d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > To Serve And Protect ?
Prev1678910Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jun 3 2022 12:14pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 3 2022 01:01pm)
BOLD... Where's the proof backing up that statement?

Large.... Incorrect. My statement cedes authority over the police to a "part" of the federal govt. A govt. that has a system of checks and balances that acts as an oversight for that govts. pieces.



Remaining points. What you're saying is correct in a way. But you must realize that police "departments" have to protect their own... or the dept. itself will crumble, which will then lead to... mob rule.


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/the-invention-of-the-police

A police department that knew it had standards of conduct to adhere to, and that violations of those standards would bear consequences, wouldn't crumble unless it was corrupt to the core. Virtually no other profession on the planet is allowed to exhibit the amount of misconduct without repercussions that the police do (collectively speaking). If I screwed up to the level that cops do (level meaning seriousness of offense, relative to the job, not that I killed a person) in any other job I've had, I'd be fired or worse, from every single one of them.
Member
Posts: 105,138
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Jun 3 2022 12:23pm
Quote (Surfpunk @ Jun 3 2022 02:14pm)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/20/the-invention-of-the-police

A police department that knew it had standards of conduct to adhere to, and that violations of those standards would bear consequences, wouldn't crumble unless it was corrupt to the core. Virtually no other profession on the planet is allowed to exhibit the amount of misconduct without repercussions that the police do (collectively speaking). If I screwed up to the level that cops do (level meaning seriousness of offense, relative to the job, not that I killed a person) in any other job I've had, I'd be fired or worse, from every single one of them.




I don't care what the New Yorker says.

You make valid points,
Keep in mind that you don't really have the huge amount of "good" things the depts. do, to compare.
MSM doesn't report those.

From all that we "hear", it seems like depts. are seething pits of corruption and evil. But it "seems" that way, because we generally only "hear" about the bad things.
That's the fault of those whose job it is to present the news to it's consumers.
If they did their jobs properly, I feel sure it would be more like 98% good work and 2% problematic issues. Which is probably the norm for imperfect humans.
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jun 3 2022 12:27pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 3 2022 01:23pm)
I don't care what the New Yorker says.

You make valid points,
Keep in mind that you don't really have the huge amount of "good" things the depts. do, to compare.
MSM doesn't report those.

From all that we "hear", it seems like depts. are seething pits of corruption and evil. But it "seems" that way, because we generally only "hear" about the bad things.
That's the fault of those whose job it is to present the news to it's consumers.
If they did their jobs properly, I feel sure it would be more like 98% good work and 2% problematic issues. Which is probably the norm for imperfect humans.


That's the thing, though. That 2% needs to have accountability. But instead, we have "qualified immunity", the "thin blue line", and district attorneys' offices around the country covering for that 2%.

This post was edited by Surfpunk on Jun 3 2022 12:35pm
Member
Posts: 21,486
Joined: Jul 21 2005
Gold: 438.40
Jun 3 2022 12:31pm
Quote (Ghot @ 3 Jun 2022 11:01)
BOLD... Where's the proof backing up that statement?

Large.... Incorrect. My statement cedes authority over the police to a "part" of the federal govt. A govt. that has a system of checks and balances that acts as an oversight for that govts. pieces.

Remaining points. What you're saying is correct in a way. But you must realize that police "departments" have to protect their own... or the dept. itself will crumble, which will then lead to... mob rule.


Correction: The federal government NEVER has authority over the police, except, unless, and until the police commit a federal crime, or the federal courts determine that the polices of the department(s) are in violation of the US Constitution. They have a level of oversight, which means they can watch what various police departments are doing. But they have neither control nor authority. Are you confusing "police" which is a state/county/city/local thing with FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. which are federal agencies?

As to your last point, what makes the police different from the mob if they protect their own members when their own members are engaged in corruption and/or wrongdoing? That's not just a question regarding police btw. Especially right now, that directly involves the aforementioned federal agencies as well. We could talk about the "Whitmer Kidnapping" hoax perpetrated by federal agents and their informants. We could talk about a host of other shit. But can you honestly tell me, right this minute, that you see anything better about today's enforcement than the old gangs of New York, or Chicago? Given we just spent two years with the gangs of the government(s) shutting down businesses and putting a stop to prosperity, I'd honestly argue that the old school gangs may well be preferable. They wanted business to be booming 100% of the time. Give them their cut and they've got your back, anyone fucks with you they eat led. Only real issue was the random gang shootout in the street, which was far more rare than school shootings are today.

BTW, not related to this topic, but have you ever asked yourself what a proper gang would do if a school it claimed it was protecting got shot up, in order to prevent future shootings? Hint: It has nothing to do with gun control. ;)
Member
Posts: 105,138
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Jun 3 2022 12:40pm
Quote (Surfpunk @ Jun 3 2022 02:27pm)
That's the thing, though. That 2% needs to have accountability. But instead, we have "qualified immunity" and district attorneys' offices around the country covering for that 2%.




In a way...yes.
Like I said before... the police depts. have to protect themselves (to exist), and their members (as an example to other members).

IF, IF, IF... an officer is "clearly" guilty of a crime or of gross negligence, then the dept. should punish that officer.

We need to keep in mind, as I've said 1000 times easily, that "we" will never have all the evidence. So "we" can't judge whether the dept. is policing the police properly.
We can through our voting, attempt to make sure the people that do decide whether the depts. are policing the police properly, are doing their job.

But that's the limit of the citizens involvement... voting.
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
Jun 3 2022 12:41pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 3 2022 10:40am)
Lots of people... just raise points.
That doesn't mean I should take their points, seriously.

Where's his law degree, his economics degree?


trump supporters requesting back up from said persons perspective. LAWL
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jun 3 2022 12:53pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 3 2022 01:40pm)
In a way...yes.
Like I said before... the police depts. have to protect themselves (to exist), and their members (as an example to other members).

IF, IF, IF... an officer is "clearly" guilty of a crime or of gross negligence, then the dept. should punish that officer.

We need to keep in mind, as I've said 1000 times easily, that "we" will never have all the evidence. So "we" can't judge whether the dept. is policing the police properly.
We can through our voting, attempt to make sure the people that do decide whether the depts. are policing the police properly, are doing their job.

But that's the limit of the citizens involvement... voting.


If a cop is guilty of a crime or of gross negligence, then they're not "doing their job", as was said in your original post. If performing crimes or grossly negligent acts is "just their job", then I want no part of that police force in my town or yours.
Member
Posts: 105,138
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Jun 3 2022 01:20pm
Quote (Surfpunk @ Jun 3 2022 02:53pm)
If a cop is guilty of a crime or of gross negligence, then they're not "doing their job", as was said in your original post. If performing crimes or grossly negligent acts is "just their job", then I want no part of that police force in my town or yours.




I said... if they WERE clearly guilty... then they should be punished.
The thing I have the problem with is this mob rule BS with all regular people getting involved, with less than all the information and demanding this or that should happen to the officer.











This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 3 2022 01:34pm
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jun 3 2022 01:44pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 3 2022 02:20pm)
I said... if they WERE clearly guilty... then they should be punished.
The thing I have the problem with is this mob rule BS with all regular people getting involved, with less than all the information and demanding this or that should happen to the officer.





https://i.imgur.com/jGiUesT.png


You keep using this image (which is ironic, given the amount of standing around cops did in Uvalde TX), and have been repeatedly told (particularly by ) how shitty the comparison is.

You also said "if they were clearly guilty" after the fact. The OP made no such disclaimer. And even then, your words in this subforum belie that claim, given that you've previously stated that you'd want to "wait for the appeal" with regard to a cop's conviction.
Member
Posts: 105,138
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Jun 3 2022 01:52pm
Quote (Surfpunk @ Jun 3 2022 03:44pm)
You keep using this image (which is ironic, given the amount of standing around cops did in Uvalde TX), and have been repeatedly told (particularly by ^Skinned) how shitty the comparison is.

You also said "if they were clearly guilty" after the fact. The OP made no such disclaimer. And even then, your words in this subforum belie that claim, given that you've previously stated that you'd want to "wait for the appeal" with regard to a cop's conviction.




Excellent. That's exactly why I used this pic. You've fallen right into my clutches.

Look at the pic. The cops are "standing around" watching a social worker do his/her thing (according to the pic).



WHY are they just standing and watching? Many have stated a number of times, that cops love to get into the action, whether they should or not.
It seems to me, that the cops aren't standing and watching cause they "want" to.
They are standing and watching because for whatever reason... it's dept. policy to allow the social worker in first.
WHY would this be dept. policy? Because a bunch of people that don't have a clue, made enough noise to force the dept. to make this "standing around" policy.


This could very well be... WHY the real police in TX were standing around. They may have wanted to go in... but dept. policy prevented them.
IF dept. policy prevented them, I would think it was because a bunch of people that don't have a clue, made enough noise to force the dept. to make that policy.


This is my WHOLE point.
A bunch of people that don't have a clue, should NOT be forcing police depts. to make policies, which will come back to haunt them one day. !@!!!!!

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 3 2022 01:59pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1678910Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll