[QUOTE=goodlun;2853956]I am pro nody cams, but I can certainly understand why some police wouldn’t want to wear them.
I wouldn’t want to be on camera all day at work either.
That being said in the end it should make their jobs a lot easier.[/QUOTE]
As long as you are doing what’s right you should have nothing to worry about. What concerns some cops is the general populations conception of what is legal/illegal/right/wrong in police work.
As much as I believe rioters are ignorant pieces of shit and even though I know the media is stirring the pot about police violence, I have to admit there’s some value to all the fuss. It encourages balance.
Violent police are a bad thing. Violent criminals also can’t be dealt with by Officer Friendly. Violence must be met with violence. That’s fine, but we need balance. Police serve the public and should never forget that.
As someone pointed out, there is no national police force. However, this shit does impact police forces nationally. I know lots of local cops and they have had a ton of training in response to all the events of the last year or so. I’d wager a guess that the same thing has occurred all over the country. Plus, there’s more and more national discussion about body cameras, which are a good thing. I’m all about meeting force with force if necessary but there should be accountability.
I have cop friends but I can see their us vs. them attitude on display frequently. It’s just like politics. You have raging conservatives and raging liberals and both of them are full of shit. You have the cops are good camp vs. the cops are bad camp and they’re both full of shit too.
If the rioting and media bullshit leads to more police accountability, I say it’s a good thing.
Any cop, who is honest, has to admit that there are “bad apples” in almost every PD. The issue comes down to just how “bad” they are. As a supervisor who has been on IA investigations and had cops fired, its never as clear cut as “if he’s a bad apple just fire him”. Sometimes its easy, other times its a matter of having to wait for enough evidence or (sadly) a major bad incident to get them " gone ".
Sometimes the best you get is a resignation which legally handcuffs us in regards to preventing that cop from getting a job somewhere else.
Likewise there are some entire departments that have major problems. IMO a LOT of that starts right at hiring.
[QUOTE=kanegs;2853972]Some background on what’s happening in Baltimore:
From the same article:
I’m not implying that all cops are bad, and I’m not defending the rioters. I’m just making the point that this isn’t really about Freddie Gray.[/QUOTE]
Well… I’d say a large number of the looters, arsonists and vandals could care less about any political issue. They just see an opportunity.
In my view, the ‘bad apples’ aren’t the biggest concern. They represent a problem that can often be solved. It’s easier for both sides to agree on the need to remove bad apples. The biggest concern to me is when good cops take on unhealthy attitudes and those attitudes become commonplace across a department.
[QUOTE=Devil;2853982]In my view, the ‘bad apples’ aren’t the biggest concern. They represent a problem that can often be solved. It’s easier for both sides to agree on the need to remove bad apples. The biggest concern to me is when good cops take on unhealthy attitudes and those attitudes become commonplace across a department.[/QUOTE]
Cynicism can be difficult to control on this job. The best a supervisor can do to control “attitude” is to punish cops actions. Which doesn’t change their attitude.
[QUOTE=tgace;2853984]Cynicism can be difficult to control on this job. The best a supervisor can do to control “attitude” is to punish cops actions. Which doesn’t change their attitude.[/QUOTE]
That’s one of the reasons I think outside pressure can help maintain a balance. If a police agency can’t run a police force that works for the citizens they work for, then they can be placed under a microscope and be made to feel pressure from the top down. The problem doesn’t have to be corrected the easy way.
I don’t disagree, but “from the inside” the problem I see (IMO) is that the real “fix” for most troubled PDs is almost impossible to really accomplish.
I believe what’s needed in some PDs is the ability to fire people…wholesale…then rehire.
Politics, civil service laws, unions and numerous other issues make that all but impossible.
[QUOTE=tgace;2853986]I don’t disagree, but “from the inside” the problem I see (IMO) is that the real “fix” for most troubled PDs is almost impossible to really accomplish.
I believe what’s needed in some PDs is the ability to fire people…wholesale…then rehire.
Politics, civil service laws, unions and numerous other issues make that all but impossible.[/QUOTE]
I can understand that. Firing people can be damn near impossible in large corporations now. I deal with that every day. So I understand.
I don’t know, though. My understanding of the internal workings of police departments clearly isn’t on par with yours. However, most of my cop buddies work for a Sheriff’s department and every time there is a new Sheriff, he can fire whoever the fuck he feels like. But the people they fire are the lazy ones. Not the ‘good cops’ who do their job every day but still carry an us vs. them attitude. It seems to me that police forces just aren’t handling shit themselves and outside pressure is needed.
I think a lot of it goes hand in hand with the changing ideas about what policing should look like after September 11th.
[QUOTE=Devil;2853987]I can understand that. Firing people can be damn near impossible in large corporations now. I deal with that every day. So I understand.
I don’t know, though. My understanding of the internal workings of police departments clearly isn’t on par with yours. However, most of my cop buddies work for a Sheriff’s department and every time there is a new Sheriff, he can fire whoever the fuck he feels like. But the people they fire are the lazy ones. Not the ‘good cops’ who do their job every day but still carry an us vs. them attitude. It seems to me that police forces just aren’t handling shit themselves and outside pressure is needed.
I think a lot of it goes hand in hand with the changing ideas about what policing should look like after September 11th.[/QUOTE]
A lot changes depending on State/Region…some agencies (typically the smaller ones and agencies in the South) are what are termed “at will” employment where the Chief/Sheriff can fire at will.
Many Metro and Northern departments (and those under Civil Service laws) or Union States where officers are employed under contracts are much more difficult to fire people from. The last one we fired took months of legal process and a significant amount of $$ in fees.
[QUOTE=tgace;2853990]A lot changes depending on State/Region…some agencies (typically the smaller ones and agencies in the South) are what are termed “at will” employment where the Chief/Sheriff can fire at will.
Many Metro and Northern departments (and those under Civil Service laws) or Union States where officers are employed under contracts are much more difficult to fire people from. The last one we fired took months of legal process and a significant amount of $$ in fees.[/QUOTE]
I see.
Isn’t the notion that the police “serve the public” false?
[QUOTE=ChenPengFi;2853996]Isn’t the notion that the police “serve the public” false?[/QUOTE]
How is that?
[QUOTE=ChenPengFi;2853996]Isn’t the notion that the police “serve the public” false?[/QUOTE]Police are public employees and they provide a service to the public. Some agencies are more service-oriented than others. Some officers go the extra mile, and some do not.
Can you be more specific in what you mean?
[QUOTE=Devil;2853998]How is that?[/QUOTE]
Their job is to arrest criminals and uphold law, serving the state not the people per se, or at least that’s how I’ve always understood it despite catchy slogans on various department vehicles etc.
“Protect and Serve” was a motto devised by the LAPD in the 50’s, it was never really intended to be used as THE definition for the role of police in society.
While I would like to protect everyone and everything from harm that’s simply not possible and while I do provide a public “service” I’m no individual persons “servant”.
When it comes down to definitions, criminology texts state that the Police are around for (1) preventing crime, (2) investigating crimes and apprehending criminals, (3) maintaining order, and (4) providing other miscellaneous services. Which cover things like making your kids go to school because you don’t know how to, getting Raccoon’s out of attics and taking vehicle collision reports.
[QUOTE=tgace;2854015]“Protect and Serve” was a motto devised by the LAPD in the 50’s, it was never really intended to be used as THE definition for the role of police in society.
While I would like to protect everyone and everything from harm that’s simply not possible and while I do provide a public “service” I’m no individual persons “servant”.
When it comes down to definitions, criminology texts state that the Police are around for (1) preventing crime, (2) investigating crimes and apprehending criminals, (3) maintaining order, and (4) providing other miscellaneous services. Which cover things like making your kids go to school because you don’t know how to, getting Raccoon’s out of attics and taking vehicle collision reports.[/QUOTE]
And you do all that at the collective pleasure of the taxpayers via the governments they elect. Because they’ve deemed those activities to be beneficial to them. ‘Them’ includes you too, of course. All police officers are public servants. No silly word games can make that cease to be true.
[QUOTE=ChenPengFi;2854006]Their job is to arrest criminals and uphold law, serving the state not the people per se, or at least that’s how I’ve always understood it despite catchy slogans on various department vehicles etc.[/QUOTE]
The state is the people.
[QUOTE=Devil;2854020]And you do all that at the collective pleasure of the taxpayers via the governments they elect. Because they’ve deemed those activities to be beneficial to them. ‘Them’ includes you too, of course. All police officers are public servants. No silly word games can make that cease to be true.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
My “no individuals servant” thing is directed at the “I pay your salary so do what I want” types. I serve the entirety of my jurisdiction. I’m not YOUR servant…so to speak.
The job is more complex than what a slogan can encompass.
I think Chen is referring to that court decision…the name which escapes me…that stated that LE doesn’t serve “individuals”.