Not that they needed permission, but now it's super official, guys.

[Ethereal]

That's irrelevant and I don't see how anyone can be held responsible for what they didn't do. LEOs are members of a group that includes some "bad" people. They need to take a stand...or maybe Crepitus is one of several hypocrites here who would object if this was said about blacks, Muslims and so on. yeah, I'm going with that.

I hold them responsible as members of an institution, just as I held myself responsible as a former member of the Marines. I volunteered to put on that uniform and call myself a Marine, so I share some responsibility for what that institution did while I was a member. I mean, isn't that sort of the point of becoming a member of an institution? Collective identity necessarily implies some measure of collective responsibility, does it not?

[Mister D]

I hold them responsible as members of an institution, just as I held myself responsible as a former member of the Marines. I volunteered to put on that uniform and call myself a Marine, so I share some responsibility for what that institution did while I was a member. I mean, isn't that sort of the point of becoming a member of an institution? Collective identity necessarily implies some measure of collective responsibility, does it not?

They're just people spread out all over the country working for a variety of agencies, in a variety of contexts and in a variety of environments. It makes no more sense to hold "cops" accountable than it does blacks or Muslims.

[Ethereal]

They're just people spread out all over the country working for a variety of agencies, in a variety of contexts and in a variety of environments. It makes no more sense to hold "cops" accountable than it does blacks or Muslims.

I will concede that some individual law enforcement may be exceptions. But the vast majority of police belong to a distinct institution of "law enforcement community" which organizes through lobbying groups, unions, etc. The police in LA, Chicago, NYC, etc. all have a sense of common identity, purpose, and interests. Whenever a case goes before the supreme court, you can be sure these seemingly disparate agencies will all be represented and acting in solidarity with one another, arguing in favor of more power, more immunity, and more money. So, yeah, it's nuanced as you say, I don't deny that. But nuance is often lost in the midst of a war. And if you think calling it a war is hyperbolic, then simply ask yourself: Why do the police themselves describe their own actions as a war? Specifically, the "war" on drugs. If it's not a war, then why do they increasingly resemble military forces? Why do they employ military tactics?

[Mister D]

I will concede that some individual law enforcement may be exceptions. But the vast majority of police belong to a distinct institution of "law enforcement community" which organizes through lobbying groups, unions, etc. The police in LA, Chicago, NYC, etc. all have a sense of common identity, purpose, and interests. Whenever a case goes before the supreme court, you can be sure these seemingly disparate agencies will all be represented and acting in solidarity with one another, arguing in favor of more power, more immunity, and more money. So, yeah, it's nuanced as you say, I don't deny that. But nuance is often lost in the midst of a war. And if you think calling it a war is hyperbolic, then simply ask yourself: Why do the police themselves describe their own actions as a war? Specifically, the "war" on drugs. If it's not a war, then why do they increasingly resemble military forces? Why do they employ military tactics?

Laborers, operators and so on lobby and organize through unions. Are they all responsible for someone's corruption or shoddy work? Shared identities, common interests and purposes apply to all sorts of groups throughout these United States but we single out the cops for some reason. Sorry, I really don't get it. It's unfair and more the result of passion than reason.

For the same reason it's called a "war on poverty", a "war on women" etc. It's rhetorical.

[Ethereal]

Laborers, operators and so on lobby and organize through unions. Are they all responsible for someone's corruption or shoddy work?

To some extent, yes. They willfully assume a collective identity in order to obtain collective benefits, so why is it unreasonable for them to assume some measure of collective responsibility?

Shared identities, common interests and purposes apply to all sorts of groups throughout these United States but we single out the cops for some reason. Sorry, I really don't get it. It's unfair and more the result of passion than reason.

Because cops have the legal authority to deprive people of their life, liberty, and property. That is a unique authority and should be checked by unique responsibilities. But instead of acceding to this reasonable compromise, the various lobbying and union entities that represent collective police interests do everything they can to maximize their powers while minimizing their responsibilities.

For the same reason it's called a "war on poverty", a "war on women" etc. It's rhetorical.

Except police forces employ actual violence in their war, so it's not merely rhetorical. And it's no secret that their posture and tactics are becoming increasingly militarized. I say this as someone with direct experience in the military and in war. I know what a military unit looks like and behaves like and many police forces in this country increasingly resemble an occupying force.

[Mister D]

To some extent, yes. They willfully assume a collective identity in order to obtain collective benefits, so why is it unreasonable for them to assume some measure of collective responsibility?



Because cops have the legal authority to deprive people of their life, liberty, and property. That is a unique authority and should be checked by unique responsibilities. But instead of acceding to this reasonable compromise, the various lobbying and union entities that represent collective police interests do everything they can to maximize their powers while minimizing their responsibilities.



Except police forces employ actual violence in their war, so it's not merely rhetorical. And it's no secret that their posture and tactics are becoming increasingly militarized. I say this as someone with direct experience in the military and in war. I know what a military unit looks like and behaves like and many police forces in this country increasingly resemble an occupying force.

I don't agree and whether their association is willful or not is irrelevant. I don't hold you accountable for US actions in Iraq. If you do that's fine but I think that's irrational.

This is a form of special pleading. What cops can and can't do is irrelevant. Cops are collectively responsible but this apparently is not true for anyone else.

So what? The war on drugs is purely rhetorical. You can't wage war on drugs or poverty. We can combat drugs and poverty but that doesn't sound as cool. The police may very well have become militarized but they were brandishing .38s when these terms came into use.

[Orion Rules]

Today's police officers are chicken $#@! cowards.

Maybe to give Crepitus credence, that some may be cowards as there are also good cops, and those wavering between knowing what a patriot's real duty is, and that is to not disobey that which is higher than the laws of merchants, where everyone understanding it enough knows, in some instances, some are trained wrong as there are conflicting accounts. With race and I.D. required, the police may not enter a home or some other property without due process.

That's because Amendment # 2 of the Bill of Rights spells out how the well-regulated Militia is to be the We the People, and as things are, the police are part of it, but not all of it. That means that it is only really the local citizens who can bring a community back to peace and safety. If they know a crime is being committed, and there are not enough police officers, because robberies may be on the rise, then what to? Meaning who may carry defensive weapons and handcuffs?

The issues are that an unresponsive government at every level exists, but it's not all the fault of the Republicans. It's also the Democrats. Two power structures who render not much for the people that counts. Because by the time the "legal" process has worked, they're often too late, because they, as a group, are required to represent criminal organizations.

Does anyone have the real numbers of casualties? In time of war, which the United States is, there have been certain civilian casualties. A peace officer is he or she who is aware of and be sure to protect the rights of the citizenry to the Ten Amendments.

There are good cops and there are bad cops, who wear badges who should not have them, as they are abusers. Pure and simple, that is the case.

As for shooting dogs, and the 'requirements' that animals are not important enough to be given the same legitimacy as anyone else, meaning human beings are to be rendered certain rights towards unreasonable searches and seizures, Amendment #4, or then no one needs to obey the laws.

A dog is man's best friend, and when encompassed about by they who would shoot them, who would not run away to feel protected? And the Egyptian pond scripture states that Anubis is he who was with God in the beginning when God took just six days to create everything that God loves.

Posted by Crepitus:

Then the ones that aren't need to step the $#@! up and clean some house. Until then I stick with my original statement.

Ethereal: Yup.

Very few people deny that there are good individuals within the police forces, but they do not represent police forces as INSTITUTIONS, which are marred by corruption, abuse, and outright criminality. Until police forces are reformed at an institutional level, nobody in this country should feel positively towards them. In effect, they are an army of occupation, like the British in pre-revolutionary America. Only, the redcoats seemed to have much more restraint and accountability than modern police forces.

[Lummy]

Today's police officers are chicken $#@! cowards.

If there's any problem, it is that police procedures have reached the level of Obama, and that is a very low level. Think about that.

The worst street thug has more rights than you do, and not only that, he has a half dozen organizations watching out for him constantly.