Americans views on their Police Departments??

[Autolykos]

Here's a quick run-down of the inherent problems with police forces:

1. Police are bound to protect and serve the government, not the populace at large. This is because the role of police, as part of the executive branch of government, is to enforce the existing laws.
2. Due to the above, it seems rather easy for cops to adopt the attitude that every "civilian" is a (potential) criminal. Thus they are more likely to be trigger-happy and otherwise respond with overwhelming force. It also means that they de facto adopt the viewpoint of "guilty until proven innocent".
3. From the previous point, it is also easy to adopt an elitist mindset: police, as enforcers of the law, are superior to "civilians". Obviously this results in a condescending attitude towards the very people who believe the police "serve and protect" them. It also results in cops excusing things done by "one of their own" that would otherwise be criminal.
4. Most crimes these days include fines as (part of) their punishments. These fines do not provide direct restitution to the victims of crimes; they go to the police departments themselves. As a result, cops have an incentive to maximize the number of crimes that people are charged with. They also have a reduced incentive (if one at all) to prevent crimes from happening in the first place, since that would deprive them of much-needed income (from their point of view). What this leads to is cops basically looking for every little excuse to increase a person's fines once they've been caught "breaking the law". Police thus become an organization that literally preys on the public.
5. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Need I say more? :rolleyes:

- Rob

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop if we actually enforced our southern border, we'd prevent the vast majority of drugs from ever entering the country in the first place..

Yah right. Just like Prohibition was such a great and rousing success.

[Autolykos]

Bump.

I'd really like to see how Copabeat and/or Shield772 respond to my comments.

- Rob

[Jack]

Autolykos, your points 1-3 could and do happen daily in departments across the U.S. The mindset is that there are differences between a civilian and a cop, and those differences are fostered by the idea that the two are separate segments of society. Cops are like priests in that regard. It's a mindset that creates a wall of misunderstanding between the two groups.
But point 4 is substantially wrong from my experience. Cops are trained to prefer as many charges as possible for each crime (burglars are often charged with trespassing, etc.) so that the prosecution can reduce or not file on certain charges in exchange for pleas on the important ones ("we'll drop the trespassing charge in exchange for a guilty plea on the burglary charge"). Cops only list the charges, the government actually makes the charge through the city, state or federal A.G.'s office. Fees and fines paid by the guilty party are paid to the government, not the police department. The only perk I've heard of that police receive directly from an arrest are in those cases, usually drug related, where the department gets to seize a vehicle and use it in future enforcement activities. Cops receive no benefit from the charges they file against a person, prosecutors do, and supposedly by extension so does society.

[Autolykos]

The fees and fines go from the government to the police department, correct?

Those in charge of the police department have an incentive to receive ever-increasing budgets, correct?

- Rob

[shield772]

Quote by: Autolykos The fees and fines go from the government to the police department, correct? Those in charge of the police department have an incentive to receive ever-increasing budgets, correct? - Rob

The department I worked for was funded entirely from property taxes, the only benefits that came to us from arrests were when appraisals come around the more arrests the more you are perceived to be doing your job the better appraisal the bigger raise, when going for promotions they often look at your felony arrest record ( how many, how many prosecuted, how many convicted) if a prosecutor is able to get a conviction off the police work you have done it's a mark in your favor to say make sergeant or detective that sort of thing, and the big reason a majority of cops make a lot of arrests is that they want safe communities for their friends and loved ones to live in.

[Autolykos]

Thanks for the info, Shield. Do you know how commonplace it is for police departments to be funded from property taxes? Also, where did the fees and fines from arrests go, if not to the department itself?

In any case, it seems like things are somewhat more decoupled than I thought, and I stand corrected. Still, as you yourself point out, cops have a motivation to maximize the number of tickets they write and/or arrests they make, if for nothing else than to maximize their chances at getting promoted and/or a raise.

Question: who allocates the operating budgets for police departments? Also, do those budgets tend to increase from year to year?

