Is there snot in my beard?

Title is apropos of nothing.

The real subject of this thread is cops. I've noticed a hell of a lot of "us vs. them" attitude between cops and civilians, so I'm guessing there are going to be a few people that hate the bacon around here.

My question is: What would you do to fix them. I'm not talking grousing or "kill them all" or anything like that, I mean solid, implementable steps that would resolve whatever problems you have with les flicailles. Obviously getting rid of cops entirely is not an option, it would be anarchy and let's face it, if you are posting at a Final Fantasy message board, you would be somebody's bitch in a world without law, assuming that you'd still be alive at all. The rule of law is necessary, especially for people like us.

Put yourself in the position of someone on a Parliamentary committee (or your nation's equivalent) on reforming the police. You get to make rules that the cops have to follow. Let's hear some rules that would stop the cops from hassling innocent people without preventing them from doing their job entirely. I want specifics; things that could possibly work in the real world. Answers that do not meet those criteria are, of course, acceptable as long as they're sufficiently funny.

OOC:	I don't have any problems with the cops. This is probably because I do not drive. Or, for that matter, sell crack cocaine, rape, murder, burn houses down, or commit piracy on the high seas.

EDIT: If any of you are actually cops, butt out. I'm looking for the civilian perspective.
Scratch that; part of the reason this isn't in EoEO is so it'll be viewable to unregistered users. I want to hear what cop haters have to say, and it's only fair to let the other side defend themselves.

If you ever do anything like the stuff posted here, you're fired forever.

I'm perfectly fine with most cops. Some cops are dicks cause they have power but I actually LIKE the cops. I have family members who are cops. I have friends who have become cops. Usually the people who are really against cops have a reason to be argh because they are doing bad things. "Oh man the cops always pull me over for speeding!" Well stop speeding. "Oh man the cops gave me a smurfing dui I HATE THE COPS" Stop driving drunk. Simple as that.

Any position that has power will attract people who crave that power. You can't omit that. It's bound to happen.

I actually had a conversation about this not too long ago. I suggested that all cops have to go on mandatory sabbaticals every... I dunno 2 years or so. So that for a few consecutive months, they're back to being civilians. Obviously this would never happen because who would fund something like that?

But the biggest problem with cops I think is that after doing the job day in and day out, they start to develop a particular world view that I think is damaging for everyone. I think they need time away from their job, away from power and authority to stop seeing the world as being full of OTHERS.

I have actually been involved in conversations about this with police from the LAPD during a sociology of violence class. One police officer actually said that community involvement helps a lot. So that the police feel part of the community, helping the community as opposed to being outsiders laying down the law on a group of strangers who they view as all being potentially criminal.

So this particular cop actually lived in the neighborhood he policed, as well as knew the local families, knew the parents of the kids who were in gangs. Went to the funerals of kids who died due to gang violence, etc. He seemed like really decent guy. I would think that having that level of connection to the people he's trying to protect helps keep his perspective in check.

Still not seeing any attempts at solutions.

Upon rereading, that comes across as harsher than intended. I actually think the enforced sabbatical is a good idea, it just fails the practical condition, as stated in the above post, due to the funding issue. If someone has the germ of an idea that could solve that funding issue, it might be a good place to start. It would also make people less reluctant to become cops in the first place. It's not like they're paid well.

I'm not looking for justification or condemnation of the Us vs. Them attitude -- that's a chicken-and-egg situation. Veteran cops inevitably have an Us vs. Them attitude through repeated exposure to civilians who have an Us vs. Them attitude towards the cops, which in turn leads them to behave in ways that engender an Us vs. Them attitude in the civilians they come into contact with; This is not a problem that can be solved by policy, it requires evolution. Everybody, civilian and cop alike, has to want that problem to be solved before it will be, and that's simply not going to happen. There will be enough holdovers on one side or the other to keep those attitudes prevalent for as long as anyone alive at the time of this post lives.

Nor am I looking, necessarily, for a poll on whether people like cops or not. I can predict that the number of people who dislike cops are in the majority simply because it's human nature to resent authority.

The link to the police brutality thread is a start. There are some of the reasons people hate cops. What can government do to stop those things from happening? How can the rules be written such that examples like the ones in that thread are efficiently punished without interfering with the ability of the cops to do their job?

Here's another cop conundrum: The cops get paid by salary in most places, right? This means they're paid the same on a night where they are pulling over drunk drivers left right and center as they are on a night when they have nothing to do but sit in the car and play Angry Birds all night. It is also against human nature to do more work than you have to do for the same wage. Given these facts, it is always in the cop's self-interest to let people go. You make an arrest, you have to process the prisoner and do paperwork. You ticket someone, that's more paperwork, plus the possibility of having to make a court date -- which Murphy's Law states will come on your day off -- if the person being ticketed challenges it. That means hassle. The last thing a cop wants to do by default would be to ruin your day. It's easier for both parties if nothing happens.

The solution to that problem is quotas. A cop who doesn't write X number of tickets in Y number of days can face disciplinary action. I think we can all agree that that's a troutty solution, since it leads directly to cops issuing tickets and fines in situations where it's not justified, specifically to meet that quota. People who don't know their rights, or feel that the court system is out to get them and they can't win a court challenge of a ticket, are paying tickets that should never have been issued. OK, good solution for the department, since it brings in money, but bad situation for society at large since it both punishes people who don't deserve to be punished and contributes to the negative outlook that so many civilians have towards the police.

If the police were staffed by supercops, people would be better behaved and there would be fewer violations to ticket. That should be their goal. With quotas, they want people to misbehave so that they can meet their quotas. Cops being unable to write as many tickets today as they did yesterday should be a measure of success, not something regarded as an indicator that they're not doing their jobs.

So let's see if someone has a better answer. Your mission is now to come up with an alternative to quotas that ensures that the cops are ticketing/fining/arresting when they should be, but doesn't penalize them for failing to when it's not necessary.

(SPOILER)And of course, the whole point to this thread is that you can't, so blaming all of the cops for the misconduct of a few is pointless and stupid

EDIT: (SPOILER)OK, I admit it, the real point of this thread is actually to have "Is there snot in my beard" show up on the forums index.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

I'm perfectly fine with most cops. Some cops are dicks cause they have power but I actually LIKE the cops. I have family members who are cops. I have friends who have become cops. Usually the people who are really against cops have a reason to be argh because they are doing bad things. "Oh man the cops always pull me over for speeding!" Well stop speeding. "Oh man the cops gave me a smurfing dui I HATE THE COPS" Stop driving drunk. Simple as that.

Any position that has power will attract people who crave that power. You can't omit that. It's bound to happen.

---

Really depends on where you live, or rather how busy the cops are. I actually live in a suburb about 10-20 mins away from NE Philly, and there's very little crime in the area. It's not unusual for the cops here to harass you just for something to do.

It's PCSOs I can't stand. They do a sufficient job at adding that Orwellian aspect to local communities whilst being utterly redundant and annoying. They're only really there to add presence, but I've always considered cardboard cut-outs to be a cheaper and, frankly, friendlier and more bearable alternative to those high-vis bellends.

While I'm not thoroughly educated on the ins and outs of the police application process one would imagine that it would be a prerequisite for a police officer to be um...sane. I can't tell you how many paranoid, self-centered, egotistical jackasses I've met 'on the force' who do anything and everything they want and damn the consequences because more often than not there aren't any for cops. If there is already psychological pre-screening, and periodical screens as well, in place then that particular test needs to be binned, reevaluated and a focus for higher level management. Not to mention a severe need for a zero-tolerance disciplinary action system.

I'm fond of police officers. I've never had a bad experience except with one lady cop (while Rantz was in my passenger seat, actually). My stepfather has been on the force for twenty-something years and I've heard all kinds of stories of the years.

I don't necessarily have any decent specifics to give, but it seems to me that a lot of cops make a lot of bad decisions (ie, thread in EoEo) and are not reprimanded properly for it. Their word is the law and we know this. But does that make their behavior 100% justifiable? It seems to me that there are many instances when an officer outright does something unacceptable, and the harshest thing I've yet to see is that they are suspended with pay. What is the reason that most people abstain from doing something at work that they know they aren't supposed to do? The possibility of getting fired. What are the actual chances of an officer getting fired for misbehaving or making an incorrect decision? Probably pretty low. I don't think that threatening punishment and threatening termination are good tactics in general, but I can't thinkof anything else that might work. The problem is that excuses are made for all of the incorrect decisions and misbehaving. They have training. They did what was best with the circumstances at hand. How is that acceptable when people are getting tased for no reason, getting kicked and beaten for no reason, dogs are getting shot for no reason?

I am really not in the best mindframe to be typing all of this out and I don't have examples to give (plenty in EoEo). The public aren't going to be good judges in any sense, but if there could be some more accountability for wrong actions and reprimanding as a result of that (that goes further than paid leave), maybe we could see some changes? I have no idea.

Corruption is something else entirely. I refuse to believe that all police officers are good people. The solution for this, clearly, is Batman.

Well, I'm white, so I don't really worry about cops.

(SPOILER)Yes, that was a joke. Relax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unbreakable Will

Not to mention a severe need for a zero-tolerance disciplinary action system.

---

And then you won't have any cops left, and thus anarchy. Would you apply for a job where if you smurf up once, you're out the door? I wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

It seems to me that there are many instances when an officer outright does something unacceptable, and the harshest thing I've yet to see is that they are suspended with pay. What is the reason that most people abstain from doing something at work that they know they aren't supposed to do? The possibility of getting fired. What are the actual chances of an officer getting fired for misbehaving or making an incorrect decision? Probably pretty low.

---

OK, there we go -- so discipline needs to be tougher, but not to the point of zero tolerance. I think it's almost impossible to get fired from the RCMP. If I could easily get hired, I'd be tempted to do the dick helicopter just outside the station on my first day to see if that did the trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

Well, I'm white, so I don't really worry about cops.

(SPOILER)Yes, that was a joke. Relax.

---

(SPOILER)That's why this isn't in EoEO :)

I hate cops, because they give me speeding tickets for going 9 over and they really shouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogs > Cats

I hate cops, because they give me speeding tickets for going 9 over and they really shouldn't.

---

Hell, one gave my sister a ticket for going 90 on i95. Obviously the speed limit is 95... wth?

Interestingly, the justice system in North Carolina is crooked as smurf apparently. Got it changed to a non-moving violation before the court date. lol. Unheard of in PA at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen Bleys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unbreakable Will

Not to mention a severe need for a zero-tolerance disciplinary action system.

---

And then you won't have any cops left, and thus anarchy. Would you apply for a job where if you smurf up once, you're out the door? I wouldn't.

---

That wasn't what I meant, I intended to describe it a bit more but ran out of time before work. ;~;

As far as a zero-tolerance for cops I meant for the really heinous smurfed up trout we see and hear about everyday. So when we hear something like; Sgt. Douchepickle of the LAPD shot an innocent man in the street for pulling a lighter and a pack of cigarettes from his pocket (dramatic but you get the picture) and was only given a suspension due to officer Douchepickle 'feeling threatened'. With a zero-tolerance policy we would hear; That bastard Douchepickle got his ass canned after shooting a man for no smurfing reason.
:monster:

Police should be held to a higher standard than normal people (as should every other civil servant). The first step to improving them is to actually hold them accountable for their trout. Zero tolerance for intentional :bou::bou::bou::bou:ery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unbreakable Will

Sgt. Douchepickle of the LAPD shot an innocent man in the street for pulling a lighter and a pack of cigarettes from his pocket (dramatic but you get the picture) and was only given a suspension due to officer Douchepickle 'feeling threatened'. With a zero-tolerance policy we would hear; That bastard Douchepickle got his ass canned after shooting a man for no smurfing reason.
:monster:

---

No.
Sgt Douchepickle shot him because he felt threatened, as he had the right to. There is something called escalation of force. In this situation I would assume Sgt. Douchepickle had applied it and yelled at innocent man in the street to stop what he was doing and had yelled the warned that he was going to shoot before I actually did.

