Police Ticket Quota

Off Topic
222

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.

Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.

I’d like comments on this from the gun owners who’ve participated in this thread.

BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, gun or no gun. [/quote]

This attempt at equivalency won’t wash. Anyone with a sense of logic and reason knows why. It’s not even worthy of debate.

Not your best effort, my friend.[/quote]

I did not expect a debate. You missed the point of the post.

I could have just as easily wrote the following:

This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.

Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.

I’d like comments on this from the Naval reservists who’ve participated in this thread.

BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, Naval reservist or not.

Hey, this is the second Naval reservist this year to go on a shooting spree. I think Naval reservists are out of control.

223

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.

Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.

I’d like comments on this from the gun owners who’ve participated in this thread.

BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, gun or no gun. [/quote]

Well, my comment is that this guy was either a psychopath, or was a paid assassin made to appear like one.

Do you mean to say that the situations are equivalent? That the rare occurrences of bad apples in law enforcement can be explained either by psychopathy or conspiracy?[/quote]

No, I am not saying the stories are equal. I was illustrating the broad stroke of the brush applied to the groups of people identified in the posts.

I used gun ownership because I knew it would draw a response.

226

Push,

I’m with Brett on the response regarding the roadside search. I remember seeing that on TV after it happened, and I turned to my wife and said, “What the f*%k were those two thinking?” There’s no defending it, so I’m not even going to try. Stupidity.

It reminds me of a thread that was on here a couple years back where some Canadian cop knocked down a homeless lady who had some kind of mental illness, and got caught on video. There was no defending his actions…I even made that same comment back then.

If a police officer makes an honest mistake in the course of genuinely trying to put a legitimate bad guy in jail, then I think most people are willing to accept that. However, when it is clearly not an honest mistake, then they deserve to be punished. I can’t really make it any simpler than that.

WN76,

My feelings about fire-hall style policing are mixed, honestly. From the perspective of reducing complaints, on the surface it makes sense. No proactive policing means nobody can claim they were profiled, or unfairly singled out, or wrongly accused. Further, you get no complaints about traffic stops or the associated nonsense that goes with those.

However, we can’t stop doing our jobs in an effort to avoid complaints. For many of us, part of the “lure” of the job was hunting down criminals. So many of our encounters with people are with victims…so when we get an opportunity to after go after bad guys on our own terms, it makes up for the more mundane stuff. I personally like that part of the job, however, it does generate more complaints.

A lot of it is going to depend on your administration and how they handle complaints. If they back you for the most part, then the need for fire hall policing doesn’t really exist. Alternatively, if they DON’T back you, then I could see the desire to do it.

I just personally wouldn’t be able to do it for very long. I’m in a very pro-active, specialized unit. It would go against my desire to get out and work.

228

Yes. I get it. I was just giving you my perspective on the specific bad cops you mentioned, and the general perspective most of us have.

I think law enforcement has a lot more grey in it than most other professions. It’s not as black and white as most people assume.

Ha! Black and white…see what I did there?

229

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.

Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.

I’d like comments on this from the gun owners who’ve participated in this thread.

BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, gun or no gun. [/quote]

Well, my comment is that this guy was either a psychopath, or was a paid assassin made to appear like one.

Do you mean to say that the situations are equivalent? That the rare occurrences of bad apples in law enforcement can be explained either by psychopathy or conspiracy?

[/quote]

No, I am not saying the stories are equal. I was illustrating the broad stroke of the brush applied to the groups of people identified in the posts.

I used gun ownership because I knew it would draw a response. [/quote]

The broad stroke of the brush doesn’t logically work because it fails the equivalency test.[/quote]

Equivalency of what exactly?

231

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t you understand that this is a “bad apples” thread? Don’t you understand that getting a “bad apple” cop is far more critical than getting a “bad apple” plumber? Or gas station attendant? Or car mechanic? Or accountant? Or landscaper? Or factory worker?
[/quote]

A mechanic can cost you thousands in repairs on an asset that is worth tens of thousands of dollars. A bad plumber can ruin your home(I know a guy who had 3 feet of sewage in his basement due to a bad plumber). An accountant can ruin your life if they bungle your retirement fund(a friend lost over $100K of his father’s inheritance because of an accountant). A lot of these expenses cost more than a speeding ticket, some cost more than a criminal defense.

233

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Push,

I’m with Brett on the response regarding the roadside search. I remember seeing that on TV after it happened, and I turned to my wife and said, “What the f*%k were those two thinking?” There’s no defending it, so I’m not even going to try. Stupidity.

It reminds me of a thread that was on here a couple years back where some Canadian cop knocked down a homeless lady who had some kind of mental illness, and got caught on video. There was no defending his actions…I even made that same comment back then.

If a police officer makes an honest mistake in the course of genuinely trying to put a legitimate bad guy in jail, then I think most people are willing to accept that. However, when it is clearly not an honest mistake, then they deserve to be punished. I can’t really make it any simpler than that.

[/quote]

See, what you and the others seem to have missed is that “we” don’t necessarily have a problem with YOU and YOUR kind of police officer. Are you guys “getting that” yet?

Don’t you understand that this is a “bad apples” thread? Don’t you understand that getting a “bad apple” cop is far more critical than getting a “bad apple” plumber? Or gas station attendant? Or car mechanic? Or accountant? Or landscaper? Or factory worker?

Savvy?

I’m in the construction business. If you started a thread about how some construction industry professionals screwed you out of whatever you wouldn’t catch me whining about how you were painting all construction industry personnel with a broad brush nor would I feel the need to list all the good things done by those in construction in order to converse on the topic.

I would just essentially say, “YEAH, crooked construction businesses suck and I’m glad I’m not one of 'em.”
[/quote]

This actually started as a “ticket quota” thread which indicates corruption within the entire department. It has morphed into two or three different things from there. Some of the posts have been blanket F-The-Police rants (not saying yours are) and that has touched a never or two. But I understand what you are saying. A bad police officer is in a position to do way more damage than a bad mortician or a bad museum curator. A bad police officer can take life and liberty. A bad librarian can lose books. Bad librarians, that reminds me of back when I was in highschool…

234

I’m not sure which is worse, bad officers or bad doctors. Either way, I think that’s a lot more fitting comparison. Both are necessary and both can ruin your life. And both are limited to acting within certain policy guidelines, and both can be audited very severely for violating those policies.

I think there’s a lot less of a “protect your own” mentality among doctors though. It can be nearly impossible to prove an officer was in the wrong when other officers and/or the administration is backing them. Not full-blown corruption, but it’s still in very gray territory.

235

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m not sure which is worse, bad officers or bad doctors. Either way, I think that’s a lot more fitting comparison. Both are necessary and both can ruin your life. And both are limited to acting within certain policy guidelines, and both can be audited very severely for violating those policies.

I think there’s a lot less of a “protect your own” mentality among doctors though. It can be nearly impossible to prove an officer was in the wrong when other officers and/or the administration is backing them. Not full-blown corruption, but it’s still in very gray territory.[/quote]

I think a bad doctor is a bad analogy. I can google and choose what doctor I go to. I can say, “I’d like to get a second opinion”. You don’t really have that option with a bad cop.

237

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Push,

I’m with Brett on the response regarding the roadside search. I remember seeing that on TV after it happened, and I turned to my wife and said, “What the f*%k were those two thinking?” There’s no defending it, so I’m not even going to try. Stupidity.

It reminds me of a thread that was on here a couple years back where some Canadian cop knocked down a homeless lady who had some kind of mental illness, and got caught on video. There was no defending his actions…I even made that same comment back then.

If a police officer makes an honest mistake in the course of genuinely trying to put a legitimate bad guy in jail, then I think most people are willing to accept that. However, when it is clearly not an honest mistake, then they deserve to be punished. I can’t really make it any simpler than that.

[/quote]

See, what you and the others seem to have missed is that “we” don’t necessarily have a problem with YOU and YOUR kind of police officer. Are you guys “getting that” yet?

Don’t you understand that this is a “bad apples” thread? Don’t you understand that getting a “bad apple” cop is far more critical than getting a “bad apple” plumber? Or gas station attendant? Or car mechanic? Or accountant? Or landscaper? Or factory worker?

Savvy?

I’m in the construction business. If you started a thread about how some construction industry professionals screwed you out of whatever you wouldn’t catch me whining about how you were painting all construction industry personnel with a broad brush nor would I feel the need to list all the good things done by those in construction in order to converse on the topic.

I would just essentially say, “YEAH, crooked construction businesses suck and I’m glad I’m not one of 'em.”
[/quote]

I understand your point. And I agree due to our unique position we should be held to a much higher standard. I think with the “bad apple” part, the actual “bad apples” are far less than the average public suspects. The only way you would truly understand is if you worked and lived in this environment. Then you would have first-hand knowledge of this.

See, we have first-hand knowledge of the few bad apples, but we know the public has a misconception on how “corrupt” we are. That’s the rub for me. And there is no way I can convince you otherwise, since you would have to experience it first-hand.

The average citizen is unaware of the internal control most major departments have these days. Now, I bet it’s far different in the small towns- I give you that. But I’m talking major cities with large departments that police urban areas (where I work). The review and oversight for our actions would make you cringe. In fact, these days it’s become a huge Officer Safety issue, since it makes some guys hesitant to act (say in a use of force situation) for fear of being disciplined/reprimanded/complained on etc.

238

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.

Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.

I’d like comments on this from the LEO’s who’ve participated in this thread.

BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, badge or no badge.[/quote]

Brett620 covered it well.

I requested answers concerning two questions I had, but no one stepped up to the plate. I’ll ask again.

What are the thoughts on fire-hall style policing?

Why is it OK to make an assumption about a group of people and treat them accordingly without even knowing them? Would you be able to see past your initial assumption?

[/quote]

Could you explain what “fire hall style policing” is? I’ve never heard of it and nothing is coming up on Google. Perhaps that’s why you haven’t gotten a response.[/quote]

A reactive style of policing instead of a proactive style. Cops would sit in the office until called upon, like a fire hall. [/quote]

I wonder if the citizen of South Chicago could vote on this. Chicago does not use stop and frisk, and look at their murder rate. Compare it to NYC which does use it effectively (although that liberal judge is causing a hissy). Compare their murders/gun arrests etc. It’s shocking. Chicago uses all the other tools I’m sure, but any street cops knows how effective “Terry Stops” are. It’s just a fact.

I guess you can scream ‘racism’ all you want… then end up like Chicago. Let the public have a say. If you don’t want police intervention and proactive community policing, vote it up or down.

Just don’t gripe when it’s re-active Fire-Hall style.

The high crime areas in NYC that Stop and Frisk is used, the residents SUPPORT it’s use. And the officers typically assigned to those districts (like in NYC) are more likely to be non-white also.

239

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Most of my interactions with police post-criminal activity have been pretty good. My last one was a doozy though that even I had to laugh about.

[/quote]

Can I ask the municipality?[/quote]

Brownsville PA.

Ever been there?
[/quote]

I have! I went to a small private school in Connellsville - though keep quiet if you know which it is :P. That explains why you know about the Yuck and have fished it.

240

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I think a bad doctor is a bad analogy. I can google and choose what doctor I go to. I can say, “I’d like to get a second opinion”. You don’t really have that option with a bad cop.

[/quote]

That really applies to government as a whole, doesn’t it?