dealing with out-of-line police officers.

[jcoiii]

And, because I am reasonable I'll continue to give the benefit of the doubt. The entire purpose of this thread, to answer all your qustions about identification, is that all officers look pretty much alike. They are, shall we say, 'uniform' in appearance. If one of them is 'bad', you cannot tell by appearance. That's all! That's why evasive maneuvr's could not be contemplated, because if trouble is upon you it is too late.

Then I suppose you must approach any interaction with any cop as if all cops are bad? Since ou don't know which one is bad? I am not disputing the statement, as you cannot tell if any person, cop or otherwise, is bad or good. I also read your opening line that you do not expect to have to deal with bad cops. So, as I read it, you are simply making a statement of an abstract fact that facts support the statement that "some cops are bad." No one disputes that. Further, based on this premise, you are asking "God forbid, what if I happen upon a situation where I do run into one of the "bad" cops?" I am not offended by this question, but by some of the other more generalized statements later on in this thread, which in reality do not address the fundamental question.

Anyone with a computer can find and cite examples of bad cops. And forgive me a little laziness for not looking up this statistic, but IIRC the percentage of bad cops is roughly 5% (verify if you will, I am recalling from the academy.) The phrase "most cops" should not be applied unless it is in a positive manner, as "most cops" are in fact very "good" and professional. The phrase "a few cops" are dirty/bad/corrupt is a fine and accurate statement. Some (note that I did not say most ) on this board would do well to keep in mind that a small minority of LEOs are bad. Those of us who wear the badge would greatly appreciate that small change in rhetoric.

 

[buzz_knox]

The phrase "most cops" should not be applied unless it is in a positive manner, as "most cops" are in fact very "good" and professional. The phrase "a few cops" are dirty/bad/corrupt is a fine and accurate statement. Some (note that I did not say most ) on this board would do well to keep in mind that a small minority of LEOs are bad. Those of us who wear the badge would greatly appreciate that small change in rhetoric.

Can we get a reciprocal agreement that: the term "civilians" should not be used to describe individuals other than cops; that when discussions of bad cops come up (like this one), cops won't infer that to mean a discussion fo all cops; and that certain cops will cease to infer/imply/believe that most civilians are just crooks waiting to be discovered?

 

[M-Rex]

Can we get a reciprocal agreement that: the term "civilians" should not be used to describe individuals other than cops; that when discussions of bad cops come up (like this one), cops won't infer that to mean a discussion fo all cops; and that certain cops will cease to infer/imply/believe that most civilians are just crooks waiting to be discovered?

No.

Webster defines civilian as: "one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force"

All the rest of your post is blather that can essentially be translated into, 'cops shut up, cops shut up, cops don't think bad of civilians, and shut up.

 

[buzz_knox]

Your right on the definition. I guess we will just have to accept that cops and civilians are distinctly different groups.

As for the rest of your post, that goes more to your own inability to debate the issue than anything else.

 

[jcoiii]

I'd say fine with me. I generally try to acknowledge that "LEO bashing" threads generally do not refer to the majority of officers. There are a few posts, however, which read quite differently (see above for some examples), and to which upstanding, honorable officers take great exception. It's terms like "all" or "most" which move the discussion out of the specific incident and into the gross generalization.

I will speak only for myself. I have a huge problem with any officer who turns criminal and hides behind the badge. There are few things that can happen on this earth that anger me more than that. And it goes beyond the subsequent mistrust and bad publicity for all LEOs, which gets reflected in threads like this. It is a fundamental principle of honor. I wish I could put into words. But I'm sure those principles would simply be mocked as being "hopelessly romantic, archaic and outdated." Unfortunately, I don't think I can convey the sense of it. And I guess it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[buzz_knox]

I'd say fine with me. I generally try to acknowledge that "LEO bashing" threads generally do not refer to the majority of officers. There are a few posts, however, which read quite differently (see above for some examples), and to which upstanding, honorable officers take great exception. It's terms like "all" or "most" which move the discussion out of the specific incident and into the gross generalization.

I will speak only for myself. I have a huge problem with any officer who turns criminal and hides behind the badge. There are few things that can happen on this earth that anger me more than that. And it goes beyond the subsequent mistrust and bad publicity for all LEOs, which gets reflected in threads like this. It is a fundamental principle of honor. I wish I could put into words. But I'm sure those principles would simply be mocked as being "hopelessly romantic, archaic and outdated." Unfortunately, I don't think I can convey the sense of it. And I guess it doesn't matter anyway.

Actually, I understand exactly what you are saying. But I suspect some of your own brethren would disagree with you across the board. And as you say, some of the above posts demonstrate this.

 

[M-Rex]

Actually, I understand exactly what you are saying. But I suspect some of your own brethren would disagree with you across the board. And as you say, some of the above posts demonstrate this.

Really? Point out a few for me.

Your right on the definition. I guess we will just have to accept that cops and civilians are distinctly different groups.

As for the rest of your post, that goes more to your own inability to debate the issue than anything else.

<Personal insult removed by Art>
(Note: It was a Biblical reference about wasting time presenting an arguement to a person who is predisposed not to listen. edit - M.)

 

[XavierBreath]

When Robert Davis was beaten on the streets of New Orleans by law enforcement, an AP cameraman recorded the event. Additional law enforcement then went after the cameraman and the AP reporter with him.

This is a clear and indisputable account of law enforcement not appreciating being filmed by anyone other than John Walsh's crew or COPs.

 

[antarti]

I will speak only for myself. I have a huge problem with any officer who turns criminal and hides behind the badge. There are few things that can happen on this earth that anger me more than that. And it goes beyond the subsequent mistrust and bad publicity for all LEOs, which gets reflected in threads like this. It is a fundamental principle of honor. I wish I could put into words. But I'm sure those principles would simply be mocked as being "hopelessly romantic, archaic and outdated." Unfortunately, I don't think I can convey the sense of it. And I guess it doesn't matter anyway.

I won't try to put words in your mouth, I'll just relay something.

When a bad LEO (or even a bad LEO impersonator) goes on a spree and word gets out, people (especially women) start looking for brightly lit places to pull over. My wife made that mistake once, putting on blinker, driving slow, and driving .5 miles to nearest gas station. She got 3 cruisers for her trouble, and a bunch of LEOs being indignant about it, and threatening that in the future, she not do that unless she'd like to be seen as fleeing. Of course, the "Resource Officer" (a fully vested LEO) at her school was the one to give her the original advice, and to tell her "believe me, they will understand".

So we have those LEOs who are indignant when other LEOs do wrong (a good thing), LEOs who get indignant when a brother is accused (even on the Internet) of any malice, and LEOs who get indignant when somebody even suspects malice on their part (as we are supposed to recognize that THIS person is above it, and shouldn't "insult" them).

Bottom line, things look the same on both sides of the aisle, LEO and non-LEO. Those who are predisposed to respect the other side will, those who aren't... won't.

Unfortunately only one side is sanctioned to use force against the other and then bring a group of brothers in to help with the aftermath, whatever that might be.

The thread topic is dealing with "out-of-line" LEOs. Can there be any answer besides the court of law (with LEO as defendant) , or the court of law (with you as defendant)? I mean, what can you do... call the police? I am grateful for the discussion, but will it ever go anywhere... I see few options.

 

[Sindawe]

More like throwing pearls before swine.

Did'nt O'Reilly cover that topic in their groundbreaking text PERL for Swine a few years back?

Can there be any answer besides the court of law (with LEO as defendant) , or the court of law (with you as defendant)?

There is, however it ain't pretty and tends to get one talked about.

 

[M-Rex]

The thread topic is dealing with "out-of-line" LEOs. Can there be any answer besides the court of law (with LEO as defendant) , or the court of law (with you as defendant)? I mean, what can you do... call the police? I am grateful for the discussion, but will it ever go anywhere... I see few options.

I think the only realistic option is document, and go to court.

 

[Art Eatman]

Any more sarcasm, and guess what?

Art

 

[jcoiii]

In the unfortunate (for joe citizen) event that there is the bad LEO, I'm afraid the only "good" option is indeed document and report. And I can in fact think of situations where other measures would need to be taken, consequences be damned.

 

[Krenn]

it's like watching a forest fire....

 

[justashooter]

No, we don't. We have to enter each and every call that we respond to with a neutral mind. In short, NO ONE is immediately guilty--or innocent.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--NO ONE IS QUICKER TO SLAM A DIRTY COP THAN OTHER COPS. No, it hasn't always been that way, and I'm the first to admit it. Yes, there are dirty cops--far too many.

Oh, and by the way--who gave you the right to challenge someone's integrity?

we should all hope that this is the case.

in my experience, this is not the case. perhaps you could enlighten us with anecdote?

it is a right we all reserve, just as you do.

 

[justashooter]

IIRC the percentage of bad cops is roughly 5% (verify if you will, I am recalling from the academy.)

so they are just like everybody else?

 

[c_yeager]

so they are just like everybody else?

I think it would perhaps be a little generous to describe 95% of the general public as being "great people". If you disagree please go to a public bus/train station before you finalize your opinion.

 

[justashooter]

I think it would perhaps be a little generous to describe 95% of the general public as being "great people". If you disagree please go to a public bus/train station before you finalize your opinion.

i would characterise the 95% of cops who are not bad guys as something other than "great people".

i have spent 48 hours on trains in the last 3 weeks, boarding/exiting thru the biggest train station in china 4 times. american train stations are the same. train stations are not a decent sample of the population in america, anyway.

 

[Powderman]

OK, even though I promised myself I would not chime in again, I must ask:

How, then, would you define cops? Please elaborate.