Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Don't know if this is political or not, but why aren't police "civilians?"

24

Replies

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    It's not about the designation, it's about the attitude. For an example, see Jason's post. I like the guy, but that attitude some police have ticks me off, and it also creates a rift between the officers and the community they serve. Very much "us vs. them" and very much treating ALL individuals as possible suspects. If that's your attitude, why are you "serving and protecting" these people.

    And why worry about one or two cops? First, it's not just one or two. Second, police can violate your rights on a more regular basis and in more direct ways than most anyone else. They're a very direct government interface. In that situation, they need to be watched. If they want to be put on a pedestal, they will be watched. Why? Because as citizens, it is OUR job to ensure that our rights are preserved. We're the only ones who can do that. However, you can have a few law enforcement officers who have the following attitude about checking someone out:
    "If he looks at me, I might pull him. If he doesn't look at me, I might pull him. If he smiles, I might pull him. If he doesn't smile, I might pull him. If he speeds up, I might pull him. If he slows down, I might pull him. If he keeps the same speed I might pull him." Notice nothing is mentioned about probable cause, it's all about a whim.
    Or the time that a friend got pulled over for something minor because the police officer behind him ran his license plate and got a hit. Why did the officer run the plate? What was done? Nothing. He was just sitting at the light in front of the officer. It was because the officer wanted to run the plate. No probable cause, no reason for doing that. And the ticket stood.
    And then you have police chiefs and to a lesser extent police lobbying for gun laws and other restrictions. Tell me that's not a conflict of interest.

    So yes, I do have a problem with police removing themselves from the "civilian" realm, because they are civilians. No change in nomenclature will change the fact that they aren't in the military. No amount of word twisting will change that, and the efforts of some to distance themselves from the communities are to serve and protect is actually detrimental to their mission goal, in my opinion.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,713 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    I get far more annoyed by the group with the attitude of "I was in the military, so my poop doesn't stink, and anyone who wasn't in the military shouldn't have full rights or be able to even vote" crowd. Seriously, dude? Thanks for your service, but there's plenty of your fellow "heroic vets" who signed up because they couldn't hack high school or college, or had it presented to them as an option to stay out of jail. Therefore, the mere fact that YOU once wore green doesn't give ME any reason to be impressed by the fact. If the military WAS in fact your Plan A, then we can have a meaningful conversation on the topic. If, OTOH, your attitude stems from the fact you are compensating for having turned wrenches on trucks for 25% of what the guy at Pep Boys does it for, kindly shut up.

    Wow. I have heard pretty much that same paragraph I don't know how many times over the years. It always comes from someone that was not in the military. I do like the Citizenship concept in StarShip Troopers though.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    Well, this topic might not be political, but it does have some controversy!
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    It's not about the designation, it's about the attitude.
    Your original post asked the question about designation. Now it has become something else.

    Much like the military, part of the training of a police officer is to take pride in and responsibility for the work that they do, so if you're going to fault someone for taking what they tell them in training seriously, I guess there's not much else that can be said. Personally I hate police wrongdoing, but many of you seem to dwell on the minority of evil doers rather than the vast majority of police officers who want to do a good job and return to their families at the same time.

    The demeanor you see on the average street cop is put there by the academy training, is looked for in the selection process, and it is what helps to keep them alive every day. Without that degree of suspicion and stand-offishness there would be many more police death statistics. I am only giving you this bit of truthful information because there seems to be no end to the bickering on this forum regarding the "attitude" of police. I'm hoping this might sway some opinion's, but I'm not optimistic and I fully expect the crapalanche to continue.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    True. I think though that the designation can denote an attitude. Some that use the "civilian" moniker for non-LEOs have slight attitude problems. And as has been pointed out, the culture of the workplace can foster that attitude.

    I'm old enough to remember when law enforcement officers, at least locally, weren't as stand-offish as they are now. Or at least not as blatant about it.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    but many of you seem to dwell on the minority of evil doers rather than the vast majority of police officers who want to do a good job and return to their families at the same time.


    The reason I dwell on the evil doers is simply because the "good" cops know who the bad cops are and DO NOTHING.

    If a cop beats the crap out of a prone handcuffed detainee, then the good cops should take him out back and beat the hell out of him. Not just the guys that get caught on video. All of them. Instead, we the public, get excuses from the department, the cop gets suspended with pay, and after enough time goes by, the sociopath is back on the street.

    To most cops, the only bad cops are the ones that have the audacity to rat on a fellow officer.

    Why should I trust ANY of them?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    True. I think though that the designation can denote an attitude. Some that use the "civilian" moniker for non-LEOs have slight attitude problems. And as has been pointed out, the culture of the workplace can foster that attitude.
    It is sad to say, but the scourge of political correctness has finally invaded the pages of this forum. It must be the influence of the few resident progresso-libs we have here. It is merely terminology that has been adapted for the use of referring to police or non-police...nothing more...not a grand conspiracy to subjugate the general population.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    the cop gets suspended with pay, and after enough time goes by, the sociopath is back on the street. Why should I trust ANY of them?
    I can't answer that question. You must be influenced by what you see on TV. With regards to suspension with pay, that does not happen often, if ever, when the evidence is such that a crime was actually committed. With regards to P.O.'s not informing on their co-workers when they commit a crime? How do you know? Were you there? Give me a break. I think you're over-dramatizing what actually happens, or taking a few incidents of brutality and applying it to every cop out there.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    It is sad to say, but the scourge of political correctness has finally invaded the pages of this forum. It must be the influence of the few resident progresso-libs we have here. It is merely terminology that has been adapted for the use of referring to police or non-police...nothing more...not a grand conspiracy to subjugate the general population.
    So, it's just that sloppy designations are used? What about the LEOs who advocate denying "civilians" their rights because "they're not qualified like I am?" I've heard that little chestnut a few times. And if you try and explain what a right really is, they get huffy about it. Seen that happen with more than just a handful of officers. That is a cultural issue. That is something that if the LE community were serious about fostering the cooperation of the non-LE members of the community, they would act to purge this attitude. Why should I give someone the rope to hang by own rights by? This is not a "progresso-lib" mentality. This is actually a conservative idea: that rights should not be limited for what some call the greater good.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    So, it's just that sloppy designations are used? What about the LEOs who advocate denying "civilians" their rights.....
    I guess you are the arbiter of "sloppy." Police are considered by every government agency to be a "para-military" type organization. Sorry if you don't like it, but those are the facts. What if, what about that? We could "what if?" this all day. For someone who is as educated as you are and a government employee to boot, you seem to pick on the most trivial of points sometimes.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    I try not to take an "us vs. them" approach to my work, however.

    It is sloppy because police are neither military nor militia, and it's arguable whether they are paramilitary. How are they so? Is it because they have a military rank structure? In what ways do the police work towards the national defense, which is what most military and paramilitary organizations are purposed. I always thought that the police are to preserve law and civil order on the home front. Or am I mistaken? What ways have the police expanded that role? Last time I checked they don't take action for national defense.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    I can't answer that question. You must be influenced by what you see on TV. With regards to suspension with pay, that does not happen often, if ever, when the evidence is such that a crime was actually committed. With regards to P.O.'s not informing on their co-workers when they commit a crime? How do you know? Were you there? Give me a break. I think you're over-dramatizing what actually happens, or taking a few incidents of brutality and applying it to every cop out there.


    A few incidents? Hell, I saw a few incidents of brutality THIS WEEK alone. On video.

    I realize you are biased and therefore sympathetic to police, but if you took the time and researched this just a little, you'd know I'm not making it up or basing my statements on television.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    I don't think being a LEO gives them that type of attitude. I think they already had that attitude, and that is why they became LEO's.... I know the two I went to high school with that became small town police had that ''I don't like the way they look'' mentality.
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    I think that a lot of folks are by mouth very vocally for "law and order" but lots of this same folks when they err they don't want to face the music and choose to be "smart" about it and find a way around it, feeding the mentality that "the man" is the enemy is a BIG par of this. How many after "EARNING" a ticket say to themselves, "I should know better" instead of "that damned pig"?

    Sure there are folks that have no business in law enforcement and this should be the issue so it is lessened more and more but same way that in spite some waiters will spit on your soup, mechanics will mess up your car and so on some folks in law enforcement will also do the wrong thing fo the wrong reasons, only way to avoid this would be to put robots in patrol cars.

    If there is a rotten apple to the point that "everyone" has a nickname for this person the same folks ought to instead do whatever it takes to get this person out of uniform instead of "talking the talk" and again feeding the self serving "enemy" mentality.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    Bad waiters will rat each other out, as will bad mechanics. How well are Internal Affairs officers received in their own departments? How often do police report on fellow officers? How well are they treated if they do?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    It's not self-centered. I just don't keep a clearing house of woes that everyone else has suffered and catalog them. There are thousands of injustices committed every day, and I know that.

    I'd like to have some personal experiences, Cal.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    pbearperry wrote: »
    over a million cops today did not abuse anyone or step on their God given rights today.I guess it's more fun to home into the 2 cops that did.

    Agreed. I'm not denying that LEO overstepping or abuse exists. I just don't have any personal experience in that, at least not in the USA, no pushing and shoving that I didn't deserve (back in the "old" days).

    I am just not paranoid. And sorry to some, but I also happen to generally like cops. I've known a couple of jerk LEOs, but most are fine. Like anybody else.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    A few incidents? Hell, I saw a few incidents of brutality THIS WEEK alone. On video.
    I realize you are biased and therefore sympathetic to police, but if you took the time and researched this just a little, you'd know I'm not making it up or basing my statements on television.
    I am sympathetic to an honest cop who does his/her job correctly, without abusing his/her power unnecessarily. If a cop does not abide by the law and/or code of ethics, then by all means get rid of the offending person. That person does not deserve to be in law enforcement. I can't possibly make it any clearer than that. It makes me cringe to see a rogue cop beating the crap out of someone just because he resisted arrest or some similar offense. I am also just as angry as everyone else here about abuses like going to the wrong house and crashing the door in the middle of the night or whenever.

    As far as worrying about "attitudes" and whether or not to call a cop a civilian, I just can't be bothered with all of this petty stuff. I've done my best to take the time to explain some things from a former LE point of view, but some people either don't want to read and understand it, or just want to continue to argue about stuff that in the grand scheme of things don't really matter.

    This subject is getting REALLY old.....don't we all have other things to waste a few megabytes of hard-drive space than this?
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    Make My Day, I have two questions for you, honest questions:
    1. How did you feel when you were around Internal Affairs officers?
    2. How did your fellow officers feel about Internal Affairs?

    I ask because the officers I know tend not to trust IA, and they don't like IA guys because they "rat out" other officers or get other officers to "rat out" their fellows. When you see and hear that kind of stuff from more than just a small number of officers, it tends to give the impression that LEOs don't want to participate in internal policing (pun not intended.) Further, when you generally only hear of IA investigations being started due to citizen complaints, rarely due to internal impetus (going by the news) that further tends to put forth the idea that police have a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality, which further amplifies mistrust.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • pbearperrypbearperry Member Posts: 91 Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    A few incidents? Hell, I saw a few incidents of brutality THIS WEEK alone. On video.

    I realize you are biased and therefore sympathetic to police, but if you took the time and researched this just a little, you'd know I'm not making it up or basing my statements on television.

    Good Police work happens all day every day,but it never gets uploaded to the internet.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I am being ignored out of the conversation / thread, but I don't care, I am the only one answering the question as asked by the OP, Here in the U.S., we have made a big deal to keep the Armed Forces / Military apparatus separate from the regular non Military population, since the Founding Fathers did not trust a standing Army not to force it's will on the People and subjugate them in some way.

    So Civilians are Non Military whether or not they are Law Enforcement, they are Civilians and Civilians and Civilian Authorities are ruled or governed by Civilian Law and judged by Civilian Courts of Law.......

    Military Personnel are subject to the UCMJ and JAG Judge Advocate General, and tried by a Military Tribunal.

    How hard is that to understand ???

    If you are not in the ARMY NAVY etc, you are a Civilian plain and simple, COPS too, unless you are an MP / Military Police Officer, CID, NCIS etc etc......

    Now when I was a LEO, I was not stupid enough to sign My own death warrant by informing on another LEO, was that wrong ? Yes, and when I could stomach it no longer, I was gone.....

    You inform on another LEO, call for back up and see what happens, or call a 10-13 etc......

    Being Para-Military has no meaning, either you are a sworn member of the Military, or you are not, there is no grey area there, and if you are not in the Military, you are a Civilian.

    Civilian is not a derogatory term in any case.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Well, is Jason still around? I hope he didn't let this thread run him off as many LEOs have left in the past. He loves guns like the rest of us and I hope he doesn't let this thread get under his skin.

    BTW, other members have been very touchy about any comments about their professions here, not just LEOs. Hopefully, everyone will just take the comments on here in stride and move on to bigger and better things like guns and shootin. I'm not saying comments shouldn't be challenged...just sayin...............
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    It's not self-centered. I just don't keep a clearing house of woes that everyone else has suffered and catalog them. There are thousands of injustices committed every day, and I know that.

    I'd like to have some personal experiences, Cal.


    I don't keep a clearing house. My examples were simple google searches. I view these types of events as grievious violations of civil rights. Your tone shows that you minimalize this because it hasn't happened to you personally.

