Posted on 07/28/2011 2:24:31 PM PDT by Immerito
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. If a former military member wants to change jobs, from protecting our country's freedom by the use of military force, to performing police work and enforcing the law, great.
People who join the police to be a part of the SWAT team implicitly condone the use of military force against United States citizens.
While I realize that there are some extremely evil and dangerous U.S. citizens, we've already seen that the special tactics teams that were formed and "legalized" with the promise that they would only be used against the worst of the worst, are now used for just about anything.
That's precisely why a standing army was known to be a bad idea in the first place.
And I don't agree with using our military as a police force either. If we deploy our military, it should be to win quickly and effectively with as much force as we can exert. If the situation doesn't call for that action, it doesn't call for the use of our military.
“When the police become a standing army unto themselves, then we have created what the Founders warned against”.
I fear its already too late.
I agree with you, Freedom. I think it starts with police unions and with the training of the officers. The emphasis seems to have gone from Serve and Protect to Make Sure I get Home Safe at all Cost.
Most all law abiding citizens like and support Law Enforcement. We, too, want to make sure they get home safely but much of what we see now is outright gangsterism. How often do you see a traffic stop and the officers shouting angrily for the driver to get down on the ground and make sure I can see your hands? How often is one non-resisting person surrounded by officers all with guns drawn and pointed at the person on the ground. They are all shouting and are so excited that I am surprised that more people aren’t accidentally shot by officers. We do hear about many of them being unnecessarily beaten for “resisting” when resisting may just be not acting fast enough for the officers liking.
Officers know when they sign up that the job can be dangerous. That is why they are issued guns, batons, tear gas, pepper spray, tasters, bullet proof vests, etc. However, some of them seem determined to put all that gear to use some how, some way. From what we see on the news and the cop shows we know often a person is subdued when they could have been taken into custody a much simpler way and calmer way. A few calm words would often do the trick but the officer insists on total obedience at the very instance they issue a command. That leads to bad feelings from the general public and unnecessary violence in others.
I also see on the news situations where a swat team was dispatched when the potential danger seems minimal. Why? To protect the officers at all costs. That often invites a dangerous situation where none existed.
I have never been in trouble but I have gotten traffic tickets and I have seen officers lie in court. I have even gotten mean stares from officers simply because I had the temerity to challenge the ticket I got.
I used to be selected for jury duty often and I was normally named the Foremen of the jury. However, the last few times I was called where it was an I said, He said situation, I was never selected because I told the prosecutors and the defense lawyers that I was able to reach a fair decision after hearing all the facts but that the state was going to have to prove their case because I have had bad experiences with the state. The defense lawyers always wanted me but the prosecutors always cut me.
Oh, yeah. Recently I was watching a cop show and the officers were approaching a man in his front yard. The man was sitting quietly and there was a dog, a Rottweiler, laying peacefully about 20 feet away. The officer told the man that if that dog as much as stood up he was going to kill him. Thankfully, the dog didn’t move or wag his tail or anything. Do they only hire people who have an irrational fear of dogs?
You don’t even care when the owner of the dog says he understands why his dog was shot.
Even THAT is not good enough for you!
You don’t even care when the policeman has his leg mauled by a dog.
You STILL blame the policeman.
That you FAIL to show a single thread where a policeman was actually faulted - shows the police only shoot their weapon when they absolutely have to, they are well trained and competent.
The only “outside agency” that would appease you would be the: Association of Cop Haters. With a 100% record of faulting the police no matter what the circumstances. Which describes you exactly.
How about YOU take the job and you can email verdicts in form letters: GUILTY!
But let me tell you where your particular brand of stupid lunacy is going to lead America...
Eventually the police will be so demoralized that they won’t even have an interest anymore in doing a job where they are faulted no matter what. They will stay in their police stations and cars and rarely respond to any call and when they do it will be hours or even days late.
When that happens, the criminal gangs will move in like a pack of angry dogs. You won’t even be safe sitting in your home. Your family will be terrorized and victimized daily. And you will be found whimpering in your closet like a little b*tch, gang raped and sold in Mexico for slave labor to a drug cartel.
A person’s fault is not determined by an inside investigation, but by what that person did.
It is possible for a person to be declared legally innocent by virtue of failure of the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence to pronounce that person guilty. That does not make the person morally innocent.
There is no “Association of Cop Haters” as you sarcastically protest, but there are outside agencies available that could examine each case.
Every good cop should be concerned about what their bad brothers do, and the smart ones understand that it is the activities of their bad brothers have a good likelihood of making headlines—and not in a complimentary way for the force.
The problem is not that these accounts are being reported and decimated. The problem is that they are being committed at all.
Defending a bad cop blindly only ensures that more of these crimes will happen. Sooner or later, we will be reading vanity posts from Freepers on the subject, I fear.
The behavior of bad cops is one that should concern all who love liberty-—and that would have alarmed the Founding Fathers.
A person’s fault is not determined by an inside investigation, but by what that person did.
It is possible for a person to be declared legally innocent by virtue of failure of the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence to pronounce that person guilty. That does not make the person morally innocent.
There is no “Association of Cop Haters” as you sarcastically protest, but there are outside agencies available that could examine each case.
Every good cop should be concerned about what their bad brothers do, and the smart ones understand that it is the activities of their bad brothers have a good likelihood of making headlines—and not in a complimentary way for the force.
The problem is not that these accounts are being reported and decimated. The problem is that they are being committed at all.
Defending a bad cop blindly only ensures that more of these crimes will happen. Sooner or later, we will be reading vanity posts from Freepers on the subject, I fear.
The behavior of bad cops is one that should concern all who love liberty-—and that would have alarmed the Founding Fathers.
“I agree with you, Freedom. I think it starts with police unions and with the training of the officers. The emphasis seems to have gone from Serve and Protect to Make Sure I get Home Safe at all Cost.”
There certainly seems to be a shift in the training officers receive in the academy. One has to wonder if Peelian principles are even taught any longer, or if they get a passing mention, then are glossed over.
I think the job title of officers being changed from “peace officer” to “law enforcement officer” attracted people to the job who could never have been good peace officers.
That’s about the only way dogs stand a chance against cops these days.
Good post. I agree with everything.
I am pro-cop. I have always been pro-cop. I don’t understand the current police culture.
Being perfectly honest, I see such a tiny amount of police activity, I certainly don’t want to pretend that I really see and know how every officer acts. We tend to see the bad apples caught on videos. The good ones would be boring to watch say “Ma’am I won’t ticket you, please drive slower next time.” or “Please pour out the beer and behave next time”.
I think most cops are A-OK, I just see an increasing trend toward police militarization and I know that as they become more combat oriented in their thinking, they are going to be shooting first and asking questions later. It really is a disturbing trend and I don’t see it changing.
Sad really.
Read some of the other posts. You will find that many of us have become alarmed by police behavior. This is the first thread I have seen posted by Immerito so he is not being as effective as you fear if his desire is to demonize police. We all see what goes on in our own locales as well as on the national news and the internet and we see the same things as are being described here.
Nearly all of us support the police but I, for one, am tired of those who sign up for a dangerous job and then would rather kill or harm others than face any danger at all. There also seems to be a dog phobia out there with some officers.
Yah, and the fewer SWAT teams the fewer dead dogs and citizens when the the mall ninjas hit the wrong address. I don’t want ‘em thinking that they are not civilians.
The “operator” outfits feed their fantasies as fell warriors, imagining themselves as SEALs or Delta. We don’t want warrior cops, We need “Bobbies” as conceived by Robert Peel, ie Peace Officers not LEOs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.