I believe this came up in that cop thread, but why not institute a civilian review board to overlook cases of police brutality and other such offenses?

That way the issues are getting looked at by unbiased parties rather then fellow police.

Troll. You guys made this thread expecting me to come in here explaining how a free market resolution product would just result in outright eternal war every time somebody stole another kid's pencil at school, right?

What would I do to fix the police? Nothing. Internal affairs is omniscient and benevolent and that's all the policing of the police we need. Just ask Wesley.

This is GC so I'll just go ahead and say it blithely: there's no fixing the system unless you have competition. Competition can't happen against central government (go ahead and try to print your own money, or try to opt out of programs and stop paying taxes) - so given your givens, we have no change.

Well there's the option for voting for somebody else. Somebody who will get things done.

Thanks for playing Bleys.

I want to shoot whoever gave pg a copy of Libertarianism 101.

I'm willing to bet that one of those reps is from pg.

Not yet.

Well, I'll be. He's normally the first to rep comments like that. xD

My father was a police officer for a number of years, so I think they've never really seemed threatening to me. It's funny how perceptions are different though. While I was at university, I was walking through York with a friend who was from London. We passed two police officers who said 'hello' as we walked past them. She was genuinely weirded out by this, and was convinced you'd never get that in London, whereas I thought it was relatively common outside of cities.

I think one of the things that is important is that there is as much transparency as is practically possible from the police, and as much engagement as possible between citizens and the police. I think, in Britain, the public trust in the police has probably been badly shaken by the recent Hillsborough Inquest findings and rightly so. There's always going to be a certain degree of mistrust of the police, I think, because of the authority they represent. I think the critical thing is being able to trust them, and having faith in them to administer justice fairly and without prejudice.

I'm impressed I got through this post without using the word pleb! Oh, hang on...

I could go on this topic forever. Really. I'm just going to briefly list and summarize a few things, though (note, some of these may only apply in the US):

1. Get rid of "internal investigations." Entirely separate agencies should investigate police for misconduct.

2. Implement civilian review boards, which have the power to investigate and discipline cops, including the power to fire.

3. Give cops full whistle-blower protection, making it a crime to fire a cop for snitching on other cops.

4. Eliminate qualified immunity for lawsuits against police officers, making it easier to find cops personally financially liable for their mistakes.

5. Make it easier to fire cops with bad histories in general, and implement higher standards in hiring former cops so that bad cops aren't merely shuffled from department to department.

6. Make it a crime for cops to inhibit the public recording of cops engaged in official duties.

7. Have the cops themselves record everything humanly possible. All interactions with the public, all interviews, etc. should be taped. Make it a crime to stop the recording, and implement legal presumptions against the police if the recordings are stopped (i.e., if there's a lawsuit against a cop for conduct that happened when the recording wasn't on, the court will presume the unrecorded facts against the officer).

8. End the war on drugs. Seriously. This, and the resulting stat games, are a huge cause of the us vs. them attitudes, from both the public and the police. The police are no longer protecting the community, but looking for arrests and seizures.

9. Speaking of seizures, just eradicate the current policy of asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize property that they suspect has anything to do with any crime, regardless of evidence or due process -- and then keep that money for their own department.

10. Another policy that needs changed: the use of SWAT and other paramilitary tactics. These should be used extremely rarely only in inherently high-risk situations (such as with hostages or standoffs), not to bust down the door of someone suspected of only non-violent drug offenses in the middle of the night. This current policy of KNOCK DOWN ALL THE DOORS endangers both cops and civilians, and further encourages the "us vs. them" attitude.

