The awakening came upon calling the police after my father beat the living hell out of me. They showed up, spent 15 minutes or so laughing and joking with him, and left, at which point he beat me unconcious & broke at least one rib.

The various wanna-be stormtroopers I dealt with driving wreckers did nothing to change my opinion. The one who threatened to arrest my wife if she didn't give him oral sex (needless to say, that isn't what he said) didn't surprise me. Neither did her reaction (heck, I still laugh every time I think about it).

__________________
Jarlaxle
----------------------------------------------------
I know that I will never be politically correct
And I don't give a damn about my lack of ettiquette
--Jim Steinman

So you had a few bad incidents with crappy police officers and so use that to justify being biased against all of them (or at least 90-95%)? Wow, that's how most people are racist or sexist, one person does something horrible to them and so they blame everyone of that gender or that ethnicity, or wearing that uniform.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

I know plenty of cops, my father was a cop, my godfather is a chief of police in DE, and a lot of the older men I knew growing up were cops (a consequence of having a police officer father). Back in the late 70's and early 80's, police officers were trained to be peacekeepers, not combat marines. They used firearms true enough, but the majority of their training dealt with defusing violent situations before they got ugly and subduing suspects without force (since they didn't have tasers, any resisting subject either had to be fought with fists, baton, or black-jack). The cops I knew growing up and know today (most of them are lieutenants and higher now) were and are good men with strong devotion to their jobs and communities.

Today however, our cops are taught the "federal" way. That is, taser anybody who doesn't comply immediately, treat every situation as life or death, threaten and coerce rather than convince, and draw weapon whenever one wants to feel cool. Because cops no longer require the critical thinking skills of yesterday (those used to convince the 200lb drunkard to quiet down and walk away), you get a crop of lower-income, uneducated tough-guys who see action movies and want you to "respect their authoritah". We need more community policing, less federal training, and a serious demilitarization of our police departments. My father once engaged in a firefight with a suspect that lasted four seconds with a .357magnum and a bullet-proof vest. Today, they need an M4 and full riot gear why? To look cool and imposing.

It's sad. In my hometown in DE, the local cops (under direction from my godfather) still wave to passers by, say hi to the little kids, and are generally very courteous to you when they pull you over (never for less than 10mph over the limit). That certainly doesn't stop them from taking down the criminals with reasonable physical violence when needed. Leave town and deal with the state troopers, it's a WHOLE 'nuther story. They won't shake your hand, wave to you, and will write you tickets for assanine reasons. I was blocked by an 18-wheeler once and couldn't get on the shoulder immediately, so when I finally pulled over the trooper asked me why I evaded an officer. I told him to "**** off" and "give me my ticket". A conversation with a few of my fathers friends later, I no longer had a ticket.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

The police are there to enforce the law and to do a bunch of other things that have sort of grown up from the fact that they exist. They're not there to protect any individual, rather to provide a deterrent against lawbreaking and to deal with lawbreakers. So, the police are an arm of the state and one of the few domestic agencies permitted to use force against the citizen.

Of course some individual police officers are dickheads. Most aren't. The original article takes a single incident by (if it's true) someone who should no longer be a cop. Now, I know it's trite to argue that you can't generalise from one incident but I have to be frank, the truth is that it's not rare for a cop to act like a dickhead. But if a jurisdiction has a good complaints investigation system in place it goes a long way to ensuring a balance between those with authority and those who have authority exercised against them.

If you explode with outrage about cops and imagine they're all out to get you then either you're very immature or unwell

There are a few very good articles about the militarisation of the police (just Google the phrase and read away for hours). Many of them blame Daryl Gates (he created SWAT when he was in the LAPD). I'm not sure about that but I'll defer to experts.

From this distance it's hard to generalise about police in the US. But you know if you want to see police in militaristic mode look to Europe. The Gendarmerie Nationale in France (in particular the CGS), the Bundespolizei in Germany, the Gendarmerie in Austria (they may have re-organised in recent years). There are some that are of military origin - the Marechaussee of the Netherlands. But if you're American just look north. The RCMP/Gendarmerie Royale du Canada is the number one regiment of the Canadian Forces.

But that's not the point is it? The point is that there is a perception that American policing (gross generalisation but can't help it) has become much more oppressive, its militarism is just a visible manifestation. I'm sure there's some truth in that but I also think, from looking at Lumara's first post, that part of the problem lies with the legislators. The cops enforce the law, they don't make it. Point the finger where it belongs. It would seem to me that, if I can generalise Lumara's points, that American society has become more authoritarian. And that may well be right.

Seat belts laws have nothing to do with safety. They were created to generate another revenue stream for the government.

__________________
Carolina Politics Online

Sam

Exactly. Just like speeding ticket quotas. Another source of revenue. If law enforcement personnel would concentrate on fighting actual crimes like murder, assault, and theft, rather than hassling citizens for revenue, this country would be a lot more free.

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

I remember once in college learning about the Japanese system of law enforcement, and how their police departments are far LESS militarized than Europe and America, and yet they have lower crime. I don't know that this is causation, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I recognize the need for specialized police units, some situations are beyond the capabilities of normal police training (like North Hollywood for example). But issuing patrol officers quick-release thigh-holsters, tactical gear, and automatic weapons in lieu of shotguns (the latter of which is actually more useful, but looks less imposing) is simply ridiculous. I was driving in Philadelphia once and saw a motorcycle cop with an MP5 on his bike, A SUBMACHINE GUN. Why? What possible use would that be to a motorcycle cop who writes tickets all day, has a radio, and oh yeah, already has a sidearm that fires the same caliber ammunition (as well as 45 rounds of ammunition).

Our police force needs to return the days where cops wore professional (but still practical) uniforms, worked to create stronger communities instead of simply scaring people into compliance, and for the love of god take away the tasers (they just make the cop more prone to use force when speech can work).

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

Yeah, never mind that some police departments have phrases like "To Protect and Serve" on their police cars.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

I can take my rifle and start shooting at government officials alone today if I like, but I doubt I'd last very long against those kinds of numbers (I have training in firearms, but not even SEALs are that good). Most Americans are so content to live in a distinctly unfree society so long as the lights turn on and they can still watch American Idol, so the problem lies more with recruitment and organization than with armament. It would take overt tyranny (troops walking down the streets) to mobilize the American people against it, but prior to that point the American people will have permitted anti-gun laws to "protect" themselves from each other. This is why gun owners don't register their weapons (at least, the smart ones) and strive to fight against revisionist legal historians who state that the second amendment provides only a "collective" right.

I don't want to make this a gun-control debate (because there isn't a debate, it's illegal) since that's not the point of the thread, but your question is now answered.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".