self-biased)
Click to expand...
Again, not my fault you can't discern the obvious.
Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
Today, we call that "street justice" (yes, we need to point out your bias and assumption, again)
Click to expand...
How often, when you arrest a drunk for driving, do you have his car towed even though it is legally parked? If so, why? Is it so the police tow can make money off of the impound? Is it because it is general policy? Or is it because you want to cost this b---ard as much as you can in fees and fines because you want to mete out a little "street justice"?

Where are you a cop at so I can look up the VC on impounding legally parked vehicles?
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Now that is one of the principles that has gone completely by the wayside. (what have you done to make things better)
Click to expand...
Not nearly as much as you likely have in the opposite direction.
 
Last edited:
"That is the other side of the militarization issue. The police recruit ex-military and we are left with what they get. A lot of these guys simply see the populace as "the enemy" and act accordingly."

Actually, this isnt entirely true. The average police hire these days has not had a military background. Since the abolition of the draft recruits with military backgrounds have become fewer and fewer. Furthermore, there is no effort to recruit from the military because most people in the military do not have a policing skillset. There is also no way that civil law enforcement agencies can match or beat re-enlistment bonuses and educational benefits.

And to continue, at no time in American history has the average candidate gone through a more stringent background, psychological, apptitude, medical and fitness screening. No, not just every "dirtbag" gets a shield. I've seen agencies go thru eligibility lists of over a hundred candidates and not select any, for various reasons.
 
I suspect we are just wasting more of our time with Jim. His bias (by his statements/misstatements) is thick and he is blind to it.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no duty to protect any individual nor to prevent any crime.
Click to expand...
Nice of you to try to twist this to your purpose. It's the COURT'S interpretation that counts, not yours.
They have ruled on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS. What this means (yes, actually means, not just mumbling the line and saying "There SEE!!!") is that Law Enforcement Agencies can not be held Responsible for the Criminal Conduct of an Individual against a Citizen. IE: "My garage was burglarized last night, Where were the Police! I'm suing!!!"......or "I was raped behind the bar last night, where were the Police! I'm suing".

What this is a common sense. Police Officers can not be everywhere at once. There is not one Police Officer for every Citizen. Common Sense, but don't let that stop you from trying to twist it to your means.

Is it my fault that you cannot decipher the obvious?
Click to expand...
Again, you see your bias (actually fail to see it) as "valid", thus you don't consider other views. Quantum leaps on logic don't make a valid thought process. IE: A, B, C, thus Z!
How often, when you arrest a drunk for driving, do you have his car towed even though it is legally parked? If so, why? Is it so the police tow can make money off of the impound? Is it because it is general policy? Or is it because you want to cost this b---ard as much as you can in fees and fines because you want to mete out a little "street justice"?
Click to expand...
Another ASSumption, and equal result. The car is towed INCIDENT TO ARREST. Love how you speculate on "The Police" do it to make money, or "punish" the Offender. Glad you took ZERO time to research or study this, just let your negative bias paint in the picture for you.

Cars are towed after an arrest to protect the property (car). You might find it hard to believe, but there are people out there who don't like "The Police", and take every opportunity to take a shot at them (literally or figuratively). When "The Police" leave the vehicle there and locked the person in jail, then the Offender often sues for "Loss" or "Damage" that occurs to that "Legally Parked" car, because "The Police" caused it to be parked there. That is why the car is towed to a Licensed/Bonded/Insured Towing company, or if the Agency is large enough (only a few) a secure Police Impound yard (LE version of a Towing company yard).
Lots of cars have NOT been towed by "The Police", either through taking the risk of leaving it parked at the owners request (another issue all by itself is ownership status) or releasing it to a sober, valid, adult person who is there and the owner is okay with having.
Not nearly as much as you likely have in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
Yes Jim, I feel the "love". Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe you are not unaware of your bias, perhaps you are fully cognizant of it and relish it. If that is the case, I feel sad for you as that is a terrible way to live/feel.

TBO

Origionally posted by jimpeel:

I have been the most critical one here and for that I owe an apology to all concerned.

I was a resident of Los Angeles when the LAPD turned and ran leaving us to our own devices.

I was there when the LAPD put out a ban on the sale of ammo.

I was there when the LAPD put out a ban on the sale of firearms.