    I have no personal experiences. I've never been the victim of violent crime, I've never been arrested, and only been detained once (other than traffic violations), I've never been abused by a cop. I do not hate cops. What I hate is the pass given to cops when they violate or abuse my fellow citizens.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    Make My Day, I have two questions for you, honest questions:
    1. How did you feel when you were around Internal Affairs officers?
    2. How did your fellow officers feel about Internal Affairs?

    IAU does not "rat-out" other cops. They are the ones who investigate complaints of crimes or violations of the rules by other cops, and take appropriate action. I think most people are intimidated by others who have power over their lives or jobs.

    The one and only time I was ever involved with the IAU was not a case which had anything to do with my behavior, but as a potential witness of someone else's behavior. It was related to a minor infraction of the departmental rules and regulations. I can tell you that at the time I felt extremely uncomfortable, not because I had done anything wrong, but because I did not want to be in a place where I had to inform on another cop. To tell you the truth, I did not witness this so-called violation of the rules and regs, but they wanted me to state that I witnessed something that I didn't. I don't remember what the resolution of it was, but if the guy was convicted in a departmental trial that took place later on, he probably only faced the loss of a couple of days pay. Funny thing was, the departmental trials were similar to "civilian" courts, in that if you plead guilty to the charge, your fine was usually less than if you fought the charges and were found guilty.

    IAU has the same power over the cops as the cops have over the citizenry. We could be investigated for a rules violation or a crime, and they have the power to charge cops with that offense. I can tell you that they were extremely zealous in doing their jobs. They could make your life a living hell, even if you never did anything wrong. Sometimes a complaint would come from a citizen...it could be completely bogus, but that particular citizen wanted to get you in trouble because the cop wasn't "nice" to them or they got a ticket they thought they didn't deserve. IAU made sure you would stay out of trouble thereafter, just for the fear-factor in dealing with them, and their reputation was quite notorious amongst the other members of my department.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 3,859 Senior Member
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,670 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Well, is Jason still around? I hope he didn't let this thread run him off as many LEOs have left in the past. He loves guns like the rest of us and I hope he doesn't let this thread get under his skin.
    LOL...hey, I'm still here to kick around, not that anyone should give a crap.
    :rotflmao:
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    A former partner, was being investigated, and I got dragged over hot coals even though I had nothing to do with it, it got pretty bad for Me even though I was not the one IA was investigating.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    IAU does not "rat-out" other cops. They are the ones who investigate complaints of crimes or violations of the rules by other cops, and take appropriate action. I think most people are intimidated by others who have power over their lives or jobs.

    The one and only time I was ever involved with the IAU was not a case which had anything to do with my behavior, but as a potential witness of someone else's behavior. It was related to a minor infraction of the departmental rules and regulations. I can tell you that at the time I felt extremely uncomfortable, not because I had done anything wrong, but because I did not want to be in a place where I had to inform on another cop. To tell you the truth, I did not witness this so-called violation of the rules and regs, but they wanted me to state that I witnessed something that I didn't. I don't remember what the resolution of it was, but if the guy was convicted in a departmental trial that took place later on, he probably only faced the loss of a couple of days pay. Funny thing was, the departmental trials were similar to "civilian" courts, in that if you plead guilty to the charge, your fine was usually less than if you fought the charges and were found guilty.

    IAU has the same power over the cops as the cops have over the citizenry. We could be investigated for a rules violation or a crime, and they have the power to charge cops with that offense. I can tell you that they were extremely zealous in doing their jobs. They could make your life a living hell, even if you never did anything wrong. Sometimes a complaint would come from a citizen...it could be completely bogus, but that particular citizen wanted to get you in trouble because the cop wasn't "nice" to them or they got a ticket they thought they didn't deserve. IAU made sure you would stay out of trouble thereafter, just for the fear-factor in dealing with them, and their reputation was quite notorious amongst the other members of my department.
    Fair enough. Thanks for answering!
    Overkill is underrated.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I can't talk about any other Department, but in mine, the IA folks were looked at as lower than bird poop eating weasels, actually hated by the rank & file LEOs, because IA could craft anything into a lurid possible problem, like a friend of mine, his FIL gave him a LEXUS as a wedding present, and lo and behold, he kept raising a red flag with IA simply because they contended he was living beyond his means, even though his father in-law was paying for it.......
    He had to give it back to his FIL.....
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    Why? You earlier mentioned that you were encouraged not to report on other officers. I think you term was "singing your own death warrant," no?
    Overkill is underrated.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement