Do Police have too MUCH POWER?

  • News
  • Thread starter timejim
  • Start date
  • #26
Zero
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Every few months or so you'll hear about the cops beating or shooting somebody to death, usually black, with eye witness saying it was completely unjustified, and the cops getting off scott free. And I'm willing to bet that the ones we see and read about are just the tip of the iceberg.

Not that I'm saying all cops are bad. They're just human. And humans break laws. And power corrupts.

There's supposed to be all kinds of methods to keep corrupt cops out of the uniform but I think the system has broken down and corrupt cops run free.
The problem is partially that some people feel that anyone in authority is correct, especially against minorities. Plus, it always turns into a political issue, and stupid moron Repugnican media whores always take the side of cops, because they are apparently ordained by God to shoot colored and wetbacks, or some such racist nonsense.
 
  • #27
member 5645
Originally posted by skywise

Here's the "robo-cops" pointing their guns at eye level-
http://www.hulla-balloo.com/ftaapics/violence/281424.jpg
explain to me why they should be holding them some other way.
 
  • #28
81
0
Originally posted by wasteofo2
Strange, I've those same senses and same general geographic location, yet I would have guessed the police force would have wanted smart people in their force so they could advance up in the ranks and improve the police force as a whole, guess that the people in charge don't have a high enough IQ to realize that, gotta love slipery slopes.
Well, have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? A cop with an IQ of 110 and a cop with an IQ of 180 can do the same job with equal competence (the work the position calls for). You don't need to have a high IQ to do some jobs. The ppl. in charge don't want to hire ultra high IQ types because, purportedly, they would get sick of doing that kind of work and high turn over reflects badly on management. One can also wonder if other reasons don't include not wanting cops who are too smart shaking things up...
Looking at the reports of police brutality, my response isn't, "how can this happen?" Rather it is, "I can't believe it doesn't happen more often!" There is already a great deal of cop burn out. They have to deal with people and situations that surely would drive the best of us to want to beat the crap out of someone eventually. The police deal with ppl. who are depraved and stupid and don't learn from their expereinces. Ever watch "COPS"? I know I don't have the temperament to be so patient (probably helps that they're on camera) day in and day out with white trash (etc.) and all manner of 'tards. It's also worth noting that cops have to deal with the kind of ppl. who make an extra effort to create "white cop on black victim" situations. The cop who knocked that kid onto a car -- if you had x-ray vision and could see through cars you would see that the kid had grabbed the crotch of the cop standing directly behind him. This was corroborated beyond a shadow of a doubt by everyone who was on that side of the car and saw the whole thing, which is why the incident died down in the news, unlike the King incident. So when it comes to the story I saw about the cop who couldn't get on the force because he scored to high on an IQ test; he may have tested high, but I have to wonder about his intelligence. Why would an above average mentality want to do that work? Midlife crisis? Ignorance? Ofcourse, this was commercial tv doing the reporting (first time I heard of it) and so you can't assume you're getting the whole story. Incidentally, this isn't just true of the police. Filtering out for maximum and minimum IQ levels happens in other business settings, too.
 
  • #29
466
2


Originally posted by Zero
Actually, the police own a certain amount of the blame, since they are the ones who collect the evidence.
They collect evidence for arrests, so they are partially responsible for even accusing a peroson falsely, but unless a lawyer empolys a police officer as a detective or something, after the person enters trial police aren't involved except as witnesses.
 
  • #30
Zero


Originally posted by wasteofo2
They collect evidence for arrests, so they are partially responsible for even accusing a peroson falsely, but unless a lawyer empolys a police officer as a detective or something, after the person enters trial police aren't involved except as witnesses.
Dude, you should watch more Law and Order...or maybe I should watch less...

There was a case in NC recently where a man has been released after 19 years, after being falsely convicted of a rape/murder. The cops almost completely ignored other suspects, including the person who actually did it, and who was a suspect.
 
  • #31
21
0
phatmonkey said-
explain to me why they should be holding them some other way.
Because rubber bullets are potentially lethal weapons if they strike a person in the head. I had it explained to me thus, regarding the rubber bullet protocol- there are three zones..
green zone is the legs- use it to back people off and warn,
the yellow zone is the torso below the shoulders- use it to knock a person down,
the red zone is supposed to be off limits- above the shoulders because that is considered lethal force.
Since when are cops given the go-ahead to use lethal force against American citizens excercizing their first amendment rights?
 
  • #32
Njorl
Science Advisor
258
10
Police have too much power if we let them get away with it. Sometimes it is hard to hold them accountable for abuses. Where I live, I think they do a good job. One county over (PG county Maryland) they are an abomination.

"Killing with impunity"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A64231-2001Jun29&notFound=true

Here are some highlights:

"Almost half of those shot were unarmed, and many had committed no crime. Unlike many departments, Prince George's top police officials concluded that every one of the shootings was justified. "

In 1997, police said they shot and killed a distraught college student because he attacked them with a knife. When his family sued years later, the officers admitted under oath that the dead man never touched the alleged weapon – which turned out to be a butter knife sitting on a kitchen counter. "

And my favorite (least favorite really):

"In 1998, two officers said they fatally shot a Landover teenager in self-defense after he tried to grab their guns. In fact, records indicate he was shot 13 times in the back while he was unconscious and lying facedown on the floor."

In PG county Maryland, being a police officer is sufficient justification for any shooting.

I can't believe this still goes on. It was like that when I was a kid growing up in Philadelphia. A friend of my brother's called a cop a pig. The cop pulled out his gun and shot him, in front of many witnesses. He then cuffed him and refused to let an ambulance take him away. They threw him in the back of a wagon and let him bleed to death. Nothing happened to any of the cops involved. Persistant lawsuits finally changed the Philadelphia police significantly for the better.

Njorl
 
  • #33
member 5645
Originally posted by skywise
phatmonkey said-


Because rubber bullets are potentially lethal weapons if they strike a person in the head. I had it explained to me thus, regarding the rubber bullet protocol- there are three zones..
green zone is the legs- use it to back people off and warn,
the yellow zone is the torso below the shoulders- use it to knock a person down,
the red zone is supposed to be off limits- above the shoulders because that is considered lethal force.
Since when are cops given the go-ahead to use lethal force against American citizens excercizing their first amendment rights?
So the cops should HOLD the gun at waist level? Or may I suggest that somehow the cops can actually AIM the gun, while holding properly? There is no other proper way to hold that shotgun. It takes a few degrees change to shoot at another body part, and eye level is the proper way to hold the butt against your shoulder and aim.
So I repeat, how SHOULD they be holding them? Not what should they aim at, how should they be holding them?
 
  • #34
Zero
Originally posted by phatmonky
So the cops should HOLD the gun at waist level? Or may I suggest that somehow the cops can actually AIM the gun, while holding properly? There is no other proper way to hold that shotgun. It takes a few degrees change to shoot at another body part, and eye level is the proper way to hold the butt against your shoulder and aim.
So I repeat, how SHOULD they be holding them? Not what should they aim at, how should they be holding them?
They should aim it at the ground, unless they are actually shooting it.
 
  • #35
member 5645
Originally posted by Zero
They should aim it at the ground, unless they are actually shooting it.
Well they are shooting it - we aren't discussing whether they are right or wrong to go after this crowd, we are discussing how they should be holding the gun.
With 100's of people, if the cop wants to target several, the gun needs to be in a firing position in order ot go quickly from one target to the next. Holding it at the ground after every shot is stupid and allows attacks of opportunity on the police.

If the police shoot one suspect, and it enrages another, he needs to be prepared to shoot the other. In this situation, the crowd is already dispersing, and people are also throwing things - the situation has already escalated, thus he is doing what he should.
Now the reason for the situation's escalation can be easily pointed to the cops as a whole, but the gun holding is not wrong, nor is it reckless
 
  • #36
russ_watters
Mentor
19,859
6,278
Originally posted by motai
Hmm... Seems like tellie is another word for television or telephone, most likely the former.
I know, there just aren't a lot of Americans who call it that.
Here's the "robo-cops" pointing their guns at eye level-
There is absolutely no context given for that photo - not enough information to even figure out what they are doing exactly, much less if it is right or wrong. For example, on what do you base the assumption that the guns are loaded with rubber bullets?

Useless, useless discussion. The general topic of police authority is a good one though.
 

Related Threads on Do Police have too MUCH POWER?

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
595
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
673
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
Top