Fuck the Police (a poll of sorts)

[UncleJoseph]

Do you feel like the police are nothing more than a group of armed thugs protecting the interests of the elite?

I have been called every name in the book. Pig, racist, Nazi, thug, you name it. When I get called names like this, I am always shocked because I know that I am none of these things. Most of the people that casually sling these insults at me are either angry that they got caught breaking the law and want to blame me for their situation, or are just parroting what they've been taught by parents, friends, films, etc.

Quite often, I run into generations of folks who hate police. I've busted folks for dealing meth or marijuana, only to learn they've taught their kids that police are the enemy. And then several years later I bust the kids for the same thing, and they have nothing but venom toward police.

I am never on a power trip about being the police (I know there are some cops who are). I got into law enforcement to help keep the peace, and ensure that other folks can feel safe walking down the street, so long as they don't want to tread upon the rights of others. Yet, increasingly, I find more and more people who see me as more of the armed thug Gestapo type than a peace keeper. There are some laws I disagree with and don't like enforcing. But I have to pay my bills, and I also believe that most laws are on the books for a good reason. I don't like the wholesale writing of new laws that seems to be en vogue these days, but that's beyond my power.

It is still very popular to hate the police in this country. With growing numbers of people who hate my position, who hate my authority, and growing numbers of folks to attempt to resist said authority for whatever reason, I often question why I still do this job. It is not the same as it was when I started 14 years ago. The public's attitude toward police has worsened significantly. With public attitude toward government overall, the hatred has focused on the most visible part...those in uniform doing the day-to-day. I don't like being part of society's problem, but I often wonder if people are just jumping on bandwagons, or do they really want law enforcement to go away? I know that society is not capable of handling anarchy. If we ever descend into anarchy, an new order will rise...that is the nature of things. But anarchy would be terrible. I have seen firsthand how mob mentality and a break-down of accountability leads to horrible things. But have the police become nothing more than armed thugs acting on behalf of the ruling class?

[paladin2019]

I would start with saying police exist to make sure the accused make it to trial. As a society, we must enact retribution in an ordered fashion. Or else....

We don't need police to protect us or patrol our neighborhoods or any of that. We can do that by ourselves. We'll likely have a lot more Trayvon Martins, but we can do it ourselves.

Police are, as in currently, right now, used as tools of "the man" to keep minorities in line. So is the law. Why are narcotics prohibited? What is the predominant incarcerated population and what are they in for? How does that compare to 150 years ago?

And we've discussed before my problems with the militarization of police forces coupled with the proliferation of Bryant's attitude.

[3278]

Do you feel like the police are nothing more than a group of armed thugs protecting the interests of the elite?

No. Police are public safety officers designated to hold the peace of the people, as enacted by the people's Constitution. Some police officers are dicks, maybe even more than average for other professions - positions of power do attract some kinds of people - but the office isn't the officeholder.

[Raygun]

Do you feel like the police are nothing more than a group of armed thugs protecting the interests of the elite?

In general, no. I think they are people performing a vital and difficult public service and for the most part that is done by people who would have a problem with being used to "protect the interests of the elite." But power can always be abused and as such I think being suspicious of authority is a natural thing.

I have been called every name in the book. Pig, racist, Nazi, thug, you name it. When I get called names like this, I am always shocked because I know that I am none of these things. Most of the people that casually sling these insults at me are either angry that they got caught breaking the law and want to blame me for their situation, or are just parroting what they've been taught by parents, friends, films, etc.

Quite often, I run into generations of folks who hate police. I've busted folks for dealing meth or marijuana, only to learn they've taught their kids that police are the enemy. And then several years later I bust the kids for the same thing, and they have nothing but venom toward police.

I imagine those kinds of people are the majority of what you run into, which would naturally give you a skewed perspective of what most people would think about police. SDQ often gets the same kind of treatment from the same kind of people, being a parole officer, so dealing with that attitude day-to-day is not foreign to me either.

[Crazy Elf]

Police have more power than most people, and as such those without that power resent it or see it as a threat. The first thing that someone thinks when they see a police officer is, "Are they after me?" before they truly begin to access a situation. Fear and jealousy are what maintain a negative view of police.

Most people, when confronted with someone with power, see only the positive aspects of that power. Everyone wants to be President of the United States, but no one wants to work 20 hour days for four years and have the entire world repeatedly call you an arsehole regardless of what you do or don't do. That doesn't occur to people when they see the President, though. Instead they just think, "I wish I had that power."

Same goes for police. There are a lot of negatives that go with the job that people don't take into account when they consider the power that goes along with it. Sure, they can arrest people, drive a car over the speed limit and lock people away, but they're also required to deal with violent people on a regular basis, have to work pretty shitty hours, are under constant scrutiny by the public and if they should ever break the law they'll be treated a lot worse than the people that they've hauled before the court in the past, because they should know better. Those are big downsides, and they're never considered.

The police are a group of armed thugs. Power is only maintained through the threat of violence, and police are that violence. That's not all they are, but it's certainly part of it.

So yes, I think the police are a group of armed thugs that maintain the system. I don't think that they value anyone's rights above anyone else's however, as the system isn't about personality. It's about rules. The elite are brought to task over the law just as much as anyone else.

[Bonefish]

Well, I've got an interesting point of view on this. I've seen police bash a young man's head against a drink cooler because he had change clutched in a fist, I've had pistols pointed in my face on numerous occasions, and I've been handcuffed and detained by the Pineville, NC swat team. I've been locked up for 19 days without a single arraignment or appearance before a judge.

And I still wave at cops, I talk to them as people, I'm polite and honest. I thank them, constantly(now, granted, most of the time it's at the local pizza joint near my local bar, and I'm drunk, most of the time). They're people too, and they have a shitty, thankless job.

On the other hand, I've been robbed, assaulted, possibly raped(I'm not sure, it was a very fucked up weekend.), stolen from and generally abused. Police exist to reduce the odds of that happening, and I think that's good.

[UncleJoseph]

We don't need police to protect us or patrol our neighborhoods or any of that. We can do that by ourselves. We'll likely have a lot more Trayvon Martins, but we can do it ourselves.

I would argue that not everyone can do it themselves. Further, very few people want to do it themselves. Isn't the whole point of the police system in this country to provide a group of people willing to do exactly that, and is paid for by people who (as a group) pay taxes to cover it? Just as with all specialization of trades, we work for a wage, and then pay someone else to do the specialized stuff? We pay a grocery store for our food. We pay the department stores for our clothes. We pay the mechanic to fix our cars. These are all things that people used to do themselves. Instead, we've traded our specialized forms of labor (our careers) for money, which we then trade to someone else to perform a task we don't wish to perform. Taxation accomplishes the same thing in many respects (infrastructure, law enforcement, military protection, etc.).

Police are, as in currently, right now, used as tools of "the man" to keep minorities in line. So is the law. Why are narcotics prohibited? What is the predominant incarcerated population and what are they in for? How does that compare to 150 years ago?

I'd like to see some expansion on your statement. You may believe that since greater numbers of minorities are incarcerated that the police are used by those in power to keep those without power "in line," but that is immensely simplified, and ignores lots of other issues. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

And we've discussed before my problems with the militarization of police forces coupled with the proliferation of Bryant's attitude.

You've mentioned "militarization of police" a few times before. What is it, in your interpretation of today's current events, constitutes the militarization of police. I'm not attempting to bait you into an argument...I genuinely want to know why you hold this opinion, and what your reasoning is if you have the time/inclination to expand a little.

[3278]

I've recently been reconsidering my position that the police and the military must always be different groups.

[paladin2019]

We don't need police to protect us or patrol our neighborhoods or any of that. We can do that by ourselves. We'll likely have a lot more Trayvon Martins, but we can do it ourselves.

I would argue that not everyone can do it themselves. Further, very few people want to do it themselves. Isn't the whole point of the police system in this country to provide a group of people willing to do exactly that, and is paid for by people who (as a group) pay taxes to cover it?

Sure. But that's not why we have police. Police exist solely to prevent vigilantism. EVERY function of a police force must follow from this or it is not a legitimate function of police.

Instead, we've traded our specialized forms of labor (our careers) for money, which we then trade to someone else to perform a task we don't wish to perform. Taxation accomplishes the same thing in many respects (infrastructure, law enforcement, military protection, etc.).

<OT>If only everyone understood this.....</OT>

Police are, as in currently, right now, used as tools of "the man" to keep minorities in line. So is the law. Why are narcotics prohibited? What is the predominant incarcerated population and what are they in for? How does that compare to 150 years ago?

I'd like to see some expansion on your statement. You may believe that since greater numbers of minorities are incarcerated that the police are used by those in power to keep those without power "in line," but that is immensely simplified, and ignores lots of other issues. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

No, minorities are overrepresented in incarcerated populations because laws are written to criminalize what were culturally acceptable practices among them.

The greatest number of incarcerated persons are there due to drug offenses, correct? When and where was the big push for narcotics laws in this country? New England, post Reconstruction. What was the argument? Previously it was simply temperance. It changed as more blacks left the South as whites too young to be disenfranchised by the XIVth Amendment began to take control of the state houses and enact discriminatory laws. So, forgetting that the North effectively told the South to deal with yourself with the Dred Scott decision, blacks moved north. The argument changed for prohibitions changed from temperance to protecting the virtue of white women from hopped up bucks.

Cocaine was a somewhat common performance enhancer among slaves and sharecroppers. It simply allowed longer working hours in the fields. So it was perceived as ubiquitous in the black male population moving north. "Control that and you control the negro's baser nature." Similarly, you get prohibitions on marijuana (Injuns) and opium (Chinamen). And this brings us to today, where you have half of a minority demographic that has been incarcerated and a society focused on using that to prevent them from assimilating into the larger society (go to jail, no job, ever).

And we've discussed before my problems with the militarization of police forces coupled with the proliferation of Bryant's attitude.

You've mentioned "militarization of police" a few times before. What is it, in your interpretation of today's current events, constitutes the militarization of police. I'm not attempting to bait you into an argument...I genuinely want to know why you hold this opinion, and what your reasoning is if you have the time/inclination to expand a little.

The biggest issue is the language used in policing. War on crime, street soldier, and my "favorite," civilian. It creates a perception of us vs them (cops vs everyone else) and perception becomes reality.

In the military, that's okay. I kill simply because someone doesn't wear the same clothes I do. That's my job, that's what you employ me for, killing without any personal provocation. But that's antithetical to a cop's job and to blur the line between the two is extremely dangerous. If you see a guy rolling with AB colors, do you just shoot him on the spot, or even arrest him for his choice of clothing?

Blurring the line occurs with the aforementioned "civilians" (cops are, by definition, not military and thus civilian), military grooming standards as explicit policy or department culture, military trappings regularly employed (I think these new tactical vests I've been seeing that look like uniform shirts are ridiculous, too), etc. And in the news recently, police in the vicinity of LA shooting up a couple of trucks because...?

Part of it is cops with M4s, but that's a symptom of a much larger cultural shift. If you really want to see a prime example of the us vs them mentality, read through the comments to this post from soldiersystems.net. http://soldiersystems.net/2013/02/08/la ... /#comments

[Bonefish]

I've recently been reconsidering my position that the police and the military must always be different groups.

They work under different assumptions on the use of force, I think. I'm not entirely sure why I think this is the case, but I feel like the police should always ask questions, then shoot, while the military is generally better off shooting, then asking questions. I mean, the concept of reconassiance by fire("John, shoot those bushes. They make me nervous. See if anything comes out") is not something I want my police force to be acting under, like, ever. For a soldier in war, I think it is acceptable if he mistakes a stick for gun sometimes, but for a police officer, that is unacceptable. Police exist to protect life, while soldiers exist to destroy it. They serve different purposes.

I'm not sure, you know, how I feel about the change from the 50s-70s of the military being used to disperse protests and the way we handle it today. In someways, I feel like the military has a much greater transient population, that it's constantly having the bulk of it's membership replenished with each year, while the police are something where long-term experience is sought. You want your killers young and dumb, and you want to cycle them out before they become too damaged by what you're doing*, and for what you are doing, you want men in the peak of physical fitness. You want them young. I don't think you can keep people in combat for that long without fucking them up. But this also makes it, in some way, something I feel has an empowerment of the population.

On the other hand, you want your police to spend most of their time talking to people ,collecting information, looking at patterns and intepretating. They use force as a last resort, and are held to a very exacting standard over what they can do. They have to be transparent, they have to be held to a higher standard, and they are accountable. But, because of this long term sort of position, I feel like it has a... I don't know, "calcification", where personal and political maneuverings can reshape a police force from a shield, to a baton used to oppress people.

But, that still leaves the questions of M4s. I've got a friend(more of a friend of a friend) who I talk to, and he's been rantign and raving about blended metal bullets, and I've also read an article or two by some guy calling himself an "expert" about the effectiveness of carbines in close quarters and intermediate ranges, without the overpenetration you'd expect. And that makes me wonder: why not arm the police with'em? The LAPD can't shoot for shit**, apparently, so might as well give them the most accurate firepower you can, I guess. I mean, atleast this way they have less of a chance of blowing away half a fucking neighborhood the next time someone shoots somebody.

*The act of killing or witnessing death is something that is extremely troublesome for most human beings to accept and compartmentalize, and long term it can have serious effects on a person, and society.
**I really don't have a lot of faith for the LAPD in general, and never have: they've been villified for racism and corruption for 50 years now, but I also understand that LEOs arn't necessarily as well trained as they could be. After-all, shooting people isn't their job.

[3278]

They work under different assumptions on the use of force, I think.

Absolutely they do, and my feeling has always been that the two mindsets are inimical, that they cannot possibly coexist in the same force, but then I think: we ask police to distinguish between appropriate uses of force all the time, between civilians, criminals, armed and dangerous criminals, and so on, and we expect them to use an appropriate amount of force when doing so. Can't we train one force to, a) kill people on a battlefield and, b) police the streets? If not, does that mean no former soldier can be a police officer, because both skills cannot coexist?

The presence of forces that blur the line - like military police and SWAT teams - further distorts the issue, and I'm left feeling that if the two forces can't be the same group, it must be for a political science reason, and not a coexisting skillsets reason.

[Serious Paul]

As someone who works "inside the system" I suppose my answer is somewhat biased. I think there is a lot more going on here than just a simple part of a belief system.

I think that historically many police forces have been plagued by a history of violence-poorly trained, poorly paid individuals often held positions in law enforcement not because they were interested in upholding the law, but rather because they were part of whatever group that was in power at the time. Many Department's are fighting this public perception of their employee's. Wide scale abuse of authority was common place until i think about the late 1960's or early 1970's. Corruption was the norm.

But because I work inside the system now I can readily say that sort of thing is basically over with. Sure you'll find some exceptions here and there, maybe even large scale Departmental level stuff-but it is not the rule, it is the exception. In fact many departments have gone to the opposite end of the spectrum-persecuting even the slightest hint of impropriety oftentimes even before actual evidence of impropriety on the part of staff is presented, let alone found to be credible.

I think Elf describes a separate but equally valid and common place phenomena-the fear of power, which police officers and other law enforcement officials can easily be recognized as being part of or synonymous with. It's easier to recognize a cop because he or she wears a visible uniform, and has highly visible tools. A banker or a stockbroker might not be as easily recognized but I suspect some people would treat them in a similar fashion if they knew whom they were dealing with.

One of the points in Elf's first post I think I disagree with, if I am reading it correctly is that the "rich" or "elite" are "taken to task." The power that an officer of the law can wield is pretty much as easily manipulated in favor of the rich and powerful as anything else is.

[Bonefish]

What is the average age of police forces, and how often do they retain members, as compared to lose members?

[Serious Paul]

I have no idea. But the Bureau of Justice might get you closer to what you want.

Some fun things I just happened to see on this:

• About half of local police departments employed fewer than 10 sworn personnel, and about three-fourths served a population of less than 10,000.
• About 1 in 4 officers were members of a racial or ethnic minority in 2007, compared to 1 in 6 officers in 1987.

My own anecdotal evidence suggests that while over all the average age is increasing, I can say with some surety that the average age of Corrections Officers is int he mid 40's to mid 50's, and likely a little older than the average police officer.

[sinsual]

I got back from Iptwo weeks in Ireland as something other than a tourist. I spent a lot of time talking with many people on a level I would have never gotten as a tourist.

Mind you, this is a country where gun ownership is very limited. This has an interesting effect on what crime is rampant. Where I was, it was mostly personal. Unless you were totally stoopid, and pulled a large sum out of the ATM, walked out of a casino with bills hanging out of your pockets, walked into a poor neighborhood in full bling etc, most would watch you, maybe harass you a bit, but mostly left you alone. The crimes occurred between people who were related in some way.