- Rob

[shield772]

Quote by: Autolykos Here's a quick run-down of the inherent problems with police forces: Police are bound to protect and serve the government, not the populace at large. This is because the role of police, as part of the executive branch of government, is to enforce the existing laws. Due to the above, it seems rather easy for cops to adopt the attitude that every "civilian" is a (potential) criminal. Thus they are more likely to be trigger-happy and otherwise respond with overwhelming force. It also means that they de facto adopt the viewpoint of "guilty until proven innocent". From the previous point, it is also easy to adopt an elitist mindset: police, as enforcers of the law, are superior to "civilians". Obviously this results in a condescending attitude towards the very people who believe the police "serve and protect" them. It also results in cops excusing things done by "one of their own" that would otherwise be criminal. Most crimes these days include fines as (part of) their punishments. These fines do not provide direct restitution to the victims of crimes; they go to the police departments themselves. As a result, cops have an incentive to maximize the number of crimes that people are charged with. They also have a reduced incentive (if one at all) to prevent crimes from happening in the first place, since that would deprive them of much-needed income (from their point of view). What this leads to is cops basically looking for every little excuse to increase a person's fines once they've been caught "breaking the law". Police thus become an organization that literally preys on the public. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Need I say more? :rolleyes: - Rob

This is the oath I took;

1: I do solemnly swear that I will support, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the State of Florida and the Ordinances of the County of Sarasota: that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of Deputy Sheriff of the County of Sarasota.

and this is mandated by Florida State Statute, and I imagine most if not all the other states have a similar oath that is mandated.

2: What makes it easy is the fact that the number 1 killer of cops are domestic disturbances, #2 traffic stops and that is bacause you are pulling them over for a taillight and they just killed someone or have drugs and they assume that is why they are being stopped and they respond violently, police view every encounter with the public as potentialy violent it is the ONLY way to maintain their safety. And overwhelming force means that the perp gets hurt less, if I individually have to subdue you your going to the hospital if 5 officers do you aren't ( 1 for each limb and one for torso and cuffing).

3: It is not an elitist attitude just seperate, and you will find this in military personnel as well.

4: Court costs and reperations to victims go exactly where their titles suggest to courts and victims (victims often being victims assistance programs) police are trained to charge perps with as many crimes as they can this allows prosecuters to deal away charges to make the important ones stick they get no personal benefit from this other than personal satisfaction and job approval. and it's criminals that are preying on the public not the police we/they risk their lives to protect the public from the predators, and ignorance of the law in most cases is no excuse.

[shield772]

Quote by: Autolykos Thanks for the info, Shield. Do you know how commonplace it is for police departments to be funded from property taxes? Also, where did the fees and fines from arrests go, if not to the department itself? In any case, it seems like things are somewhat more decoupled than I thought, and I stand corrected. Still, as you yourself point out, cops have a motivation to maximize the number of tickets they write and/or arrests they make, if for nothing else than to maximize their chances at getting promoted and/or a raise. Question: who allocates the operating budgets for police departments? Also, do those budgets tend to increase from year to year? - Rob

In my department the sheriff and his command staff, captains up worked out an operating budget then the sheriff goes before the county commision and they all go over it and decide what they really need and what they get. I believe city/municipal departments are similar as the chief and his staff go to city councils and request budgets, am not sure where the money comes from for them.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: shield772 This is the oath I took; 1: I do solemnly swear that I will support, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, the State of Florida and the Ordinances of the County of Sarasota: that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of Deputy Sheriff of the County of Sarasota. and this is mandated by Florida State Statute, and I imagine most if not all the other states have a similar oath that is mandated.

Yes, but oaths are rather meaningless, as they can easily be broken. Especially if one can get his fellow officers to agree with what "happened".

2: What makes it easy is the fact that the number 1 killer of cops are domestic disturbances, #2 traffic stops and that is bacause you are pulling them over for a taillight and they just killed someone or have drugs and they assume that is why they are being stopped and they respond violently, police view every encounter with the public as potentialy violent it is the ONLY way to maintain their safety. And overwhelming force means that the perp gets hurt less, if I individually have to subdue you your going to the hospital if 5 officers do you aren't ( 1 for each limb and one for torso and cuffing).