That's enough for now. The biggest issue is accountability. The sense of entitlement among cops is so prevalent because cops are almost never held accountable for their actions. This needs to change, and is what the majority of my recommended changes addresses.

Happy, Bleys? :p

Or you could just leave everything as is. The problem lays with a few individuals who drag bad press to the police forces. Not the whole or even the majority are like these few individuals.

Us vs Them. That is exactly how it is. Police officers need to see themselves on a different level or whatever than the civilians they protect. It allows them to think more clearly and objectively make decisions based on the situation.

If there are only a few bad apples, then how would Raistlin's suggestions harm the police as a whole?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I could go on this topic forever. Really. I'm just going to briefly list and summarize a few things, though (note, some of these may only apply in the US):

1. Get rid of "internal investigations." Entirely separate agencies should investigate police for misconduct.

2. Implement civilian review boards, which have the power to investigate and discipline cops, including the power to fire.

3. Give cops full whistle-blower protection, making it a crime to fire a cop for snitching on other cops.

4. Eliminate qualified immunity for lawsuits against police officers, making it easier to find cops personally financially liable for their mistakes.

5. Make it easier to fire cops with bad histories in general, and implement higher standards in hiring former cops so that bad cops aren't merely shuffled from department to department.

6. Make it a crime for cops to inhibit the public recording of cops engaged in official duties.

7. Have the cops themselves record everything humanly possible. All interactions with the public, all interviews, etc. should be taped. Make it a crime to stop the recording, and implement legal presumptions against the police if the recordings are stopped (i.e., if there's a lawsuit against a cop for conduct that happened when the recording wasn't on, the court will presume the unrecorded facts against the officer).

8. End the war on drugs. Seriously. This, and the resulting stat games, are a huge cause of the us vs. them attitudes, from both the public and the police. The police are no longer protecting the community, but looking for arrests and seizures.

9. Speaking of seizures, just eradicate the current policy of asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize property that they suspect has anything to do with any crime, regardless of evidence or due process -- and then keep that money for their own department.

10. Another policy that needs changed: the use of SWAT and other paramilitary tactics. These should be used extremely rarely only in inherently high-risk situations (such as with hostages or standoffs), not to bust down the door of someone suspected of only non-violent drug offenses in the middle of the night. This current policy of KNOCK DOWN ALL THE DOORS endangers both cops and civilians, and further encourages the "us vs. them" attitude.

That's enough for now. The biggest issue is accountability. The sense of entitlement among cops is so prevalent because cops are almost never held accountable for their actions. This needs to change, and is what the majority of my recommended changes addresses.

Happy, Bleys? :p

---

Given how rarely I post on my face book, perhaps I shall just post this. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Happy, Bleys? :p

---

Yes. This is exactly what I wanted.

Opposition to any or all of these points would be a bonus, but I don't have a problem with any of them.

comment on Raistlin's post:

#1 and #2 would have huge tendencies to become cronyistic and worthless. The CRTC is basically composed of people from big media corporations. Imagine a civilian run investigations organisation where ex-cops can get work after they retire.

To add to Raistlin's post:

Eliminate the police union.

my personal run-ins with the police:
1 speeding ticket for going 46 in a 30 zone
1 warning, no ticket for going 52 in a 30 zone
1 information taking at a car accident in which i was involved but not at fault

i don't have enough data to give a good post other than that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peegee

Imagine a civilian run investigations organisation where ex-cops can get work after they retire.

---

...called the Commissionaires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World

No.
Sgt Douchepickle shot him because he felt threatened, as he had the right to. There is something called escalation of force. In this situation I would assume Sgt. Douchepickle had applied it and yelled at innocent man in the street to stop what he was doing and had yelled the warned that he was going to shoot before I actually did.

---

Since this is in fact a hypothetical situation, let's go further down the rabbit hole and assume Sgt. DP did nothing of the sort, and instead flipped his trout on said smoking civilian without following protocol. Let's not have a 'oh he wouldn't do that' discussion because frankly that kind of trout does indeed happen from time to time.