Because of this, Gendarmes were looked upon as busy bodies putting their noses in where it didn't belong, . Watching the Gendarmes during some of fine events I worked and how the crowds related to them, showed they tended to be ignored. Those doing deals kept several people between themselves and the gendarmes, but never truly went out of their way, just made sure they had a good distance for a head start if they needed to start running, one of the guys I worked with was a convicted felon, on parole and loved pointing things out, until he realized, I was pretty well on top of the goings on.

This brought up a discussion later at lunch with him and a few others. All had been to the US as students. All had owned guns while here and admitted, they took on a different attitude towards the police then from back home.

They looked at our police in the same manner they did when the British patrols walked around armed just 10 years earlier. All admitted to Beleiving the police here were arrogant pricks with an agenda. Pricks that went out of their way to harass people, though none could name a specific instance where their personal experience indicated that was what happened, turns out, one of the guys went to school at ASU and was aquanted with an officer I know very well. I was amazed that he didn't know that my friend was an officer that worked ASU the whole time he knew him. Amazed enough, that I called Mark just to prove my point. At the end of the lunch(they spent the next 20 minutes rolling my phone bill up) he said "oh, well he is an exception"

It is interesting what the perspective is based on the level of threat you pose based on your means at the disposal to make an arrest.

[UncleJoseph]

Because of this, Gendarmes were looked upon as busy bodies putting their noses in where it didn't belong, . Watching the Gendarmes during some of fine events I worked and how the crowds related to them, showed they tended to be ignored. Those doing deals kept several people between themselves and the gendarmes, but never truly went out of their way, just made sure they had a good distance for a head start if they needed to start running, one of the guys I worked with was a convicted felon, on parole and loved pointing things out, until he realized, I was pretty well on top of the goings on.

This brought up a discussion later at lunch with him and a few others. All had been to the US as students. All had owned guns while here and admitted, they took on a different attitude towards the police then from back home.

They looked at our police in the same manner they did when the British patrols walked around armed just 10 years earlier. All admitted to Beleiving the police here were arrogant pricks with an agenda. Pricks that went out of their way to harass people, though none could name a specific instance where their personal experience indicated that was what happened, turns out, one of the guys went to school at ASU and was aquanted with an officer I know very well. I was amazed that he didn't know that my friend was an officer that worked ASU the whole time he knew him. Amazed enough, that I called Mark just to prove my point. At the end of the lunch(they spent the next 20 minutes rolling my phone bill up) he said "oh, well he is an exception."

I find this information very, very interesting. I've often thought that, for most people, perception is reality, and nothing I can do will change an overall perception. I've often been referred to as "an exception" to the "normal thug" police officer. And so has just about every one of my coworkers, though I know a few that do fit the "thug" description. Yet collectively, we're all considered brutish thugs who mess with people for no reason, have an agenda or are just bullies with badges and guns. I've found that the public's perception has largely been molded on misinformation and disinformation, and nothing is going to change that.

The only people I know (I'm referring to the people I actually know in real life) that get "harassed" by the cops all the time, are the one who are breaking the law all the time, or are creating/participating in disruptions that get the cops called. Even most "thug" type cops don't go around harassing people for no reason. But it's hard to explain to people how this complex dance actually works. When people do a ride-along with me/us, they almost always see things from our perspective, don't think we're being brutes (even when our "customers" might be accusing us of some abuse of authority during the ride-along), and usually see our response/reason for interfering as completely reasonable. Yet, an hour after their ride-along, they may be engaged in something that requires our intervention, and we go back to being the pigs/thugs they always "knew" we were. I'm absolutely convinced it's simply a matter of "don't tread on me," taken to the extreme. People don't like to be told they can't do something, and usually don't see anything wrong with their own behavior.

For example, if you don't think there's anything wrong with using marijuana, even though you know it's illegal, you're going to think I'm just messing with you or abusing my authority when I enforce some "bogus marijuana law...it's not hurting anyone...cigarettes are worse for you and they're legal" law. This logic applies to most minor crimes. People know murder and rape are wrong. People know home invasions/burglaries are wrong. And most people don't have any issues with enforcement of things that are nearly universally seen as morally wrong. But start talking about things like underage drinking, marijuana and other drug use, speeding, jaywalking, shoplifting, etc...the line between right and wrong get blurred no matter what the law says.

[Serious Paul]

The problem with any broad sweeping generalization is sometimes there is some truth to it. But then you paint everyone with that broad stroke and lose the details. Most of the people I work with are really no different than anyone else on any other job-some are excellent cops, some are bad, most are average.