Don't get arrested in this town

Your doors are unlocked? Sweet, I need a new bike.

Seriously though, a police force is necessary in society. However, a lot of police forces across the US have become counterproductive by their actions. I would rather be accosted by a criminal because I know I can defend myself against a criminal. Try and defend yourself against a cop and you will get tazed, arrested and jailed. The good cops are just as at fault as the bad cops, no matter what the percentage because they let it happen. It is ******* simple, if they didn't want to be called scum, they would make ******* sure the bad cops were gone. Their silence is more pathetic than the actions of bad cops. Bad cops are shitheads, but good cops that do nothing are cowards. The fact that judiciaries have given them carte blanche to go off and search and taze everyone for no damn reason doesn't help.

My dad had a real conservative doctor, the kind that is always behind the police force, come into his office the other day because his son was drunk and got tazed by some cops in beaumont. Kid didn't deserve it at all. It was hilarious listening to this guy change his tune because it actually affected him. I wouldn't be surprised at all if yall did the same as soon as it affected you.
 
POF,

You can get away with anything you want? Go for it.

Your neighbors protect you. Right. Who are they going to call if they see someone they don't know walking into your house? You? Are they going to wander over there and stop you from being burgled? Do people only commit crimes in their own neighborhoods?

Education is a wonderful thing and no doubt contributes to a lower crime rate. What you need to do is get out your pie in the sky world and realize that there is a subset of the population that has no interest in being educated and/or working.

This has nothing to do with any amount of education. Personally, I agree with your take on drug laws. I think they are completely stupid for the most part. Some drugs, however cause people to become violent or lazy or otherwise inclined to harm/steal from others.

By your argument the police force could be reduced to a token and there would be no resultant rise in crime. If you really believe this then you should probably get outside the capitol every now and then and take a look at the real world.

The only thing I said about Lawmakers, genius, was that they make the laws that cops enforce. Some people on this thread and others think that cops pick and choose which laws they enforce or that they somehow decided that there should be speed limits and just randomly decided to write up a laws and regulation and enforce them. That wasn't even directed at you, but I can see where it would seem that way since most of my post was.

If you don't think 5-10 minutes is a quick response, then how come alarm systems prevent crime? I'm sure you are going to argue that they don't, but I won't put words in your mouth and just point out that if the response time was 30 minutes then burglers would just laugh when they went off and take their time helping themselves to your belongings.

I bet the educated burglers would even take your books and ****.

Your argument is so ridiculous that I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time except that the smug condescension that permeates your posts makes me want to take the time.

As for bad cops and how good cops react to them, yeah, that's a problem I've always had. I don't think there are as many bad cops as people seem to think, but there are enough that it the good ones need to be more inclined to stand up and get rid of them.

Cops are trained to peacefully resolve situations, but in my cases they have to subdue someone who is resisting them while they are lawfully discharging their duties. People who haven't been in physical confrontations (me, for example) have a lot to overcome as far as conditioning to be able to do react in that sort of situation. Face it. Someone who is used to handling things in a civilized manner and has never been in a fight, generally gets the ever loving **** kicked out of them when a fight happens, no matter how much training they have.

I feel like I've somehow become a defender of cops, when I really see that abuse of power is a real danger for them and I abhor it when it does happen because they are entrusted with a large amount of power and it should be used with discretion. People who are placed in a position of trust and abuse it are always hated and feared and they should be. I just think it's disingenuous to think that cops in general are somehow more dangerous than criminals.
 
Folly, your understanding of human nature and how civil order pertains to the functioning of modern society is so naive and fantasy-based as to seem at first blush to be beyond the ability of words and reason to rectify. I, however, being the eternal optimist, am willing to give it a try.

If I understand you correctly, you say that you obey the law because that's what's right, and if that's true, you are to be commended. That's known as "voluntary compliance", and it's what keeps people stopping at red lights when no one is around to catch them doing otherwise, for example. In our everyday lives, voluntary compliance is a big part of what holds society together because in reality, if enough people decide they are going to break the law (the "safety in numbers" concept), there aren't enough law enforcement officers available to prevent it (see: the LA riots of the early '90s).

Voluntary compliance is a fragile thing, though, and it's held together by the threat, either perceived or real, of unpleasant consequences for those who violate the law. If there was an absolute assurance of no negative consequences for violators, how long do you think voluntary compliance would last? In the example of the red light, maybe at first some people (the "because it's what's right" people) would still stop for red lights, but those numbers would quickly erode and they would rapidly became the minority. Of course, if there was suddenly no law enforcement, you wouldn't dare venture out in an automobile anyway (ask Reginald Denny, et al), but the point is illustrative.

Your claim that law enforcement doesn't prevent crime, that it only responds to it, reflects such a fundamental lack of understanding of the criminal justice system it's hard to know where to begin. The fact is, police regularly, each and every day, prevent crime both directly and indirectly. Is it your contention that no officer has ever driven by a house or a business and saw a crime in progress and stopped it? That no officer ever received a tip from an informant that something was "going down", and used that information to catch the bad actors red-handed? That police have never stopped someone on a "routine" traffic violation and noticed items in the car, for example, that led to the arrest of the bad actors inside? Is it your belief that those reports the police compile from the scene of crimes already committed are then shredded, or is it possible that they compile those reports and evidence collected at crime scenes to look for patterns and evidence that points to the perpetrators? Is it possible they use that information to build a case, and then go out and arrested the suspect(s)?

In fact, it happens every day, in every jurisdiction. The criminal courts are filled with cases put together this way, and if for some reason you don't grasp that concept, you need to spend some time down at your nearest courthouse (especially a big city or county courthouse). Sit in on arraignments or trials, and listen to the parade of cases and how those people were caught.

Furthermore, unless it's your belief that each and every one of those suspects had committed the last crime that they would ever have otherwise committed before they were arrested, then it logically follows that their arrest has, by definition, prevented other crimes.

Your professed non-belief in the concept of the threat of apprehension being a deterrent for many would-be criminals is also laughably naive. I'm not sure how someone could live among other humans beings and be that sheltered. Yes, some people like yourself do what's right based on principle, but many, maybe even most people are not like that, especially if the threat of punishment was completely removed.

The sad fact is, there are a lot of human beings out there who are flat-out, cold-blooded animals, both running loose on the streets and in the jails and prisons across the country (and remember, those people would be running loose, too, in your seemingly Utopian world of no law enforcement). For some, the threat of prison (or worse) isn't enough to deter them, and they eventually end up incarcerated or dead. For others, however, the specter of spending time in prison (or going back) is enough to dissuade them from being too out of control. Remove that threat, and add the safety-in-numbers element, and the resulting effect on modern society would be obvious to most people.

You also somehow fail to see how closely traffic enforcement is intertwined with crime prevention. Aside from the sheer societal benefits of traffic law enforcement (which we'll leave aside for now) Is it your belief that criminals don't drive automobiles? Are you completely unaware of how many criminals are caught on a daily basis in so-called "routine" traffic stops? The fact is, a surprising number of routine stops result in criminal apprehension or the recovery of stolen property, not to mention the apprehension of those driving without licenses, under suspension, without insurance, with outstanding warrants, etc. This is aside from the sheer deterrent effect that active and visible law enforcement has on other possible crime in the area.

If you are really interested in educating yourself on this issue, in addition to the above suggestion of sitting in on criminal proceedings down at your local courthouse or scheduling a ride-along with law enforcement (particularly in an active urban environment), I would suggest some reading on the history and evolution of civilian law enforcement. It is especially interesting how the amazingly recent advent of modern civilian law enforcement has coincided with the blossoming of the middle class in the capitalist, consumer western society. (Hint - it would be tough to go to work and build a career for yourself and a reasonably safe, comfortable life for your family if you couldn't leave them, your home, or your business unguarded. Hence the more common, pre-modern law enforcement societal formations of the Haves - those who were wealthy enough to live in fortified compounds with their own personal guards - and the Have-nots - those who could accumulate no more food or personal possessions than they could personally guard and prevent someone else from taking.)

Good luck with your enlightenment.
 
**** it. Lets just convert to an Anarchist society. The people decide the crime and punishment.

So when a mob gets ahold of someone and tries to lynch him, PO1D can rationalize it for us.

Your doors being unlocked proves nothing. You think a criminal walks into a neighborhood, tries a knob, and then says "****, guess I won't be pillaging this house today.."

No... he breaks in.

And if you have economic opportunity, what are homeless people doing in your neighborhood?
 
I think those saying only 10% POS cops out there are severely underestimating. I would put that number at at least 40%.

Unfortunately - the good cops don't do anything to stop the ******** that ruin their repuations.
 
To address the OP, based entirely on the clip, it appears the officer could have handled the situation better (and I'm willing to bet he understands that in retrospect). I also understand that a clip which begins in the middle of a situation and ends prior to its conclusion does not tell the whole story. I don't know about this clip in particular, but many similar videos of supposed police misconduct are to later found to have been completely taken out of context, and are a bit more understandable once the whole story is known in spite of "conventional wisdom".

In general, yes, there are some people in law enforcement who, for various reasons, should not be there, and those individuals should be identified and the situation corrected in the most appropriate and expeditious manner. However, does there exist a profession where the same is not true? Doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers, politicians, generals, nurses, priests, contractors, bank tellers, clerks, or accountants? To those who willingly engage in the feel-good practice of blindly criticizing a whole profession based on the perceived transgressions of a few, I would like to know what you do for a living (if anything). Perhaps you work in the only profession where no one has ever misbehaved or abused their position, but I doubt it. Would it be fair to then say everyone in your profession, including you, is also guilty? Probably not. Most likely, you would be the first to say those few people should be identified and separated from the profession because they make all of you look bad.

In reality, it is no more fair to generalize and stereotype a whole group of people based on the less-than stellar actions of a few in their profession than it is to do the same thing by race, gender, or religion. If someone said, "All members of Race A are thieves because one of them stole my wallet", other people would tend to label that as a ridiculously prejudiced and racist attitude. For some reason, however, certain other groups are fair game to such nonsensical generalization, and law enforcement seems to be one of those groups.

I happen to think the number of unfit officers is incredibly low given the amount of trust and opportunity for wrongdoing involved with the job, and the sheer number of those who serve. It's probably less than 1%. However, the vast majority of officers who are out there doing their jobs and going above and beyond the call are generally not videotaped doing it. If they are, those clips are not then hyped and shown on national TV and Youtube to feed into some people's seemingly innate need for manufactured "outrage". Can you imagine clips of officers helping people and being polite? Yawn. Not sensational enough.

The fact that such instances attract attention at all would seemingly lend credence to the notion that they are out of the norm.
 
Grow up? I’ve had over 50 years to observe cops in their natural environment.

I’ve witnessed cops stop minorities or the homeless without probable cause so they could execute illegal searches, beat and stomp civilians just because they can, lie, cheat and steal, abuse drugs and alcohol, and drive drunk because they think they’re above the law, and those that don’t do these things protect their fellow cops who do. Cops condoning their fellow’s abuse their power and break the law are worse than the scum who do these things.

And if you ever witness any of these cops in action and try to intervene or god forbid, document their crimes on film, you better run like hell, change your name and address, because if they catch up with you, you’ll be lucky to survive with your life. And, if you do survive, you’ll probably spend a good bit of your time and money trying to defend yourself from their lies and false charges.

Prevent crimes? ******** they don’t prevent ****. If you’re lucky, they’ll show up to investigate after someone finds yours, or your loved ones, cold dead body. And, if the right cop shows up to investigate, they’ll steal the shirt off your back and rape your wife and kids.

In my experience, cop apologists usually have one or more in their family, but deep down they know I speak the truth. They’ve been to those “cop” parties, listened to those cop stories, seen their buddies drive the drunk cop home instead of writing him up for a DWI, looked the other way when they skim the drug bust, or taken the hooker for a “ride” instead of to the booking station.

Just remember, for every dirty cop you see on TV or read about in the paper, there are ten more willing to lie to protect his crooked ***. And, if you think I’m exaggerating, you haven’t been paying attention.
 
See, you haven't been paying attention. It was only a month or two ago that a Georgetown cop was arrested after he responded to a domestic dispute, took the intoxicated wife away and raped her. This same cop was a suspect in a murder about ten years ago.

There's a law suit going on in Texas right now involving cops who beat and arrested two citizens who were filming a drug bust. The cops confiscated and destroyed the cameras and beat and arrested the individuals and charged them with resisting arrest and other trumped up charges, which have since been thrown out.

Open your eyes and pay ******* attention.
 
So about 2 - 5 hundred out of the 500,000 (all estimates) that work in this state... That is less than my 10% estimate... That sits well with me...
 
"Where the **** does this guy live? Somolia?"

Check out the user name. I'm right here in river city.

If you don't think this kind of stuff happens in Austin, you're living in a dream world.
 
I know it happens. I know it happens in Austin. But you painted a very outrageous picture for us.

I do not believe it is that extreme...
 
All doctors are scum, too. I can't tell you how many times I've heard about one doing shady crap, like illegally dispensing drugs, or even raping their patients like this one

Link

To me, that proves they're all worthless crooks. If not all of them, then at least 40-50% of 'em. And all doctor apologists are either lying, drug dealing, patient-raping doctors themselves, or have lying, drug dealing, patient-raping doctors in their family. There could be no other possible explanation for a different point of view from my reality. If you don't think this kind of stuff is happening right in your home town, you're living in a dream land. Open your eyes and pay attention.