They barricaded themselves in their stations and took a bunker mentality. I saw the sandbagged positions in front of the Rampart Division with my own eyes.

So if I come to these boards jaded it is not without cause. (nice rationalization) I know what its like to be abandoned.

Conversely, I was a resident of MA when the N. Hollywood shootout occurred. I called the N. Hollywood Division of the LAPD and spoke to the Watch Commander. I told him that when I saw that car go down the throat of that guy in a move that was reminiscent of the old LAPD it made me downright proud. I told him that I had been critical of the LAPD since they abandoned us but that this was one of the truly proud moments in LAPD history. I asked him to congratulate his guys and give them a slap on the back from me. He was appreciative of my comments and said he would pass them on.

Then the Rampart Division debacle happened and put them back on track. SOP as it were (the sins of the few get heaped upon the back of the many IE: "The Police", eh...or as you put it "them").
Click to expand...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=468396&postcount=61
 
Actually, this isnt entirely true. The average police hire these days has not had a military background. Since the abolition of the draft recruits with military backgrounds have become fewer and fewer. Furthermore, there is no effort to recruit from the military because most people in the military do not have a policing skillset. There is also no way that civil law enforcement agencies can match or beat re-enlistment bonuses and educational benefits.
Click to expand...
I would hope that you are totally correct.
 
TBO, nice job of selective engagement

For those who would be interested in what the thread TBO referenced was all about, you can go here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=38304

You conveniently left out the posts in that thread wherein I posted links to pages which praised individual acts of bravery on the part of police officers.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=465456&postcount=14
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=465671&postcount=20
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=465798&postcount=24

You also failed to bolden the part where I was apologizing for my opinions after this picture was posted showing that there would have been no way for the police to cut off the bomb.
story.collar.pizza.bomb.jpg


You left out the part where you refuted my claim about the police putting out the ban on firearms and ammo and you conveniently left out the subsequent post wherein I thoroughly trounced you and belied your claim.

You ignored the part wherein I praised the police and even called long distance from Massachusetts to congratulate the Watch Commander and asked him to pass my thoughts on in the daily briefing to his men.

You ignored the part wherein I stated that they had made me proud once more.

Are you denying that the Rampart Division debacle wounded the entire LAPD's reputation?
 
I exposed your bias, nothing more, nothing less. If one is given to bias, how relevant are their posts? Sure, when called on the carpet for your bias you post "some" atta-boys, but when it comes to Threat STARTS, where are they.....
When it comes to post CONTENT.......and it's 99/1.....well, you get the drift (well, maybe YOU don't, but objective readers do).

TBO
 
I exposed your bias, nothing more, nothing less. If one is given to bias, how relevant are their posts?
Click to expand...
I could ask the same of you.

I post kudos where they are deserved and vitriol where it is deserved.

You, on the other hand always take the side of your Brotherhood. They can do no wrong. Everything they do is correct. They never fail in their duty. They are the best of the best at all times. "Ignore that cop behind the curtain. He doesn't represent the rest of us."

You are always at the ready -- ever poised -- to provide an excuse and cover in the tall grass for your comrades in arms. Your loyalty knows no bounds and no shame.

Ignore the Mollen, Christopher, and Knapp Commissions! What do those clowns know? We are the front line. We do the hard work. For that you should forgive us our failings because the good we do outweighs the bad we do.

So which of us is truly the one with the unabashed biases -- me, who falls on both sides of the equation; or you, who never wavers from the single path?

Give me an effen break!
 
Tbo

And you might want to read these books on policing in America

In ‘The Development of the American Police: An Historical Overview’, Craig Uchida notes that "If there is a common theme that can be used to characterize the police in the 19th Century, it is the large-scale corruption that occurred in most police departments across the United States" (Uchida, 1993). In ‘Forces of Deviance: Understanding the Dark Side of Policing’, Kappeler, Sluder, and Alpert point out that corruption among police is not new or peculiar to the late 20th century. "To study the history of police is to study police deviance, corruption and misconduct." (Kappeler et al., 1994.)​
 
Origionally posted by jimpeel (earlier in this very thread) :

Perhaps you could direct the assemblage to where I have "bashed" LEO's who didn't have it coming. This site has an excellent search engine so it shouldn't take long for you to come up with several examples.
Click to expand...