I completely understand that viewpoint and do not oppose it as a matter of principle. However, there is another way to reduce the threat to officers: reduce the number of criminal activities. Legalizing or decriminalizing drugs alone would go a long way towards reducing the risk to policemen.

On another note, the logical conclusion of the "overwhelming force in the name of public safety" principle is to turn society into a giant prison, where everyone is held separately and every aspect of their lives is carefully regimented. What logical and/or philosophical grounds can you bring to bear against such a conclusion?

3: It is not an elitist attitude just seperate, and you will find this in military personnel as well.

Separate often becomes elitist, don't you think? And the parallel with military personnel is exactly the point I was getting at.

4: Court costs and reperations to victims go exactly where their titles suggest to courts and victims (victims often being victims assistance programs) police are trained to charge perps with as many crimes as they can this allows prosecuters to deal away charges to make the important ones stick they get no personal benefit from this other than personal satisfaction and job approval. and it's criminals that are preying on the public not the police we/they risk their lives to protect the public from the predators, and ignorance of the law in most cases is no excuse.

Personal satisfaction and (more importantly) job approval are powerful motivators, are they not?

The vast majority of people have not committed, nor are willing to commit, any felonies. However, many more people are willing to commit certain misdemeanors and infractions, namely public intoxication and traffic violations. "Disorderly conduct" is an extremely vague and open-ended misdemeanor; it can mean more or less whatever the cop wants it to mean. If one voices his disagreement with a cop, the cop can threaten him with an additional charge of "disorderly conduct" or simply carry out the charge. There seems to be a motivation on the cop's part to try to coax otherwise law-abiding citizens into doing something that can be considered "disorderly conduct" or the like. At that point, the cop hopes to get a higher job approval, and the local government hopes to get more money. Win-win for the government. :rolleyes:

I suppose my beef with cops is not so much over the serious crimes (i.e. felonies and many/most misdemeanors) as it is over the "administrative crimes" (infractions/violations and certain misdemeanors). Now I could be wrong, but I'm willing to wager that more money is actually obtained from prosecuting the latter than from prosecuting the former. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Oh, and that bit about "ignorance of the law is no excuse" -- that is pure bullshit and you know it. How can a person ignorant of the law be reasonably expected to obey it? Figure that one out for me. That phrase is simply an excuse to engage in more pillaging at the expense of the otherwise law-abiding public.

- Rob

[Jack]

Oh, and that bit about "ignorance of the law is no excuse" -- that is pure bullshit and you know it. How can a person ignorant of the law be reasonably expected to obey it?

The point of that old saying is that in our society the laws are published for anyone to see. It is a real and, I feel, valid expectation for anyone who operates a motor vehicle to know at least the basic laws concerning driving. Anyone can get a copy of the vehicle code.
Since our laws are published, then ignorance of the law (the failure to realize what you are doing is illegal) is no excuse (in a court of law).

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Isherwood The point of that old saying is that in our society the laws are published for anyone to see. It is a real and, I feel, valid expectation for anyone who operates a motor vehicle to know at least the basic laws concerning driving. Anyone can get a copy of the vehicle code. Since our laws are published, then ignorance of the law (the failure to realize what you are doing is illegal) is no excuse (in a court of law).

Fair enough. :)

However, is the vehicle code the same in every state, let alone every locality?

What about the sheer volume of existing laws? Is it reasonable to expect a person to be willing to go through the whole thing?

- Rob

[Jack]

Reasonable, fair, realistic...probably not. But that doesn't alter the fact that there is an expectation in the law that if you are performing an action that has legal constraints or guidelines, you have an obligation to be aware of them. If you drive through several states (vehicle codes are state laws generally) you should be aware of those state's laws. Disobeying the laws regarding driving in a traffic circle in Mass. will get you ticketed, even if you're from So. Ca. where there aren't any.

[Natia Davis]

Many people believe that police officers are a load of crap. People believe that the police are out to get them. I think that police officers are there solely to protect us. Police officers sometimes seem to take their jobs over board. Police officers are people to. You have your good police officers and your bad police oficers. If police officers were not their when you nrrded them who would you call when you were in trouble? Think about it.....