And don't even get me started on (fill in racial group) people...
 
Of course no one is saying to disband all police forces, but there seems to be a problem of some police officers being on a big power trip.

It doesn't matter if it hardly ever happens, it still leaves a lasting impression on the public. Americans are naturally suspicious of the police. Hell, they can take away our freedom. Add in the fact that we can find out about all of it with the internet and sites like youtube, and now everyone can see what happens across the country.

I can't say too much bad about the police. They have been there before in the past when called. And I have been very mouthy with a Travis County deputy at a Texas football game. I could have easily been arrested for how I was acting, I was very drunk. But, she was cool about it.

BTW, I'm EXTREMELY shameful for how I acted that day.
 
Ohio cop guilty of killing girl friend and unborn child. The Link

Blue Lake police chief arrested for alleged rape. The Link

Retired deputy convicted of murder. The Link

Former Tacoma cop sentenced for child sex crimes. The Link

Lawyers for a sheriff's deputy who pleaded guilty to killing his wife are arguing that the judge who heard the case was biased. The Link

Highmore's former police chief first was accused of the shooting that led to his wife's death. The Link

Cops are investigating whether the NYPD officer who fatally shot his teen lover before killing himself murdered the boyfriend of a past lover. The Link
 
Congratulations, ATF. You have just proven a point that no one was arguing. Not a single poster in this thread claimed that no law enforcement officers (current or former) are ever accused, and sometimes even convicted of wrongdoing. That point was conceded. Some posters, however, posited that the numbers are low, and that it's unfair to paint an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few. If you care to post evidence that it IS in fact fair to paint an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few, please do so.

According to the US DOJ and other statistics, as of 2004 there were anywhere from 700,000 - 900,000 law enforcement officers employed in the US, depending on what definition of "law enforcement officer" you use. In addition, there are untold millions who, at one time or another in their life, were employed as a law enforcement officer of some capacity for at least one day, thereby potentially providing the media with the sensational headline of "Former Police Officer Accused of (Fill in Accusation)" if he or she is ever accused of anything. You have linked maybe a half dozen stories of wrongdoing, either accused or proven. Can you keep going? If you link 6,994 more stories, you'll be up to 1% of the lowest estimated number of active-duty officers employed as of 2004.

I'm tempted to ask your profession so I can then go find a few links to stories of people in your profession being accused or convicted of wrongdoing (thereby proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're all bad people), but chances are you're in a job that, no matter what the person is accused of, whether the accusation has anything to do with that job or not, it's not included as part of the headline (in fact, the story is probably not even reported in all but the most egregious circumstances). So nevermind.
 
Sorry for the long post, but cops have always been a sore spot with me; not that I have ever had much problem with them but I just don't think we need as many of them and as an earlier poster said ~it's a tremendous waste of money~. Education and economic opportunity can solve most of our problems, not "fear of punishment."

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
There is a huge gulf between anarchy and the law enforcement system that we have now. Ultimately, law enforcement in a free society depends on the citizens more than it does on the cops. When the cooperation between the police and the citizenry breaks down, the cops wind up as donut-munching report-takers and bad guys get away with crime at the citizens' expense.

Most people's interactions with cops involve traffic stops, this sort of BS and rarely situations wherein they actually need the cops. By and large, this situation is not the fault of the officers (only the jackass minority really makes a big difference), and a large share of the blame rests on the shoulders of the legislators. However, as long as people view the police as enemies rather than public servants, crime will flourish. Cops can only do a little to help that, but they can have a positive influence as well.
 
flag.gif
God bless those who serve and protect and do a damn good job at doing so! And to the other percentage of "Bad Cops." I hope justice catches up with you.

And to those who paint good cops with same brush as the bad cops...you make me sick
pukey.gif
 
Bad cops are officers who actively participate in wrongful actions. Too many people refer to those other police officers who do not participate in these activities, but keep their mouths shut as good cops. They are not. Those cops are as bad or worse than the ones actually wrongdoing. They are allowing these things to happen. Their silence enables those people to do wrong with no fear or the consequences. So I will agree with you that good cops shouldn't be subject to such hate, but I disagree with your designation of a good cop.
 
"Other officers described the man as “cooperative” and not resisting arrest when Detective Joseph Lorett struck him, according to a disciplinary memo.

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said the detective used excessive force by kneeing a handcuffed man in the head during an undercover drug operation last year. The man suffered extensive face injuries after the incident that required hospital treatment, the memo said. Internal affairs investigators said Lorett also used profanity directed toward the man during the incident"The Link

The hits keep on coming. You can't make this **** up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top