Origionaly posted by jimpeel :

In "The Development of the American Police: An Historical Overview", Craig Uchida notes that "If there is a common theme that can be used to characterize the police in the 19th Century, it is the large-scale corruption that occurred in most police departments across the United States" (Uchida, 1993).

In "Forces of Deviance: Understanding the Dark Side of Policing", Kappeler, Sluder, and Alpert point out that corruption among police is not new or peculiar to the late 20th century. "To study the history of police is to study police deviance, corruption and misconduct." (Kappeler et al., 1994.)

I have learned to distrust all police. I have resigned myself to the fact that they are there to harm me; and they are trained to treat everyone as guilty until proven innocent, everyone is guilty of something, everyone is lying until proven otherwise, everyone is to be distrusted.

Why should I treat them any differently than they treat me?

Have I met good cops? You're damned right I have. I have also met one who hit me while in custody (I was 17), two who refused to do their job because they had a preconceived verdict of guilt, one who stole firearms from the police evidence room. (wow, sounds like a TON of bad cops.... :rolleyes: )

And then there's THIS GUY. What drove this guy to just up and shoot a cop with no provocation? What's up with that? Are people, including bad guys, just plain getting that fed up?

I've got no answers.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=712102&postcount=20
Click to expand...
Kinda says it all
 
So what's your point? That some cops are bad? No one here is gonna disagree with you. There have been, are, and will be bad cops, along with bad doctors, lawyers, and any other profession you care to name. But you cannot indict an entire profession because of the actions of a distinct minority. Well, you could, but you'd be wrong. Are you contending that all 670,000 some-odd LEOs in the US are "bad?" Most of them? Half? Where's the evidence that supports that? And what does it have to do with "police militarization" whatever that is?
 
Tbo

Congratulations.

All you have shown is that the police have a history of corruption.

You'd have done better posting this post http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=711758&postcount=5

Of course this part would kinda screw up your premise
I was not treated in any manner shabbily by the Long Beach, CA police -- who are noted as being a bunch of hard a--es -- when I called them to a neighbor's house on a prowler call. There I was, standing there with a firearm and they thought nothing of it. The full description of this adventure is HERE
Click to expand...

I am not the only one who has learned to distrust the police.

They will lie to you to get you to say or do what they want you to say or do.

They, as stated in Miranda, "can and will" use whatever you say against you.

They ARE there to harm you. They exist as a revenue enhancement arm of the municipality in which they work. Why would I trust anyone whose function is such?

They DO treat everyone as a liar, a criminal, a ne'er-do-well, a person of low repute. They assume guilt for everyone instead of innocence.

Why SHOULD I treat them any differently than they treat me? Why should I impart any information to them? Why should I tell them anything more than my name; which the courts recently ruled I have to give them? To interface with the police is to place oneself in harm's way.

Of course, you deftly skipped over the part about "Have I met good cops? You're damned right I have."

I love the way you take the statement "I've got no answers" as though I am stating that I have no answers for anything, anytime, anywhere.

I was saying that "I've got no answers" to the questions I posed. So let me break it down so even you can understand it:

"What drove this guy to just up and shoot a cop with no provocation?"

I've got no answer.

"What's up with that?

I've got no answer.

"Are people, including bad guys, just plain getting that fed up?"

I've got no answer.

To say that I am a cop basher is a blanket statement that is not true. It is what you want to believe and you will not put down the drum you beat incessantly for cops everywhere long enough to realize it. You are prejudiced for cops because you are part oof the Brotherhood and you will defend them to the Nth degree because your ideology runs deeper than the truth.

Like I stated. Cops will lie and prevaricate and you just did exactly that.

As I also stated, I give kudos where deserved and I give criticism where deserved.

More in next post.
 
Tbo

You would, and the cops here in Denver did, blindly confiscate automobiles from persons traveling through Denver even though the State Constitution allows for such carry. The law was obviously unconstitutoional but the cops just ran with it.

See my post http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=713908&postcount=50 in the samne threda you referenced to prove me a cop basher.

The law was rendered moot by the new state law on concealed carry but it shouldn't take a state legislative law to make a city, and its police, conform to state law and the state Constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top