Are Police for the most part good or bad?

[Scomagia]

Cops are just doing their job, even if they're brutalizing the wrong person out of sheer schadenfreude, but that can all be resolved as cops are human, too!


Perhaps OP is a #thinblueline supporter.

Almost certainly. Even though its against your own interests to support police over civilians unless you are yourself an officer.

It should be police and civilians, rather than police over civilians. There's no need for antagonism as the interests are the same, at least in principle. The police need some degree of authority in order to conduct investigations and arrests but the conditions of their authority should be as narrow as is needed to enforce the rule of law. Over broad authority or opacity in decision making lead to public distrust, unneeded violence, and ultimately more difficulty enforcing the law. So, police and civilians should be complementary with each aiding the other and engaging in open, civil dialogue.

[Rojava Free State]

Depends where but in america they suck. Are most cops brutal or crooked? Nah, but all the good cops just stand around and look the other way while the worst of the worst violate our rights. If they truly were "the good cops," they would speak up and admit their department has an issue instead of sweeping the problem under the rug.

[Rojava Free State]

Almost certainly. Even though its against your own interests to support police over civilians unless you are yourself an officer.

It should be police and civilians, rather than police over civilians. There's no need for antagonism as the interests are the same, at least in principle. The police need some degree of authority in order to conduct investigations and arrests but the conditions of their authority should be as narrow as is needed to enforce the rule of law. Over broad authority or opacity in decision making lead to public distrust, unneeded violence, and ultimately more difficulty enforcing the law. So, police and civilians should be complementary with each aiding the other and engaging in open, civil dialogue.

Kinda hard to have civil dialogue with a cop if he just issued you a ticket for speeding when you were 5 mph under the limit and when you dare to disagree, he drags you out of the car to hit you with his night stick

[Pacomia]

It should be police and civilians, rather than police over civilians. There's no need for antagonism as the interests are the same, at least in principle. The police need some degree of authority in order to conduct investigations and arrests but the conditions of their authority should be as narrow as is needed to enforce the rule of law. Over broad authority or opacity in decision making lead to public distrust, unneeded violence, and ultimately more difficulty enforcing the law. So, police and civilians should be complementary with each aiding the other and engaging in open, civil dialogue.

Kinda hard to have civil dialogue with a cop if he just issued you a ticket for speeding when you were 5 mph under the limit and when you dare to disagree, he drags you out of the car to hit you with his night stick

How often does that happen? Like, as a percentage of all times a cop pulls someone over for going above the speed limit.

[Rojava Free State]

Kinda hard to have civil dialogue with a cop if he just issued you a ticket for speeding when you were 5 mph under the limit and when you dare to disagree, he drags you out of the car to hit you with his night stick

How often does that happen? Like, as a percentage of all times a cop pulls someone over for going above the speed limit.

Wouldn't know the answer to that, but what I do know is a recent study into several police departments nationwide found numerous violent, offensive or racist posts from officers on the post and when you compare the problematic officers to the number of officers studied as a whole, it was like 25% of the cops.

Based on that survey of those cities, you basically have a 1 in 4 chance of being pulled over by Sheriff John Brown. Pray it isn't him next time the lights go on behind you. Btw the example I gave was based on the conduct of the Warren police department in my area

[Scomagia]

How often does that happen? Like, as a percentage of all times a cop pulls someone over for going above the speed limit.

Wouldn't know the answer to that, but what I do know is a recent study into several police departments nationwide found numerous violent, offensive or racist posts from officers on the post and when you compare the problematic officers to the number of officers studied as a whole, it was like 25% of the cops.

Based on that survey of those cities, you basically have a 1 in 4 chance of being pulled over by Sheriff John Brown. Pray it isn't him next time the lights go on behind you. Btw the example I gave was based on the conduct of the Warren police department in my area

Stats and numbers mean more when you tell us where you got them.

[Scomagia]

Kinda hard to have civil dialogue with a cop if he just issued you a ticket for speeding when you were 5 mph under the limit and when you dare to disagree, he drags you out of the car to hit you with his night stick

How often does that happen? Like, as a percentage of all times a cop pulls someone over for going above the speed limit.

Probably not often at all.

