Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Cops and "blue light pass"

Sandman, why is it that when somebody questions the job police do, or have a criticism, that person is branded as being anti-police? You may not realize it, but I do respect the job of the police officer, if not everyone who wears the uniform (individuals must earn my respect each in their own right).

Since your statement regarding the IL compartment law was directly underneath and in response to my asking if you could provide an argument based on bettering the system. I truly don't believe that ANYONE who agrees with current policy and the status quo all the time is thinking critically. In rethinking about the IL thread, I didn't see anything other than a wholesale agreement and defense of the the whole process. I saw no opionion in the statements, merely a rehash of this court ruling or that legislative quote. I do have a problem and get very annoyed with people that NEVER state anything outside of the status quo or what proper procedure is.

I do not have an animosity towards the police. However, I do disagree with the focus of law enforcement in certain areas. Just because I don't agree with the way the law is enforced and I am willing to say it does not mean I hate the police.

The traffic laws that ought to be changed or repealed is not solely about me. It is about laws that society in general do not agree with (as judged by both polls and actions). Legislators have the responsibility to alter or repeal these laws based on the will of the people. However, when someone tries, frequently police organizations lobby against the changes. This is where I believe police should be more responsive to public opinion in determining the priorities on what laws are enforced.

Why is it that you take so personally any discussion that talks about police officers? This thread never indicated an animosity against police officers, but a dissatisfaction with a specific behavior. No one ever said that you behaved in this way or not. Don't be so sensitive to public criticism. It is the duty of the public to be critical consumers of governmental services, including police protection.

My manager told me in this last review now that I have learned my job, he expects me to analyze our procedures and come up with improvements and changes to make things better. I agree with him, and believe this should be a baseline requirement of a veteran in any profession.

If not in this subject, I would still like to see you state just one area in which police protection or procedure can be improved. It can be anything, and I definitely don't have to agree with it. I would just like you to give me an example of something that ought to be changed, and how you'd change it. That would prove your point to me that you think critically for yourself.

I dont know what the deal is. I support cops and donate to their athletic leagues, and to purchase bulletproof vests, etc. I dont have a problem with police at all. But,,,No matter how dangerous and selfless their job is in protecting citizens, it still makes me mad when I see things that are just careless driving practices (which one day may harm who they swore to protect). As much as lights off/sirens off responses to calls do happen, (plus they should be on and them turned off some distance from the scene) I dont think that a majority of the bonehead driving they do sometimes is due to it.
Attacking the issue of abuse of driving laws, doesnt mean anyone here doesnt respect and appreciate what the police does.
Also, I know that cops get trainning...but when you tailgate and someone slams the breaks, no training is gonna save you...especially if there is no room to maneuver to the next lane...Being trained doesnt justify the bad driving, as having an SCCA license doesnt allow anyone to drive above the speed limit!

Yes, and I think I've figured out just how dark yours are tinted.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Of course, there are people who think that some cops operate under the theory that:

"There are no honest people, only undiscovered criminals."

Pretty dark view on both sides if you ask me.

1)People like to complain about government, but it doesn't show up on their radar screen until letters are written and complaints filed. Care to take an educated guess as to how often THAT happens?

2)Anything that consumes my tax dollars (hence the police department) invariably has politics attached to it.

You might like to think that's not the case, that the department is immune to politics, but if so I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell... (and check out the DC police sometime).

Brian

I know why. Human nature. It makes it easier to categorize them, that way you don't need to spend any time thinking about it. You can just mentally write off everything they had to say by looking at it as "anti police".

It's kinda like how certain racial groups in this country take a statistic about, say, the number of out-of-wedlock childbirths they have as "racism".

Other examples abound, but most people do not take criticism well, and the higher the pedestal you THINK you are on, the more likely you are to reject it.

Brian

...although this is probably true given the number of questionable laws on the books...

Gun laws. Perfect example. Illinois has no provision for concealed carry. (We do have a 6 seconds 'till ready "law", but that is simply a loophole in the current statutes.) I'm all for concealed carry for citizens, as I believe strongly that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms. On this point, I strongly disagree with current law. However, as a police officer, it is still my duty to enforce the laws as they stand. Just because I do not agree with a law does not mean that I can disregard it. To do so would be to start down the slippery slope to anarchy.

Further, I believe that part of the problem today is, once again, frivolous lawsuits against the police. Example: Police chase the bad guy, who ends up killing innocent civilians. Relatives sue the police department, because it is attached to a municipality with deep pockets, therefore they have a reasonable chance of recovering monetary damages. If they were to sue the criminal (the real cause of the incident) they are likely to recover nothing. I'm not saying that victim's relatives are out for money. What I am saying is that they are wrongly targeting the officer (who was doing his job) and his department. This is because they feel the need (based on their grief) to lay blame somewhere.

The problem is, this has created a wave of no-pursuit policies that hinder the ability of law enforcement to complete its mission. This is not a good thing. What is really needed is a way to stop these chases early (or even before they begin). Until technology can give us that, we cannot simply allow a criminal to floor it, knowing that the police will not give chase.

Now, suing police departments has done a quite a bit of good over the years. Law enforcement has moved away from "wall-to-wall" interviewing techniques and such, leading to an extreme focus on preserving citizen's Constitutional Rights. However, we seem to have moved from one extreme to the other, whereby the police are now sued over the most ludicrous conditions.

The following is a true story:
2 males rob a bank and take a female hostage. Their van is spotted, and a chase ensues. Van crashes, and one suspect flees on foot, pursued on foot by officer 1. Officer 2 runs up to the crashed van, opens the side door, and is confronted with a gun weilding suspect 2, still holding the female hostage. Suspect to points his gun at officer 2, who shoots suspect 2. In the course of shooting suspect 2, officer 2 also (unintentionally) shoots the female hostage. Both suspect 2 and the hostage survive. The hostage subsequently sues the department, stating that officer 2 knew there was a hostage situation (he did), and instead of rushing up to the door, he should have waited and called for backup. She wins her lawsuit. What the ungrateful b!7ch doesn't realize is it's likely the only reason she is alive is because of officer 2, who was opening the door of the van to see if suspect 2 and the hostage had survived the crash.

It's lawsuits like that which I would like to see prevented. These type of lawsuits cause officers to pause to think about the legal ramifications of their actions when they need to be making split-second decisions based only on their training. This pause can cost an officer or innocent victims their lives.

Actually, it's more along the lines of, "In God we trust, all others we investigate.". -lol

Yes, and it seems you are doing that with the police.

See the passage by the unknown author that I quoted above.

Sure, there is politics in any form of Government. However, you are attempting to slyly change the focus of the discussion here. Sorry, not going to work. That post of yours that I referenced was a troll, plain and simple.