About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor, I'll jump right in and name one of my pet peeves since it relates to your discussion of 'rules of the road' and to the kind of drivers that annoy me.

If I were a state governor one of my first administrative decrees would be that cops stop handing out tickets for moving violations that don't endanger others. Instead, the focus would be removing those who endanger others. My life is put at risk by those driving under the influence, those who engage in road rage (driving without reason?), those who play at race-car driver - weaving in and out of traffic with the intent of puffing up tiny egos at the expense of maintaining a margin of safety and, especially (most peevish peeve), tail-gating. One and all, they should be targeted and with a kind of harshness that would change their behaviors or take them off the road.

Instead of going after increased revenues from fines (a despicable practice), I would expect to see a sharp drop in the number of accidents.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 10:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have to disagree with something here. Those cops are armed not because they stop people like you, but because sometimes they stop people willing to shoot a cop in the face over a stop. Thats unfortunately the world we live in at the moment. BTW, I know a few cops, and none of them got into it because they thought ticketing people would be awesome. Most of them had genuine ideas about protecting citizens from real criminals. Change the laws that don't make sense, but don't think its the cops that choose them. The politicians do.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 11:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Given the "laws" we have across this land, nearly all cops ought to resign lest they remain tools of a very overreaching government. 

Post 3

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 12:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor, if any cop had even half of the political awareness that you or I have - just the basic principles, not the depth of understanding or integration - what you said would be very true and reasonable. But most cops believe that most laws are valid. (Some are in it because they are bullies and control freaks, but I've know a couple of cops that were honest and trying to do good). The problem lies in education - not just the academic understanding - which is desperately missing, but that old-fashioned, assertive awareness that other people don't have the right to mess in someone else's business, an awareness that was common 100 years ago. Somehow, with the rare exception (like you) the universities and the media and the intellectuals have created a public sanction for government control.

Post 4

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 7:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Consider - there are so many laws now that to enforce them all would mean locking up everyone, so cops in effect get to pick which ones they'll enforce... and that leads to the personal aspect, what kind of person the cop is... power corrupts, and the tendency is that more authoritarian minded persons are apt to be cops, and those that are not so when they start, tend to become so as they continue being cops...
there are always exceptions - but the real question is WHICH side is the real exception?

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 7:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
TM: "..  and this includes nearly all those out there enforcing the rules of the road. Frankly I don’t even regard these people as police officers or officers of the law because ...  So one is stopped for making
an “illegal” U-turn .... 
SW:  The problem lies in education - not just the academic understanding - which is desperately missing, but that old-fashioned, assertive awareness that other people don't have the right to mess in someone else's business, an awareness that was common 100 years ago.

You both know very little about the police.  You have the same citizen's common sense ideas about law enforcement that other people have about philosophy, seflishness, and capitalism.

To take the second point first, the police are educated.  You can find departments that require only a high school education.  (Though that is an improvement over 100 years ago.)  Even if that is the posted minimum, the reality is that competition for those jobs comes from candidates with associate's degrees and increasingly with bachelor's degrees.   

This has been going on for over a generation, since the 1960s.  (In a Dragnet from 1969, Joe Friday takes a college class at night in sociology.  He was upgrading his skills under the LEEA Law Enforcement Education Act.)  At my community college, to get a degree in criminal justice, you have to pass a class in symbolic logic so that when some idiot says that because 60% of the men in prison are Black, therefore African Americans are more likely to be criminals, you have the ability to see through the fallacy.  To earn an associate in arts in criminal justice at Washtenaw Community College, you must pass a class in statistics, again, so that you are not flummoxed by other people's spurious numbers. 

In terms of policing, we learn "community policing" -- weed and seed, fixing broken windows, and other metaphors for preventing crime because crime prevention is more effective than law enforcement.

This era of the educated cop is a generation old.  Before that, the improvement was called "professional policing."  It was invented by August Vollmer of Berkeley, California, the first department to engage polygraphs, motorcycles, and college courses.  Professional police were detached from their patrol neighborhoods so that they could not be corrupted by it, as had been Chicago by the bootleggers.

Before that, cops were political appointees and it is no accident that city governments and police departments are both organized by precincts.

We have one diary (only one, unfortunately) from the 1880s from Boston, the diary of a cop on the beat who recorded his life. He was a roving magistrate, integral to the neighborhood who remediated disputes.  When that did not work, someone was hauled before a judge for more formal discussions.  He protected a battered housewife, he turned juveniles away from delinquency, all the rest.

We have come back to that -- but added the professionalism of a succeeding generation -- and a college curriculum that includes art, culture, science, literature, and more.

That still leaves you with the problem of who becomes a cop.  Guardians are not traders.  Get over it.
(Now, myself, well... ok... we're having that discussion elsewhere... so let's skip over that...)

My brother-in-law retired from the Air Police.  Nice guy, smart, too.  Non-assertive as an officer.  Just does the job.  So, one day, to start a conversation, I asked him if he thought about the origins of crime.  He said, that he had that conversation once before and his answer still stands: "Some people are just scumbags."
I asked, "So, okay, you live in a society with polygamy, but you only want one wife..."  and he cut me off and said, "Like I said, some people are just scumbags."  He was speaking deeply.  He knew I got it.  You are raised in a society to have certain morals and values and some people are predators who break those rules, regardless of what they are.

And that's why we have traffic stops.  Traffic stops catch criminals because criminals are predators who have no respect for law and order in society.  Pull someone over for any violation and don't be surprised when there is an outstanding warrant.  Traffic stops catch criminals.  Women cops do more stops than men.  College educated cops do more stops than high school graduates.  Good cops work hard to protect society from anarcho-perpetrating u-turn making college professors who think that orange is a socially acceptable color.  If you have no outstanding warrants, then pay the fine for the u-turn, and don't do it again.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 8:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"But most cops believe that most laws are valid.."

Said the Nazi to the Jew. 

Few cops care about how just a law is, or not.  The more laws there are that impede freedom, the more overtime they get.  


Sanction: 47, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 47, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 47, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 47, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm really astounded at what I'm hearing here. Few cops care about the justness of laws, they just get more overtime? Excuse me, but what is your objective proof there? Please link that particular study? Nazis? Are you kidding? Are you seriously comparing an unwanted traffic stop to stuffing a human child in an oven? I have to tell you, I've been to countries with corrupt or nonexistent police forces, and anyone here who thinks we would be better off without police needs to come down from the ivory tower, or the 60s, and check out reality. I'm not talking "Gee, this cop is a a**hole for giving me a ticket, I'll bet he likes it" type "abuse", I'm talking "This cop just beat me half to death for my money and raped my family, but at least they didn't drag me back to the station, because no one that goes in there is ever seen again." The laws need reform people, the laws. Whole areas of law enforcement need to be reformed and probably just eliminated, but to compare a guy who just might have to take a bullet for you to a nazi because traffic stops piss you off is just crazy, and insulting. I really do hope that we can get control of the runaway legislation that our POLITICIANS are driving, without some sort of mass exodus of law enforcement, because down on the street, away from the ivory tower, there are a lot of people out there who don't believe in NIOF, who just don't care. The "screw the police" arguments don't hold nearly as much weight when some savage is beating you to death for the last can of creamed corn in the kitchen. Perhaps I'm a little partial, since I belong to the other profession that gets dumped on by intellectuals about as much as police do, paradoxically the people that generally need protection from the hordes the most.

Post 8

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you, Ryan - well said!
---------------

Michael, my post did NOT refer to education as a number of years, or particular degree or as professional training - it referred to understanding individual rights. Did you just want to make a contrary rant?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do you know any cops, Ryan?  I suspect not.  I know several, and I'm even related to a few.

Stuffing kids in the oven, no.

 Busting down doors with guns and armor over a card game, pot plants, or over due child support, yes.  No study is necessary. Just read the paper, or watch your local news.

 How many just laws do you think police are enforcing now, as opposed to unjust ones?   The gap is closing, and faster than you think.  Traffic alone has more unjust laws than almost anything else, with more laws being added every year. 

 Here in Michigan, some communities have outlawed individuals from talking on their cell phones while driving.  There are moving violations if your child is in the front seat and the law has determined that they're too small to be in the front seat. There are "seat belt" check point days. Cops sit on the road and just look for people not wearing the belts so they can give them a ticket.  Is that a thinking individual to you, someone who cares about "rights?"  


 Whole areas of law enforcement need to be reformed and probably just eliminated, but to compare a guy who just might have to take a bullet for you to a nazi because traffic stops piss you off is just crazy, and insulting.
Are you attempting to imply that I'm doing that, or that Tibor is?  Fine, let them be insulted, I don't care. You can romanticize all you want, but the fact remains:  Cops don't care about "rights," or if the law they're enforcing is in violation of them.  They care about what laws are on the books, and how much over time they'll get for enforcing them.  They care about their union contracts and how many grievances they'll file. They care about having to miss work to show up at court over a seat belt violation or because some poor guy who couldn't afford insurance.  It's sick. 

Working closely with one officer of the law, and working inside of the system itself for a while killed all the romance I once had for the profession.  When I saw him and others drooling over the prospect of another drug raid, or "dead beat parent" raid, or "seat belt violation" check point day, out the window all the romance went.

Cops care about the law, regardless of it's lack of rationality, and so did Nazi officers who raided neighborhoods and loaded Jews into cattle cars.  Not a whole lot of difference between them to me.


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 11:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, your equation of today's cops here in the US with Nazi's is ridiculous.

This is a forum of people who are pro-individual rights so of course we all agree that there are too many laws and lots of bad laws. But look at your complaints:
  • Wanting overtime - so what? It is wrong to want a bigger paycheck?
  • Enforcing the laws - that is their job. The problem is with the laws.
  • The romance you had for the profession is gone. That is your issue. I expect the enforcement of laws, and want to get the bad laws off the books.
When I was with Children's Protective Services, there were occasions where getting a child out of an abusive home meant going up against gang bangers, violent and armed ex-cons, and crazy people. I had no problems working with the cops when needed. I've seen victims of violent crime and know what the cops have to deal with every day. The worse our laws get, the worse our experience with cops will be and it will have the tendency to attract bullies, but your comparison to Nazis does nothing but undermine your credibility.

Post 11

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ryan,
Thanks. Glad you're here.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 12:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wanting overtime - so what? It is wrong to want a bigger paycheck?

At the expense of rights?  Hell yes. 

Enforcing the laws - that is their job. The problem is with the laws.

That's what the Nazi officer said. My employer doesn't expect me to leave my moral code at the time clock, and neither should police people. Do you expect that, Steve?  Body punched in, brain punched out.  I get it.

  • The romance you had for the profession is gone. That is your issue. I expect the enforcement of laws, and want to get the bad laws off the books.

  • Well, that won't happen by pretending those who get paid for violating rights are some kind of heroes.  I mean, police departments think up the "lets git-um" methods all by themselves, legislatures didn't.  Seat belt check points aren't a law. They're made up by the police in order to facilitate the law.  Isn't that convenient?
    Sending out decoys that look like hookers isn't on the law books. It's a method of creating criminals by the police to facilitate and justify the law.  Is there something really romantic about that, or just a teeny bit fascist?

    I won't respect a profession that goes out of it's way to create criminals out of rights violating laws. It's stupid.


  • Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
    Post 13

    Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 12:38pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Teresa, bigger paychecks are for longer hours. What the hours are spent on is determined primarily by the laws passed. Focus on where the problem is - the laws. If Germany hadn't elected the Nazis, history would be different. Making violations of individual rights illegal is the only change that would be effective.

    Cops are supposed to use force - it is their job. They aren't programmers or social workers or lawyers or factory workers. It is because they use force that the laws they enforce are so important. It is NOT effective in changing what is wrong now by blaming the cops, telling them to not enforce laws, moaning about the motives or personalities involved, or equating putting whole families into gas chambers with seat belt checks.

    Some cops are heroes, some are swaggering bullies, and most are just everyday working adults - so what? The problem is the laws - if they don't change it will never get better. Villanizing an entire profession makes no more sense than romantizing all cops. It is bad laws that make criminals out of rights abiding citizens - culpability lies with those in the electorate who support those laws, the legislators that pass them, the courts that don't overturn them. But not with the cops, because we don't want the them to choose which laws to enforce.

    Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
    Post 14

    Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Ok, my secret is out--I was a cop in the US Air Force for nearly a year, doing all the cop work most cops do (on the streets, in court, in taverns, in private homes, etc.), so I really need no one to tell me what I know or do not know about being a cop. Fact is ignorance is no excuse--cops, oddly, know and stick by this point quite strictly (just try it--"Officer, officer, I didn't realize I wasn't permitted to do x, y or z"--and see how far you get being exonerated).  Whatever cops believe isn't the issue.  What they ought to know, even if they do not, is. And in so many cases in so many countries they are indeed like the blindly obedient German soldier hauling in the Jews to their deaths!
    (Edited by Machan on 12/28, 2:01pm)


    Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
    Post 15

    Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 2:09pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Anybody remember Nürnberg? Ignorance of the evil of the law is no excuse even for foot soldiers.  Sure, a balance at times needs to be struck as one decides whether to be complicit in tyrannical policies (after all, one might be more effective in resisting tyranny by being part of the system) but it is the responsibility of cops--of citizens of all kinds--to pay attention to this stuff. "I am sorry I didn't realize" just won't cut it. (For my money all those involved in vice work are more or less petty tyrants.)
    (Edited by Machan on 12/28, 2:11pm)

    (Edited by Machan on 12/28, 2:14pm)


    Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
    Post 16

    Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    So drumming up criminal activity where none existed is perfectly fine with you?

    The seat belt law was supposed to only be effective if a driver was pulled over for another reason; speeding, or failure to stop.  That's still the case, but the law looks the other way when police decide to generate revenue by using the law as a crime maker.  Laws against prostitution are not laws permitting police to generate bogus crimes, but that's exactly what they do.

    If it were illegal to have three male children, and a third must be shot by the police, the police are therefore innocent to comply?  At what point, if any, are police culpable for the damage caused by immoral laws?  Ever?

    This argument didn't fly during the Nuremberg trials, and it isn't flying very well for me either.

    Take your argument to it's logical lengths, Steve.  You're saying police are always innocent when complying with the law, no matter how immoral the law is.  I think this would classify as moral intrinsicism.   

    Police have lots of discretion when enforcing the law. They don't have to hand out tickets for seat belt violations, and they don't have to arrest prostitutes, yet they do exactly those things. Why?  Could it be because they agree with those immoral laws? In reality, they face no legal penalty at all for not enforcing them.

    I think the type of individual who would want a particular job is directly influenced by the culture.  Who in their right mind would want to be a police officer in this country?  A mindless thug, maybe.  


    Post 17

    Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Tibor,

    You said, "And in so many cases in so many countries [cops] are indeed like the blindly obedient German soldier hauling in the Jews to their deaths!"

    Yes, that is true, in many countries - but to say that cops in America should be compared to German soldiers hauling Jews to their deaths is totally unjustified.
    ----------

    You said, "Ignorance of the evil of the law is no excuse even for foot soldiers." That's true, but NO ONE needs to be told that putting men, women and children into gas chambers is evil - they are expected to know that. Enforcing "Buckle up - It's the law and saves lives" does not make a moral monster of a person - They are wrong, the law is wrong, but this would not warrant Nürnberg. It makes no sense to put a cop handing out a ticket for seat belts in the same category as Goering, Hess, Borman, etc.


    Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
    Post 18

    Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Teresa, please don't mischaracterize what I'm saying or put words in my mouth.

    I did not say drumming up criminal activity where none existed is perfectly fine with me.

    I am not saying police are always innocent when complying with the law, no matter how immoral the law is.

    I said that to be effective you need to address the laws and that it would be wrong to expect the police to make their own decisions on what laws to enforce.

    I repeat, to equate seat belt law enforcement with putting families in the gas chamber is irrational.

    Do all laws have to be in absolutely perfect conformance with individual rights before anyone can be a cop? And if moral individuals refuse to be cops until the laws become perfect, the only cops we will have are those willing or even eager to be immoral.

    Asking where to draw the line - where a cop says, "I won't enforce that law," that is a reasonable question. But remember that no one was tried at Nürnberg for enforcing seat belt violations or making prostitution arrests. There must be a degree of wrongness to enforcing a law, a degree of evil in that law, that makes it morally mandatory to refuse to carry it out.

    I don't know how much discretion the police have, or even who you mean - the chief of police, he usually answers to the mayor - or the state police, they answer to the governor - or the individual on the street, he can't stray far from what his supervisors lay out. What I do know is that there should not be enough discretion as to frustrate the intent of the law, and the law should be constitutional and the constitution should arise from individual rights. It is the only system that makes sense. The guy checking to see if you are wearing your seat belt isn't going to turn that system around and make it all good and he also isn't the result of the problem, not its cause.


    Post 19

    Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    To throw in a stone here - most those who create those laws seem in practice at least to 'be above the law' , hence little incentive to undo improper laws [they're for those others, the little people as that hotel owner claimed]...

    Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


    User ID Password or create a free account.