"High-And-Tight" Haircuts On Cops


PDA






Maimaktes
January 16, 2004, 06:16 PM
Or on today's "new breed" of 'em, anyway. You know, like on Mr. Buzzcut from "Beavis & Butthead." What's *that* all about? It sure looks ugly. Why would anybody *want* to look like that if they don't have to? I guess it's supposed to intimidate us all. I'd as soon wear a chicken bone through my nose. At least the burly policewomen I've seen haven't starting wearing the "high-and-tight" haircuts, yet. Most of them I see seem to be sporting mullets.

Maimaktes

If you enjoyed reading about ""High-And-Tight" Haircuts On Cops" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fix
January 16, 2004, 06:19 PM
Neat, clean, low maintenance, and it isn't a big grab handle in a fight. This is not a new trend. Many cops have worn short hair for years. Much ado about nothing.

thefitzvh
January 16, 2004, 06:19 PM
Another byproduct of the ever blurring distinction between military and LE. 15 years from now, maybe they'll have a couple abrams' at their disposal



James

MicroBalrog
January 16, 2004, 06:24 PM
As my Team Leader would have said: "And I care because?"

Joe Demko
January 16, 2004, 06:29 PM
Well, the Sheriff Hisownself requires us to wear hats as part of The Uniform. Hat hair looks like hell. Plus, of course, Hisownself isn't shy about telling you if your personal appearance does not meet the standards he wishes his deputies to represent. Fascist? No. Militant? No. He's just a 60-something guy who wants his deputies to be neat and clean.

thefitzvh
January 16, 2004, 06:30 PM
I didn't think of it like that... Maybe it's not such a big deal.


it IS much easier to maintain.

James

Stephen A. Camp
January 16, 2004, 06:39 PM
Some may due to regulations. Some may do it as to style. Some may do it for convenience. Some might wear the "high and tight" hair because they just like it.

I did since about '73.

I did it because I preferred to, it was within regulations, and easy to maintain and didn't get messed when wearing the required headgear.

I'd do it now for convenience even though retired.

I suspect most on this site wear their hair the way they want to if they can.

I think law enforcement folks should be able to as well so long as it's within regulations.

I would. If someone didn't like it I reckon he just have to chalk it up to not liking it and find something else of similar importance to worry about.

Steve in PA
January 16, 2004, 06:42 PM
If someone is intimidated by a haircut......they've got bigger problems to worry about :rolleyes:

AJ Dual
January 16, 2004, 06:48 PM
Not a cop, but I get my hair cut like that for similar reasons plus:

When the sides and back of my head are clipped close, what I've got left on top looks a bit thicker and longer. :neener:

I can go longer between haircuts because when its "shaggy", in reality it's still pretty neat and short.

hillbilly
January 16, 2004, 07:11 PM
1) More than a few of cops are former, and in some cases, current military. Those who like and enjoy military structure and discipline often get into law enforcement after they get out of the military, or while they serve in the national guard. Chances are, they like the haircuts, too.

2) Simple, no-fuss. I know plenty of guys who aren't military and who aren't law enforcement who have "high and tights." My bro-in-law for example. Not military, not LE, never been military or LE.

hillbilly

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 16, 2004, 07:18 PM
Is there any other cut? I have been wearing it that way since the early 80's. I like it. I am not LE. I am a civilian.

A Marine once told me that hair is vanity. I am not vain; therefore, my hair is low drag, high speed ( and real easy to maintain, and much nicer during those sweaty workouts....shake and hand-comb....on the way)

labgrade
January 16, 2004, 07:21 PM
I like the "no fuss" styles, too.

Wash, part down the middle & hang a quick "bamby" on the pony-tail.

Done.

:neener:

Hkmp5sd
January 16, 2004, 07:30 PM
Another byproduct of the ever blurring distinction between military and LE.
Not really. Just following the fashion cycles to some extent, plus being easy to maintain and in states like where I live, the temperature generally stays in the 90s or higher, it's much cooler. The high and tight haircuts were popular back in the 50s and we ended up with the 60s love-ins.

For the record, being subversive and somewhat rebellious, my hair is mid-back length. Nothing like being a ultra-right wing conservative, Christian, gun fanatic, bookworm, non-smoking, heavy metal music listening, Peter Pan syndrome, adult white male and a hippie! :D

labgrade
January 16, 2004, 07:35 PM
Hkmp5sd quote:

"For the record, being subversive and somewhat rebellious, my hair is mid-back length. Nothing like being a ultra-right wing conservative, Christian, gun fanatic, bookworm, non-smoking, heavy metal music listening, Peter Pan syndrome, adult white male and a hippie! "

You have redeemed yourself to me in so many ways! :neener:

TheeBadOne
January 16, 2004, 07:35 PM
1) No fuss no muss

2) Survives putting a hat on (rain/cold weather)

3) Cheap. (cut it yourself, Cops aren't the highest paid, in fact they are always among the lowest paid Public Servants).

2 cents

Maimaktes
January 16, 2004, 07:47 PM
Well, I *couldn't* wear a "high-and-tight" haircut if I wanted to. My hair stopped growing on top about 20 years ago. I suppose if I shaved off the pathetic remaining fringe it'd be not merely low-drag, but *no*-drag. (I'm not too sure about high-*speed*, though.)

I can certainly remember, not so very long ago, when how a man wore his hair was a *big* issue, and not just to his boss or military superiors. Total strangers would insult, threaten, and even attack a passerby whose hair was a little longer than they thought it ought to be. I won't even get into how different a traffic stop went for someone with a buzzcut and someone with long or even longish hair. The latter was about, oh, 800,000 times more likely to be "asked" for consent to search his car, or to have it defiled by muddy/manure-pawed dope dogs and even have it essentially physically torn apart, since everyone just *knew* that anyone with more than an inch or two of hair *had* to be some kind of doper. Myself, I have never even so much as taken one hit of pot/reefer/whatever you want to call it in my life. I never even wanted to, and I still don't. (It *would* be nice to be able to drink a beer without all the heavy surveillance, though.)

Maimaktes

hammer4nc
January 16, 2004, 07:55 PM
In past threads, how many officers have justified the wearing of ski-masks because of the added warmth they provide? ;)

Now, it seems like the high/tight shaved head would be a tad *drafty* for these same temperature-sensitive officers, during regular (non-swat) details in the winter months?:confused:

I could really care less, perhaps someone else could bridge the logical disconnect that presents itself here..

...unless the real motivations are really different than all the practical rerasons offered up?:uhoh:

Cosmoline
January 16, 2004, 08:35 PM
I liked the cops better in the '70's:


http://www.dream-craft.com/shmacd/shg0005z.jpg

Jeff White
January 16, 2004, 08:53 PM
Trend towards militarization? Come on, get real. My 18 year old wears a high and tight. It's actually a popular haircut with kids his age around here.

How would you guys who are upset with this prefer your employees to look? Appearance is one way to avoid having to fight. If you look competant, good haircut, uniform pressed and professional, equipment clean and carry yourself confidently you are less likely to be challenged then the officer who needs a haircut, has a stained and unkempt uniform, unshined shoes and his equipment looks like it will fall off his duty belt if he has to run. They have been teaching this to rookie officers for more years then I can remember. Now some of you are intimidated by it? Why?

Jeff

BigG
January 16, 2004, 09:23 PM
Hair style don't bother me so much... but... I do have a problem with the Smokey Bear hats! Just kiddin! :neener:

Cosmoline
January 16, 2004, 09:24 PM
This is OT but yes, I would be happier if we radically changed the whole notion of law enforcement. LEO's are not there to protect us and cannot protect us even if they wanted to, so we should stop that whole thin blue line nonsense. LEO's should primarily be there to investigate crimes and enforce court orders. I can and do protect myself just fine. I don't need them and in fact in most cases I fear them more than the criminals. They are far more difficult to avoid and reason with than criminals, and far more lethal when angered.

Besides, any pretense that cops actually protect citizens from crime is falling by the wayside. The cop on the beat today serves primarily as a means of raising revenue for cash-strapped cities and states. I find this use of police only slightly less immoral than the outright taking of bribes. In fact I'd rather give bribes because it's far more honest.

Zach S
January 16, 2004, 09:30 PM
I like the "no fuss" styles, too.

Wash, part down the middle & hang a quick "bamby" on the pony-tail.

Done.

:neener: Um, bamby?

I won't even get into how different a traffic stop went for someone with a buzzcut and someone with long or even longish hair. The latter was about, oh, 800,000 times more likely to be "asked" for consent to search his car, or to have it defiled by muddy/maneur-pawed dope dogs and even have it essentially physically torn apart, since everyone just *knew* that anyone with more than an inch or two of hair *had* to be some kind of doper. As someone whos had a buzzcut, and now has long hair, I can tell you hair length does still make a difference with some LEOs, wether you look like a yuppie or a hell's angel. However, honesty, attitude, respect, and cooperation go a lot farther.

I look like an HA most of the time.

TheeBadOne
January 16, 2004, 09:32 PM
bias

Main Entry: 1biĀ·as
Pronunciation: 'bI-&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French biais
Date: 1530

a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

LawDog
January 16, 2004, 09:33 PM
Kee Riced All My Tea.

You're trying to tell me that people so bloody gormless that they're intimidated by hair?!

Adult-type people? Are scared of a haircut?

"The way his hair is cut intimidates me."

Gawd almighty. No wonder this country is going to hell.

LawDog

Phyphor
January 16, 2004, 09:47 PM
SOMEONE here owes me a beer, due to the fact that I just spewed mine all over my monitor.


If the most scary thing about cops is their haircut, then I know we're screwed....

thefitzvh
January 16, 2004, 09:49 PM
Well... here it is:

Everyone is occassionally prone to bouts of irrational sillyness.

I guess i'm a "blissninny" when it comes to haircuts. LOL


Now that I put some actual thought in it, it's not a big deal at all.


BUT: if they start patrolling with Abrams', i WILL worry! :D

Hkmp5sd
January 16, 2004, 10:06 PM
if they start patrolling with Abrams
I'll ask them if I can take it for a test drive and shoot the big gun. :)

willp58
January 16, 2004, 10:11 PM
In the 60's when really long hair was in, the kids would see an older person eye-ballin some hair-bag and whine, " You old F@rts *judge* us by our hair."

Now here we are 40 years later and people are stil being judged by hair..Only THIS time, short hair seems to be the culprit...


How fickle the times can be. hehehehe

cookhj
January 16, 2004, 10:39 PM
i'm a marine, and i'm a cop. short hair is easier to keep up with and it looks more professional. nothing urks me more than people with vain hair styles. the only thing that keeps me from shaving my head is the fact that my ears are too big and i look stoopid bald.

JohnBT
January 16, 2004, 10:47 PM
The stubble keeps your hat from blowing off. :)

JT

Andrew Rothman
January 16, 2004, 10:58 PM
This is what urks me.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:CzbIVrEaCdMC:www.att3.com/content/program_descriptions/specific/entertainment/source/Family%2520Matters/steve4.jpg

TheeBadOne
January 16, 2004, 11:02 PM
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

What are the lyrics to "The Urkel Dance"?


"The Urkel Dance"

Now if you want to do the Steve Urkel Dance
All you have to do is hitch up your pants

Bend your knees and stick up your pelvis
I'm tellin you baby, it's better than Elvis

(Instrumental)

Do it
Do it
Everybody
Do the Urkel Dance

Now point your fingers up to the sky
And talk through your nose way up high
Spin and dip and jump and cavort
And finish it off with a laugh and snort
Heh Heh Heh [Snort]
Heh Heh Heh [Snort]
Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh Ohhhhh

(Instrumental)

Do it
Do it
Everybody
Do the Urkel Dance

Do the Urkel
Do the ur-ur-ur-ur-ur-ur-ur-Urkel

Do the urkel
Do the ur-ur-ur-ur-ur-ur-ur-Urkel

Do it
Do it
Every body
Do the Urkel Dance


Urkel dance VIDEO (http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/hall/bea/bea.ram)

Don Gwinn
January 16, 2004, 11:27 PM
High and tight is WAY too much work. If you cut your own, you have to get the transition between short and long the same all the way around your head. I've tried it; way too much trouble.

I do what I call the "Laziness Stubble" or "Slash and Burn" technique. Essentially, I have distilled the haircut to its simplest and most shiftless and lazy essence.

You see, many people will tell you they have long hair because it's simple. These people are liars. Long hair requires many seconds of washing in the shower and must be brushed before it dries to avoid ugly rat's nests. It also looks stupid under all but really big hats, which often look goofy themselves.

Others will tell you they shave their heads bald because they want simplicity. Sheer mendacity! For there are few things in this world less simple than trying to get every last bit of stubble off your head with a razor without scalping yourself on the installment plan. These guys who have nice smooth shaved heads are repeating such madness every day! Stop the insanity!

Instead, I follow a simple one-step plan. I take an ordinary set of electric clippers with no attachment and I keep running them over my scalp until I don't feel any patches of longer stubble sticking up. This leaves a fine coat of stubble which is exactly the same length all over my head. I am then finished.

I do not comb, brush, gel, mousse, spray, taunt, tease or spank my hair. I also do not drag razors over my scalp, nor do I ever bleed when getting a haircut. I know another haircut is required when my hair gets so long that I can part it, which takes about a month. Thus I am constantly in a state of flux between dark, soft hair of moderate length and fuzzy stubble on a nearly bald head.

During this cycle, however, I have introduced a new wrinkle by growing a full beard along with my head of hair. In another week or two it will be time to cut the hair, and only time will tell how the beard (which is bright red for some reason) will complement the stubbly head. Under no circumstances, however, will I abandon my principles (which include, but are not limited to, cheapness, laziness, and an absolute lack of interest in the styling of hair.)

But hey, at least I'm not an intimidating baby killer. . . . :neener:

Hkmp5sd
January 16, 2004, 11:35 PM
Thus I am constantly in a state of flux between dark, soft hair of moderate length and fuzzy stubble on a nearly bald head.
Aka, between soft sheepskin buffer pads and brillo pads. :)

Reminds me of the shavers with the stubble position back in the 80s, made popular by Miami Vice. A 5 o'clock shadow 24 hours a day.

Balog
January 16, 2004, 11:36 PM
Don Gwinn writes: Under no circumstances, however, will I abandon my principles (which include, but are not limited to, cheapness, laziness, and an absolute lack of interest in the styling of hair.)

Principles to live by. I salute you.

sm
January 16, 2004, 11:42 PM
I cannot tell you the hairstyle of the LEO that last intimidated me...I was watching his hands holding a firearm and I was using very stern obscene words I'm sure in my commands.

Getting some Sheriffs ready for qual's, his HK in .40 fires once, turns to me off the firing with finger in trigger. "My gun won't work". Don't know about you folks, but I don't like muzzles pointed at my bellybutton...anywhere at my body -period!

We had two HK .40s that day that had casings stuck in chambers, one fired only once, the other gun fired twice., and was inoperable They had not inspected,maintained obviously...and took a bit for the targets to get hits once we fixed the guns.

My feeling of being intimidated had nothing to do with hairstyle...and some folks wonder why I CCW.

cordex
January 16, 2004, 11:43 PM
I wear my hair pretty short too.

Never been mil.
Never been LEO.

Am I part of the blurring line between the military and the civilian wannabes?

Coronach
January 17, 2004, 12:02 AM
OK, LawDog stole my thunder.

Anyway. We're a board of noble warrior princes, stern of heart and valiant of soul, well armed and well trained, and able to take care of our own darned selves, thankyouverymuch, and we reserve the right to get our panties all in a twist over hairdos, BDUs, and dark-hued swatches of fabric.

Why do I suddenly feel like I'm in the French Resistance?

Mike :rolleyes:

Maimaktes
January 17, 2004, 12:38 AM
Ahem, Steve in PA, Jeff White, LawDog, and Phyphor:

If you will refer to my original, thread-starting post, you will see that what I actually said was this:

"I guess it's [the pseudo-military look] supposed to intimidate us all."

I didn't say it was *working*. Hair, long, short, or bald as a baby's behind, I really don't care very much one way or the other. I'm kind of sorry I even broached the subject. When someone blows my door down with C4 (or whatever they use now) in the middle of the night, and starts throwing in grenades, I'm not going to feel any better about it if they all turn out to have hair like Rapunzel or Lady Godiva or Robert Plant circa 1973 when they take off their ski masks.

Cosmoline:

I liked cops better in the Seventies too. I actually had cop *friends* back then, or at least I *thought* I did for a long time anyway. No more though. They changed before I did. But finally I changed too. Now, nobody can enforce unconstitutional laws in defiance of his oath and be my friend. Not anymore. Everything is becoming more and more what it is. Everything is coming to the point. Everyone will have to choose a side, or have it chosen for him.

Maimaktes

GigaBuist
January 17, 2004, 12:39 AM
Uhmm.. much ado about nothing here.

I work with a slew of people that keep their hair "high and tight". They're computer programmers. Heck, my beard is sometimes longer than my hair. Yes, I do look a little like Abraham Lincoln at times. Or an Amish guy.

TheeBadOne
January 17, 2004, 12:43 AM
http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/css/graphics/cmprm3a.jpg

I don't know how you can be so dismissive about the increasing militarization of computer programers.... :D

Atticus
January 17, 2004, 01:05 AM
Summer= Short hair
Winter = longer short hair and short beard and a hat
Spring and Fall = Somewhere in betwixt and between


I hate to spend money on haircuts. I get the ten dollar special and stretch it out a couple a three months by trimming myself around the ears. Got better things to do with my money. And speakin of havin better things to do......

Bill Hook
January 17, 2004, 01:09 AM
While I agree with just about all Cosmoline said about cops and protection, hair style is one thing that doesn't bother me about the po-po. I like my hair just long enough that I can't see my scalp and can't fault cops for having short hair.

TheeBadOne
January 17, 2004, 01:14 AM
http://demo.firmsite.findlaw.com/photos/demo-images/soc-militia_member-v25_25230.jpg

I like my hair just long enough that I can't see my scalp and can't fault cops for having short hair.


I'm also concerned about the increasing militarization of civilians. :D

seeker_two
January 17, 2004, 01:16 AM
Here's the ultimate cop "buzz-cut"...

http://www.melaman2.com/tvshows/logos/kojak.jpg

Who loves ya, baby?... :evil:


Of all the things that worry me about the "militarization" of LEO's, the haircuts are far at the bottom of the list...:rolleyes:

Skunkabilly
January 17, 2004, 01:18 AM
I been doing it since I was 6 yrs old. My parents got tired of combing all the kids' hair in the morning :D

I been doing it since I been on my own since I can do it myself and not have to pay. $5 more for ammo per month :D

Bill Hook
January 17, 2004, 01:21 AM
I'm also concerned about the increasing militarization of civilians.

We're the militia. Any questions?

WonderNine
January 17, 2004, 05:59 AM
I can understand a short haircut. Hey I got one! But I don't understand the dudes who shave their hair completely off....

It truly looks terrible.

Tamara
January 17, 2004, 08:50 AM
I'm as pissed as anyone about the Mayberry PD seizing assets from shaky busts so they can afford a new Cadillac-Gage armored car, but I can't really seem to get my knickers in a twist about folks wearing their hair however they want. So the cop that pulled you over has a buzzcut? So? Maybe he's in the National Guard. Maybe he played football in college and is used to his "jock" haircut. Maybe he just doesn't like having to spend time and money on hair maintenance.

If your traffic cops are packing flash-bangs, that's one thing, but cut the cat some slack on his choice of hair, okay?

71Commander
January 17, 2004, 10:26 AM
Haircut. What's that ?

Haven't had one in 10+ years. Rarely shave either. But do own a nice new Harley:D

Perfesser
January 17, 2004, 07:27 PM
Uh...guys...check out the 'do on this duck.

Marko Kloos
January 17, 2004, 07:48 PM
I have no issue with buzzcuts on LEOs. They make sense for the same reason why short hair on a soldier makes sense. It has nothing to do with ease of maintenance.

If you're in a profession that may include hand-to-hand social interaction, something that cops without a doubt do much more often than soldiers, it is beneficial to have hair just short enough so it cannot be grabbed.

Sean Smith
January 18, 2004, 01:24 PM
Kee Riced All My Tea.

You're trying to tell me that people so bloody gormless that they're intimidated by hair?!

Adult-type people? Are scared of a haircut?

"The way his hair is cut intimidates me."

Gawd almighty. No wonder this country is going to hell.

LawDog

Yep.

By the way, tell that guy Kee to go :cuss: himself. Tea tastes terrible when Riced. :D

Chris Rhines
January 18, 2004, 07:22 PM
If a police officer is actively involved in rooting out corruption and brutality in his department, declining to arrest citizens for consensual non-crimes, and in general taking seriously his oath to the Constitution, then for all I care he can have all the buzz-cuts, black BDUs, and silver Oakley Factory Pilots his Visa card can handle.

Police officers who aren't doing these things should be made to wear pink tutus and carry water pistols.

- Chris

TheeBadOne
January 18, 2004, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Chris Rhines:

If a police officer is actively involved in rooting out corruption and brutality in his department, declining to arrest citizens for consensual non-crimes, and in general taking seriously his oath to the Constitution, then for all I care he can have all the buzz-cuts, black BDUs, and silver Oakley Factory Pilots his Visa card can handle.
I think you left out activly involved in crime prevention patroling and actively arresting criminals... :neener:

Chris Rhines
January 18, 2004, 09:40 PM
I think you left out activly involved in crime prevention patroling and actively arresting criminals... Yup. Crime prevention and arresting criminals are secondary; the primary role of law enforcement is to prevent the violation of our rights. First step in that is for the police to not be violating people's rights themselves.

- Chris

TheeBadOne
January 18, 2004, 09:46 PM
the primary role of law enforcement is to prevent the violation of our rights.
I believe that will actually fall under the Courts (remember where Miranda came from). The Police are part of the Executive branch.

labgrade
January 18, 2004, 10:30 PM
I'd disagree, thebadone, in that I'd suggest that the po-pos are part of the judicial branch ... you don't even get pass that indenty till going through the po-pos ....

+Miranda doesn't protect you, it protects the po-po from falling into a "conversational trap" of allowing you to talk too much - just helps with their own case against you.

Gocart
January 18, 2004, 10:37 PM
Maimaktes,

I'm going to assume that you and the rest of us are pissed off by those who misjudge our motives for going armed. You know, the "with all those handguns, no one is safe because gunfights will break out over trivial things...." mentality. You and I both know they are wrong and unreasonable.


When you post, "I guess it's [the pseudo-military look] supposed to intimidate us all." I feel that you are judging my motives just as the antis incorrectly judge the motives of CCWers.

I think you are wrong.

TheeBadOne
January 18, 2004, 11:01 PM
I'd disagree, thebadone, in that I'd suggest that the po-pos are part of the judicial branch ... you don't even get pass that indenty till going through the po-pos ....

Legislative -the Law makers

Executive -the Police

Judicial -the Courts

This was set up the the US Constitution, and nothing has changed it. Cops don't pass laws, and it matters not what they think as far as a personal interpretation of a law, the courts decide what a law means either through case law or direct ruling. If an individual Officer charges someone with Reckless driving for 56 mph in a 55 mph zone because in his mind speeding is as absolutely reckless as you can be, do you really think the court is not going to toss that in a millisecond and the Officer fried for his incredibly poor (stupid) judgment?

All the best

labgrade
January 18, 2004, 11:08 PM
Whatever.

Cops wanna be "high 'n tight?" I could care less except for the attitude projected by those same types who seem to like the cut.

"High 'n Tight?" folks better just watch their a$$ - solely due to their attitudes which they seem to project - towards us.

This same haircut design also seems to go along with a Nazi mentality = "we own you!"

Far as I'm concerned, the H'NT haircut on a po-po describes an immediate thought transition to a Nazi-type & I'll legally & willingly obstruct whenever possible.

Y'all wanna be "part of the fold?" Then just act, & look, like it.

Buncha "brown-shirts" doesn't garner anything other than disdain 'round these parts.

Y'all are supposed to be somewhat of a reflection of what our society is supposed to be - aren't you?

Take it for what it's worth - or not. I'd assume the latter, from some posts.

& another FWIW - a joke.

Seems this older guy was sitting at a bar. He noticed a way younger fellow with hair that approached that of Tune Town = spiked-out, & colored green, red & blue.

The younger gent finally got a bit incensed with the visual attention & approached the older.

"What's your problem, pops!"

"No matter, son." the elder replied. "But once in the M'rines, in Singapore, I once made love to a parrot & though you might be my son."

Perspectives, please.

Chris Rhines
January 18, 2004, 11:24 PM
I believe that will actually fall under the Courts (remember where Miranda came from). The Police are part of the Executive branch. Doesn't matter. The first duty of any government employee is to defend individual rights. That is the governments whole rationale for existing. As long as the police are doing this, then they can wear and carry anything they want. If they aren't, well...

- Chris

TheeBadOne
January 18, 2004, 11:29 PM
:cool:

labgrade
January 18, 2004, 11:36 PM
Cross-posts as far as time lines & nothing we can do about that, huh?

anyways ...

"This was set up the the US Constitution, and nothing has changed it (re cops being part of the executive branch)"

I'll have to take a look, frankly, &'ll give you the benefit of the doubt, for the time being, but in my gut, I feel this wrong. Cops should be part of the initial process of the judiciary, methinks. .... anyway .... I'll be back on that.

In the meantime, please provide our "executive branch" sources. I'll do the same forthwith.

"If an individual Officer charges someone with Reckless driving for 56 mph in a 55 mph zone because in his mind speeding is as absolutely reckless as you can be, do you really think the court is not going to toss that in a millisecond and the Officer fried for his incredibly poor (stupid) judgment?"

"Fried," no! ;) but fired, no too. Perhaps only that the po-po wouldn't even attend the trial (attending many useless unpaid hours by the defendant for a silly/nonsensence trial to begin with, BUT showing "who's the boss" for even making the appearance necessay.)

In your scenario, I'd still have to appear (take time off, with all that attends & inconvience myself for an absolutely rediculous charge & frankly, well within the bounds of the speed-controls' calibration absolutes - not to mention the judgement of the cop.) & still waste my time, merely to have it thrown out of court. Doing what I do, it could cost me easily $90/hr.

Travel time, + court time, + having to go through the insane "court security" (an issue in itsef!) only would perpetuate the innanities of the whole process - would only make me distain the po-po, in the first place, & the whole whole "judicial system" further.

So, what's your point?

TheeBadOne
January 18, 2004, 11:44 PM
In your scenario, I'd still have to appear
No, actually I really doubt it'd get that far.

1st, a supervisor who reviews the reports would most likely catch it.

failing that

2nd, the Prosecuting Attorny would not file it and dismiss it quicker than it took me to type this.

End result, you'd never have to appear, mail/phone notification of dropped charge would prevent that.

All the best

TheeBadOne
January 18, 2004, 11:53 PM
"executive branch" sources

Simply put, our Political leaders who are both local, state, and federal. From City Council (not the Mayor), to County State & Federal Officials (Congressmen/woman, Governess, Senators).

labgrade
January 19, 2004, 12:01 AM
Think we're starting to drift from the thread's theme, but, no matter, huh?

I had an interesting l'il instance with the local po-po where I was almost shot to death.

Was arrested, property confiscated, took me over $2K to finally plead to an "obstruction" charge - a misdomeaner2, + close to six months finally to get back my property, besides being rousted, hand-cuffed, jailed - not to mention a denial of a call to any lawyer, nor a phone call, nor .....

4X notarlized witnesses that the cops were out of line/had no business whatsoever doing what they did = no matter. DA still insisted upon the charges. Another ~$3K to take it to trial.

"Reviewed by a supervisor, reviewed by the DA, prosecuted by the ??? DA ..." & even the return of property was "until the eagle screams ... "

So don't even give me that BS that "it wouldn't go that far." Been there, done that.

Waiting for the cops are executive branch "decision."

I wuz one, & from all my training, we were part of the judiciary - & that is before the courts get to decide - nothing less.

BTW, my own trist with the system took much longer than to type this ..... :barf:

TheeBadOne
January 19, 2004, 12:14 AM
I wuz one, & from all my training, we were part of the judiciary - & that is before the courts get to decide - nothing less.
No, you brought matters before the court (infront of). You do not have the ability to find anyone guility, that matter is for the court. If you could fine someone guilty, you would be part of the Judicial branch (but you can't, and you're not).

All the best

labgrade
January 19, 2004, 12:23 AM
& most certainly not part of the executive branch neither.

The "part of the judiciary" I tried to 'plain was that we brought it to them, nothing more.

Certainly not legislative, not (specifically) judiciary, & most certainly, not executive.

TheeBadOne
January 19, 2004, 12:30 AM
The "part of the judiciary" I tried to 'plain was that we brought it to them, nothing more.
Yes, you were "executing the law". (that's why you brought it to the court).

labgrade
January 19, 2004, 12:37 AM
"Yes, you were "executing the law". (that's why you brought it to the court)."

Which is the (next) starting point for the judiciary.

JPM70535
January 19, 2004, 12:41 AM
It is not the high & tight haircut that offends some people, rather it seems to be the whole aura projected by the new generation of LEOs. Instead of "Officer Friendly" answering calls for service, what shows up most times when 911 is dialed is what I can best describe as a "Storm Trooper", complete with black combat boots, black leather driving gloves,Mirror Sunglasses, bloused trousers (optional), and the H&T hair. If their attitude didn't match their appearance, I'm sure people wouldn't be so intimidated. But in many cases they come rolling up like a SWAT team.

Having been in LE for 20+ yrs. with most of them spent making traffic stops, I found that the opinion most citizens form of an Officer they come in contact with, is set by his appearance first, and attitude second. I can't begin to enumerate the times I had a Citizen complain to me about Officer X and his arrogant attitude and combat appearance.

Just as Hippie braids have no place in the professional fields, and LE qualifies as a Profession, neither does H&T. What makes infinitely more sense is a Businessmans haircut,normal tint glasses, and unless it is freezing, forget the gloves JMHO

Coronach
January 19, 2004, 12:45 AM
The legislative branch makes laws.

The executive branch enforces them.

This is acomplished by bringing people accused (by the executive) of breaking the law (made by the legislative) before the judiciary.

-Mike

El Tejon
January 19, 2004, 09:08 AM
Oh, there you go again with your precious Due Process.:p :D

If the copper doesn't have short hair, after his first bar fight HE WILL!:D

Art Eatman
January 19, 2004, 10:16 AM
Arrghhhh!

Art

If you enjoyed reading about ""High-And-Tight" Haircuts On Cops" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!