[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
slimjim wrote:
I don’t even like cops…
I’m sure they don’t like you either…(eye roll)
(eye roll again)
Doesn’t this problem arise due to who the cops don’t like?[/quote]
Not really. Everyone doesn’t like someone. The problem arises when a city is so corrupt that cops are allowed to act on their dislikes without fear of punishment, or retribution.
Some people who choose to be police officers have an unhealthy affinity for authority and control.
I don’t know… I think perhaps there should be a second police force, not simply an internal affairs department, at the national level, with the mandate to ensure that the police do not abuse their authority.
This isn’t the same as throwing things out of court for not following procedure, this is prosecution of police who engage in illegal activities in a proactive (not reactive) manner.
In the operation of a nation, the trust of the police and authorities by the populace is a huge thing. Honestly, I know many people who “hate” police (which I think is very misguided) and believe they are all crooked.
Then again, you have people who can’t imagine that anyone in authority would ever cheat, lie or steal. Imagine, somehow giving people authority suddenly makes them perfect and magically removes all their human failings.
What a crock!
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know… I think perhaps there should be a second police force, not simply an internal affairs department, at the national level, with the mandate to ensure that the police do not abuse their authority.
[/quote]
No national police force. Not while I am alive.
Rainjack, I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think I mean what you are interpreting.
For example, the FBI is national.
I’m not talking about a force that polices the populace, that is for sure. I’m talking about an agency which exists solely for the purpose of investigating authorative government agencies to detect abuses of authority.
I don’t believe this exists at the current time. We have agencies which can get called in to investigate, but only in a reactive manner. I don’t think the deterrent to abuse of authority within positions of power is high enough – because we have too much of it happening.
[edit]
By the way, this would represent an opinion… wow, imagine that Rainjack. You’ll find them peppered all over the place if you open your eyes to look.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Not really. Everyone doesn’t like someone. The problem arises when a city is so corrupt that cops are allowed to act on their dislikes without fear of punishment, or retribution.
[/quote]
And this is exactly what goes on in N.O. The police are able to get away with abuse pretty easily.
[quote]vroom wrote:
By the way, this would represent an opinion… wow, imagine that Rainjack. You’ll find them peppered all over the place if you open your eyes to look.[/quote]
Which is much different than imagining possibilities.
The problem with anything “National” is that it would be national. It would be a bureacracy. Please name one that is worth a damn, and maybe I’d agree with you.
Rainjack, I was always enamored with both the FBI and the CIA (honestly).
I think they’ve lost their luster over the years though.
Integrity and non-involvement in politics would do them a world of good. I think any ability for politicians to influence or pressure these organizations cheapens them.
Anyway, to go back to the topic at hand, when you have large segments of the population distrusting the police (or worse) then you have a more unruly populace that requires “more” policing.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
By the way, this would represent an opinion… wow, imagine that Rainjack. You’ll find them peppered all over the place if you open your eyes to look.
Which is much different than imagining possibilities.
The problem with anything “National” is that it would be national. It would be a bureacracy. Please name one that is worth a damn, and maybe I’d agree with you.
[/quote]
National I.D.
hmmmmmmm.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
National I.D.
hmmmmmmm.
[/quote]
I have a question for you, Prof -
When you are writing a check at Walmart, or someother store, do you ever submit to putting your finger print on the check?
Maybe they don’t have that system where you are, but in Texas they have been doing this for a couple of years.
A National Police Review Board?
Not going to happen, or at least it shouldn’t. It would be blatantly un-Constitutional. To be able to have a standard of handling and investigation one would have to standardize all police powers across all states, or the bureaucracy would have to be overly large to attempt to deal with the variance in local law. The variance in local law is a Constitutionally protected right of the states and a powerful weapon against the overt power of a large federal gov’t. Unfortunately, the Constitution has taken a few hits lately:intrastate marijuana law enforcement, and eminent domain.
Police brutality sucks. It’s part of hiring humans to do work where a objective mindset is required at all times.
As for the responsibilities of the police department to the people. For municipal police departments the onus is on the Police Commision, the City Council, and the Mayor’s office to influence internal affairs to keep the use of force at a reasonable level. This is a responsibility of the local voters. Good luck to them.
N.O. has made some serious political errors that perpetuated a highly corrupt and nepotistic system… Hopefully, this rebuilding will give them a chance to clean house… I just hope that Nagin and Blanco are not deified in the vein of Guiliani. Otherwise N.O. is in for more of the same.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
National I.D.
hmmmmmmm.
I have a question for you, Prof -
When you are writing a check at Walmart, or someother store, do you ever submit to putting your finger print on the check?
Maybe they don’t have that system where you are, but in Texas they have been doing this for a couple of years.
[/quote]
I don’t write checks except in very rare occasions. Either way, that isn’t the point. The point is, the same issue you had with Vroom’s recommendation of a national police or anything else “national” is the exact same argument heard by those who oppose the national ID…yet republicans often act as if anyone making that statement is a lunatic.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
National I.D.
hmmmmmmm.
I have a question for you, Prof -
When you are writing a check at Walmart, or someother store, do you ever submit to putting your finger print on the check?
Maybe they don’t have that system where you are, but in Texas they have been doing this for a couple of years.
I don’t write checks except in very rare occasions. Either way, that isn’t the point. The point is, the same issue you had with Vroom’s recommendation of a national police or anything else “national” is the exact same argument heard by those who oppose the national ID…yet republicans often act as if anyone making that statement is a lunatic.[/quote]
No one has asked me about a national I.D. card. I think it is a horrible idea. As bad as getting finger-printed for wrtiing a check.
But now that the cattle are already out of the barn, i.e. SS number, DL number, etc. Why act as if a national ID card is somehow worse than those?
Please don’t misunderstand me - I am steadfastlyagainst the implementation of an ID card, but where was the bitching and moaning about allow fucking credit card companies access to my SSN? Why is it that I have to put MY SSN on my tax return? Why is it that you can’t open a fucking bank account without either a SSN or DL#?
How is an ID card going to make personal privacy anymore of a joke than it already is?
Prof. X,
Actually, you already have one maybe two National IDs.A SoSec Card and a Passport.
That is within the domain of the federal gov’t as it covers taxation and travel into/out of the national borders.
However, requiring the local gov’t to recognize the federal ID for anything other than federal taxation is a power that the federal gov’t does NOT have.
Constitutionally speaking of course.
So to require an update to the national ID for employment purposes is within the national gov’ts power. For the federal gov’t to require that ID card for voter identification would be illegitimate.
In retrospect, the only reason your SoSec doesn’t have your picture on it presently is the level of bureaucracy that would require.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
National I.D.
hmmmmmmm.
I have a question for you, Prof -
When you are writing a check at Walmart, or someother store, do you ever submit to putting your finger print on the check?
Maybe they don’t have that system where you are, but in Texas they have been doing this for a couple of years.
I don’t write checks except in very rare occasions. Either way, that isn’t the point. The point is, the same issue you had with Vroom’s recommendation of a national police or anything else “national” is the exact same argument heard by those who oppose the national ID…yet republicans often act as if anyone making that statement is a lunatic.
No one has asked me about a national I.D. card. I think it is a horrible idea. As bad as getting finger-printed for wrtiing a check.
But now that the cattle are already out of the barn, i.e. SS number, DL number, etc. Why act as if a national ID card is somehow worse than those?
Please don’t misunderstand me - I am steadfastlyagainst the implementation of an ID card, but where was the bitching and moaning about allow fucking credit card companies access to my SSN? Why is it that I have to put MY SSN on my tax return? Why is it that you can’t open a fucking bank account without either a SSN or DL#?
How is an ID card going to make personal privacy anymore of a joke than it already is?
[/quote]
I usually don’t get into these discussions, but this one I had to comment on. Personal privacy is a joke. You can’t do anything without supplying your SSN, which is the most private data people have. An ID card will only further take away privacy. I don’t think you should be asked for any of that unless it’s to put money in your account from your work. Creditor’s, insurers, and even cell phone companies have no right to that info, yet they demand it and it is given to them. That is a big problem to me.
[quote]WMD wrote:
ZEB wrote:
ZEB is purely incapable of questioning authority. Even when that authority is clearly out of control. Poor little fella.[/quote]
He stated that he didn’t like cops. Didn’t say anything about those specific cops. Is it okay just to hate policemen for the sake of it in your world? Yea…I suppose it is.
[quote]quan2m wrote:
N.O. has made some serious political errors that perpetuated a highly corrupt and nepotistic system… Hopefully, this rebuilding will give them a chance to clean house… I just hope that Nagin and Blanco are not deified in the vein of Guiliani. Otherwise N.O. is in for more of the same.[/quote]
And, it’s been going on for over 100 years. Hell, the first Police Chief of New Orleans to come in and commit to cleaning it up was killed in broad daylight on Bourbon Street.
This happened back in the early 1900’s. If you follow the JFK assassination you will see it was New Orleans mobster Carlos Marcello that spearheaded the hit.
As for Blanco and Nagin, I did not vote for either of them, however do feel that they are taking MORE than their fair share of criticism. Had this storm hit over the past 60 years, the results would have been the same or worse regardless of who was mayor or governor. Those two positions have both been the steadiest contributers to the crookedness of the government here for 150 years.
[quote]BIGRAGOO wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Not really. Everyone doesn’t like someone. The problem arises when a city is so corrupt that cops are allowed to act on their dislikes without fear of punishment, or retribution.
And this is exactly what goes on in N.O. The police are able to get away with abuse pretty easily.[/quote]
Yes, I think they (NOPD) classify it as “resisting arrest” and it all goes away…
I would have to agree with those that argue that corporations have managed to have easier access to your privacy than you have.
Unfortunately, the person pursuing a loan or the credit afforded a check is surrendering to the demands of the loaning authority.
That’s why I am a cash-only man. Even for my car and house.
[quote]geekboy wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
Hmm, cropped up on the BBC. Not what New Orleans needs. I wonder if this is common accross a lot of police forces and it would be found anywhere if the spot light was on them like it is on that city or if its just an unhappy coincidence.
It is on the news over this side of the planet too. From what I heard the cop said to the reporter, it seems like he lost it after all these disasters. I am not familiar with American’s police culture, but I hope this is not a common practice.
geek boy[/quote]
No this is not a common practice. But, it does happen. Police officers are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to control the situation. And then you progress up the use of force scale to what ever responce is needed. All the way up the scale to deadly force.
If Im not mistaken and I remember my training correctly. At no point does it say to punch the guy in the face when he already has 2 other cops on him. Now to defend yourself yes. But, not when he is already restrained and on the ground.
Things like that are why people hate cops. And the sad thing is that only a few are like that.
The rest are there just as it says on the patrol car. To Protect and serve.
Goku
They should fire those cops & throw them in jail.That man was no threat to anyone,and if those cops couldnt control the situation without those tactacts they shouldnt have been on their job in the 1st place.This kind of thing happens a lot in our country ,and people just think the guy must have deserved it, and as long as it doesnt happen to them ,they dont do anything.
The city near me has had plenty of these incidents,and the majority of the high ranking cops,are from the same high school and political party and a lot are related.If you get stopped by a city cop they generally give you a hard time no matter if your courteous,its almost as if they try to provoke an altercation.It used to be the county sheriffs were all nice,but now they are starting to get a lot of these gun-ho pricks to.