[Rojava Free State]

Wouldn't know the answer to that, but what I do know is a recent study into several police departments nationwide found numerous violent, offensive or racist posts from officers on the post and when you compare the problematic officers to the number of officers studied as a whole, it was like 25% of the cops.

Based on that survey of those cities, you basically have a 1 in 4 chance of being pulled over by Sheriff John Brown. Pray it isn't him next time the lights go on behind you. Btw the example I gave was based on the conduct of the Warren police department in my area

Stats and numbers mean more when you tell us where you got them.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6 ... n-Facebook

https://dnyuz.com/2019/07/18/13-philade ... dia-posts/

[Rojava Free State]

How often does that happen? Like, as a percentage of all times a cop pulls someone over for going above the speed limit.

Probably not often at all.

https://vittana.org/42-shocking-police- ... statistics
"Not often at all"

[The Liberated Territories]

What a loaded question. The idea of the police aren't bad, and not all police are necessarily bad people. Many want to help their communities, which drives them to become police officers in the first place.

What is bad is the infrastructure behind the police that allows them to get away with all sorts of things that would be criminal for common folk. A badge should not grant you total immunity.

[Rojava Free State]

What a loaded question. The idea of the police aren't bad, and not all police are necessarily bad people. Many want to help their communities, which drives them to become police officers in the first place.

What is bad is the infrastructure behind the police that allows them to get away with all sorts of things that would be criminal for common folk. A badge should not grant you total immunity.

Police brutality happens for many reasons, but the unifying theme is that the department usually looks the other way and tries to sweep incidents under the rug to avoid the feds getting involved

You know the classic saying. "We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong"

[Scomagia]

Stats and numbers mean more when you tell us where you got them.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6 ... n-Facebook

https://dnyuz.com/2019/07/18/13-philade ... dia-posts/

Okay, let's get some things straight here. The study in the first link is just terrible in a variety of ways. For one, it only analyzed public profiles which means their sample size would be small to begin with. Add in the fact that they only looked at officers in a few moderately sized cities and you get an even tinier sample size from which they found 1 in 5 making "racist" posts. That isn't especially convincing. Additionally, what is their definition of racist or violent? They don't say, nor are examples given.

Second link: a few assholes got fired for being assholes. Next?

Third link: There are no footnotes to those "statistics", not that I found anyway. Dismissed.

[Neko-koku]

The police is for the most part good. The secret police on the other hand..

[First American Empire]

Depends where but in america they suck. Are most cops brutal or crooked? Nah, but all the good cops just stand around and look the other way while the worst of the worst violate our rights. If they truly were "the good cops," they would speak up and admit their department has an issue instead of sweeping the problem under the rug.

American cops are awful. It's theoretically possible to have a police force that prevents more harm than it causes, but we definitely don't have that here in most of the US. (Police in the US are under the control of county and city governments and have literally no federal oversight at all, and can also legally get away with murder in most of the country.)

[Neanderthaland]

Like any group with power in society, they require systems to protect against corruption and ensure accountability. If those systems are not in place, bad things will follow.

[Alvecia]

We asking about police conceptually, or the officers personally?

[Victorious Decepticons]

I consider police to be a necessary evil. While I RP a nation that basically works exactly as Emulation White has been proposing (in terms of the lack of a legal system), I've also looked into what happens when societies try that in real life. Such real societies don't, as far as I know, try it "on purpose," but end up with a no-police state as a by-product of the total or near-total failure of the State itself. Then, the people have to figure out how to deal with it. Even so, one can look at what happened to them as a result of a lack of laws and law enforcement.

I present Afghanistan as a prime example of why a no-police state is a bad idea. After the fall of State control over most of the territory, street bandits and other criminals became rampant. In order to get from one town or another, people basically either had to blast their way through or pay ridiculous "tolls" to every group that stopped them. If they ran out of money, or were robbed of their entire bankroll, they risked being killed by the next group (and also had no way to get back home without money for the gauntlet of extortionists on the return route). General crime also spiked, and soon, the gangs of the strongest and most aggressive were able to lord over the "regular people," who are physically weaker, weaker-willed/meeker, were under-armed, or a combination of all of these. