Cops and attitude Problems...

[carebear]

I just wanted to belatedly recommend cordex's post as an example of how all this could have been avoided by the officers involved. Proper customer service applies to law enforcement as much as it does to any other public service industry.

Being relentlessly polite, like the aforementioned "patience of Job" Trooper, ALWAYS makes the other person look like the jack-a. It's when people get their dander up and start responding out of frustration and wounded pride that things go sideways.

Throw in someone who, in most of their business situations, is used to having control (needing it in fact for safety) who is then on a desk faced with someone (a complaint filing citizen) for whom "respect my author-i-ty" is not an appropriate response, who hasn't been properly trained in customer service techniques and you have a recipe for morons on parade as some of the officers on the tape appeared to be.

 

[grimjaw]

I didn't see the video/transcript and this thread until today. I like the suggestion of writing a letter and sending it certified mail to express a complaint for PD's that don't have forms. I've always found that anytime I lose my cool, if I sit down and try to compose a reasonable argument on paper the anger gets stripped away and the only thing left is the facts. Sometimes I don't end up writing anything, because I was unjustifiably mad in the first place. If there is something valid, organizing it and cementing it with paper adds validity and weight to my argument.

The reporters could have easily called every PD and asked "do you have a form for filing a complaint," but that wouldn't have been news that would have generated ADVERTISING REVENUE. I don't know what, if anything, the guy asking for the forms said off camera that might have ticked them off. I will say that with some people (not just officers), it doesn't take much. What was the goal of filming this action in the first place? If every department had politely responded 'no' would this even be a story? Sounds like they hoped to 'catch somebody in the act', but that's conjecture on my part.

My initial reaction was dismay at the behavior of some of the officers. It does seem that some of them had extreme reactions to simple, non-threatening questions. Upon reflection, I've lost count of the stupid things I've seen people do on video in 30 second snippets. (Some of them might have been cops!) Being a cop doesn't make a person less human than being a 'software engineer' makes me any smarter. For all I know, this is the only incident that's ever happened to any of these guys. A video clip doesn't tell this whole story any more than this one tells the story of my two week trip to DC in January. I think the bottom line is I trust the media less than I trust the police.

Since when did being a cop make a man/woman an island? The more distance between us and those sworn to uphold and protect, the worse it gets. That gets away from the original topic, though.

At least they didn't 'Rodney King' the guy, after which there would have been the quote: "Can't we all just get a form?"

jmm

 

[355sigfan]

Nope. Posse comitatus.

Soldiers can't be police. Police are not soldiers. They're civilians with a job. When they start thinking otherwise, that's when you run into trouble.
END QUOTE

We are not military but we are para military. We use the same rank structure, chain of command ext. Also when you look up the word civilian in the dictionary it says a person who is not a member of the military or police. Police have always been and will continue to be a para military organization.
Pat

 

[JDwannabe]

If using rank structure and chain of command equals paramilitary then nearly all fortune 500 companies could be classified as such.

 

[Herself]

Herself:"the (unintentionally?) disparaging remarks about "Joe Average" above"


Disparaging because they're true, perhaps?

No, Vex: disparaging because they disparage the "average Joe." You might remember him; it is him and his family you are supposedly sworn to "protect and serve." It's kinda hard to do that when you hold him in contempt.

People who are not cops or don't want to be cops plainly don't understand the politics involed in being part of a brotherhood.

So it's like a gang, then? It sure sounds like a gang when you put it that way.

Sorry. Police work is a job. J O B, perhaps as in "patience of." It is also a position of trust; that doesn't mean the public or the government is obluged to trust the police, it means officers are expected to behave in a manner deserving of trust.

The "politics of brotherhood" are the "politics of the dog pack." It's something humans have; we're not as pack-bound as wolves but it is in us. It is not inherently good or evil, but it can lead us, as individuals, into either, if the pack as a whole is headed that way.

My proof is the comments about how people hate cops because of the tickets they receive for violating the law! Someone even said they wished the cop would get run over so he could get out of a $85 ticket!

That "proves" that some guy hates some cop -- and it's not much proof; it looks as if he's merely venting, saying wild things he cannot make happen in order to salve his embarassent at getting caught. What, you never felt that way, even as a child caught by a teacher when you chewed gum in class?

The truth hurts, doesn't it? And the truth is comments like the ones I'm seeing that are meant to bash the officers that help keep your butts safe at night are what seperate police from "Joe Average."

Could you please paraphrase this for me? I'm having trouble working out what you were intending to say.

The truth is, the police are "Joe Average." You're us. We're you, or we might be. Like the preacher, power-station worker, doctor or many other workers, you have jobs that carry great responsibility; and like most such jobs, it is stressful and doesn't pay well in proportion to that stress. Not everyone is able to do such jobs -- and not everyone that does them is a paragon of virtue. That's human nature. Most are a cut above; and that's human nature, too.

Let me say that again, in hopes it will get through: most police -- most people with really vital jobs, jobs that get people killed if done poorly -- are exceptional people, who do their very best. But they're not robots; there's no group of people without a few real stinkers and a few more simple ne'er-do-wells in it; and most groups try to remove such individuals when they find them. But sometimes they can't or won't, and then, well, then it is time for outside intervention.

Lets turn this around, shall we? You say you know alot of jerk cops and maybe a few nice ones? Fine. I know alot of jerk civilians. Not all civilians are jerks, but there sure are alot. Maybe someone will start a "civilian watchdog" program.....

We have one. We call them "police." Perhaps you have heard of them?

But who shall watch the watchers? Who guards the guardians? (Note the original Latin carries the sense of "guarding from" rather than "protecting.") In our society, the people do, through their elected representatives and via the free press.

That is what is going on here. Not "police-bashing." Most THR members posting in this thread and on these fora have great respect for the police; they understand it is an essential job. The concern is for those few -- those very few -- who abuse the public's trust. If you protect those officers, you have made your stand; if you claim it is "us vs. them -- all police vs. all civilians," you have made your stand, and it is a greatly mistaken one. The true sides are the moral vs. the imoral, the honorable against those who who dishonor themselves; in that conflict, there is no "thin blue line," no simple matter of white hats against black hats. Would that life were so simple! But it's not.

"Citizen" and "suspect" are not identical sets of persons. No more than "policeman" and "bully." But all of them do overlap a bit. Shall I try to draw a diagram?

--Herself

 

[civilian]

adding to what's certainly turned out to be an exhaustive thread. a cop doesn't need this kind of paperwork in his file. just the other day a police officer in dc was involved in a shooting, and within days the washington post had a story running about previous complaints in the guy's file. cops don't need that in their file. so it didn't surprise me that some of these cops took a defensive posture. doesn't change the fact that the ones in the video blew it, and blew it bad. in fact, i don't see how you can watch that video and not be convinced that the first cop completely went overboard with this. he is threatening that guy - plain and simple.

what's not shown in the report is that these folks don't represent the majority of the force - or we certainly hope they don't. the police chief interviewed is what i would like to believe most departments reflect - a professional officer who realizes that police officers abide by an oath - to serve and protect. i'm a .gov employee. i don't get paid much, my agency is constantly criticized, and at some point in my career, i may be dragged before congress to explain the next big failure. but that's my job. i chose it, i took an oath, and i abide by it. that doesn't give me the right to act like an ass towards the next guy who criticizes my work. you don't want to be a police officer and be held to that standard - get another job. i really don't see how anyone could watch that report and not be upset by what they saw.

 

[RoadDawg]

Some things to consider

I'm not taking either side in this issue. I just want to make a couple of points from my experiences.
First, as to the artical, many of the actions claimed are at leat on face value wrong. None of us can make an informed decision without 100% of the facts and I think most people would agree that the media doesn't present 100% of the facts. I started watching the clips but got tired of the buffering in my computer so I cannot comment on them and won't.
Second, many departments, including ones I have worked for do not have a complaint form that people can take with them. They do have complaint forms, but the person has to sit down and fill it out and talk to a supervisor or someone from internal affairs while doing it. This is not to intimidate, this is to reduce the number of false accusations. I witnessed one woman try to black mail the police by stating that she wanted to make a complaint but if the ticket she received was dropped she wuld drop the complaint. Why would dropping the ticket matter. If the cop was wrong he should answer for it.
Third, many of the replies are from varying states. Rules, regulations and laws vary state to state and when out-of-staters are told it is not a crime they get incensed because they are thinking of their state not where they are.

I also agree that some of the postings are "silly". Quick point is ticket fines. I don't know of any state or municipality that doesn't have set fines for various offenses and the thing is the fines are set by the legislature, not the police. They only enforce the laws and fines, not make them.


There are bad seeds and they need to answer for their deeds, just try to get all the facts before you judge.

 

[LandShark]

"what's not shown in the report is that these folks don't represent the majority of the force"

civillian- I think that the report illistrated that point very well with the 15 or 20 snippets of police saying some form of "we dont have that kind of form."

I think that the problem is that the news segment confuses 2 seperate problems. The first one is the network's perceived lack of viable complaint options (i.e. no forms,) the second problem is that a few officers reacted completely unacceptably to a request to file a complaint.

 

[mcg-doc]

I hope you all listened to part two. Report indicates that a number of officers are under investigation. The best way may be to contact internal affairs rather then go to police department.

 

[Mad Man]

[deleted]

Laws are like currecy: the more you make, the less value they have.


---------------------------
[BLOCKQUOTE]


There's a reason you separate military and the police.
One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people.
When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.


-Commander William Adama
Battlestar Galactica
"Water" (Season 1, Episode 2)

[/BLOCKQUOTE]

 

[Mad Man]

If one of the deputy sheriffs goes too far, the prisoner comes to me!
If he's right l kick the deputy sheriff's ***!
I'm the law! And that's how it should be.
If you trample on the law, there's hell to pay!

"No, I don't have a complaint form."
​

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[c_yeager]

It's the same thing we see when the civilian population attempts to dictate military policy based off ethics and morals... nobody's "good" morals involves saying "it's alright to go into a coutry and kill people," but we do it anyway for many reasons, whether it's against a fascist dictator like Hitler, or against the evil called Communism, or if it's to overthrow a mad-man that's hell bent on bringing terror to the world.

You know, we still have elections during wars, and we still have all of the checks and balances, wars cannot happen without consent of the people at the voting box. So yes, "the civilian population" (you know military people get to vote too btw) do in fact get to decide military policy based on whatever criteria they desire.

Lets turn this around, shall we? You say you know alot of jerk cops and maybe a few nice ones? Fine. I know alot of jerk civilians. Not all civilians are jerks, but there sure are alot. Maybe someone will start a "civilian watchdog" program....

Uh we have one, its called "the police".

Vex is the sort of self-righteous elitist that pretty much ruins the whole party for most law enforcement. Guess what? Your not in a "brotherhood" you have "a job", you get paid. I bet it really chafes you that you are getting paid by the lowly Joes that you hate so much. Maybe we should do something about that. How about you post your real name and location so we can see if you think your boss would be "OK" with the attitude your displaying here?

THen again, maybe you dont have to worry about accountablility, what is your departments proceedure for dealing with complaints? Do you guys reach for your guns and run people out of the building too?

 

[Vex]

I'm not an elitist. What I am is tired of the unfair treatment cops get from the general public, usually due to a speeding ticket or failure to find someone's stolen car radio.

Anyway, this isn't about me, this is about the argument. Don't start bringing me and my personal information into any argument. Go back and read the rules of the forum...

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

What is wrong with my argument? Some civilians want to control the police because of the power hungry and greedy. Some think they can get out of a ticket by voting a different sheriff in office, or writing a letter to their state senator. The law is the law, no matter who enforces it, and in the great words of Jim Carrey in Liar Liar, "Stop breaking the law, A**hole!"

I bet it really chafes you that you are getting paid by the lowly Joes that you hate so much.

That's original. Tell ya what, here in central Ohio some friends of mine determined that around 4.2 cents per person goes to pay the area police departments. You start paying taxes here, and I'll make sure you get your money back so you won't have to "support" the evil, fascist police departments.

My argument:

Police departments don't need to have an "anonymous" complaint form just because some "Joe Average" doesn't like the current procedure that requires he speaks with an officer about the problem first.

Change your argument back on topic, or I won't respond again and this conversation will be over.

 

[XavierBreath]

Any entity that serves the public will have complaints. Whether it is a police department, a hospital, the telephone company or a pizza parlor. They will ALL receive complaints. It is inevitable.

Success in public service is not determined by whether an entity receives complaints. It is determined by how the entity handles complaints and applies corrective action. If this is how these police departments handle complaints from the citizens they serve, the departments have failed.

This film is shameful. Any officer who is not ashamed of this type of intimidation is culpable. If my coworkers did this kind of garbage, I would not tolerate it. It's a disgrace.

 

[spartacus2002]

Police by nature are a para military organization. Thats the way it is and always has been. Sounds like your crying for nothing.

Between the Average Joe comments and this gem above, I guess what they're trying to tell us is

 

[c_yeager]

Anyway, this isn't about me, this is about the argument. Don't start bringing me and my personal information into any argument. Go back and read the rules of the forum...

Asking you to put your money where your mouth is, is not a personal attack, just so you know. You made claims, and I asked for you to support them, you seem unwilling, which is entirely your priviledge, it does little to strengthen your argument though.

What is wrong with my argument? Some civilians want to control the police because of the power hungry and greedy. Some think they can get out of a ticket by voting a different sheriff in office, or writing a letter to their state senator. The law is the law, no matter who enforces it, and in the great words of Jim Carrey in Liar Liar, "Stop breaking the law, A**hole!"

What part of "the law" is being enforced in this news story? Is there a law on the books required desk officers to be jerks to anyone that wants to complain?

That's original. Tell ya what, here in central Ohio some friends of mine determined that around 4.2 cents per person goes to pay the area police departments. You start paying taxes here, and I'll make sure you get your money back so you won't have to "support" the evil, fascist police departments.

Im sure this was an honest mistake, noone could think that this statement is complete without including how often that 4.2 cents is paid. Is it 4.2 cents a day? a minute? an hour? a month? a year?

Police departments don't need to have an "anonymous" complaint form just because some "Joe Average" doesn't like the current procedure that requires he speaks with an officer about the problem first.

"Joe Average" being the majority of voters means exactly that. If the people want anonymous complains, guess what your gonna end up with. Dont worry, it will give plenty of cops ample reason to whine about how hard their job is, and it will nicely feed the elitism that we know so well.

Change your argument back on topic, or I won't respond again and this conversation will be over.

Oh noes!

 

[355sigfan]

Some people obviously have an ax to grind with the police. Responding further to this thread would be feeding the trolls. Good day.
Pat

 

[c_yeager]

Some people obviously have an ax to grind with the police.

Maybe you should wonder why so many people seem to feel this way. I know that if I found myself in a situation where most of the people I met disliked me, i would have to wonder if I were the problem instead of blaming everyone else.

 

[pax]

And that's the end of that.

Calling names is not allowed on THR.

Thread closed.

pax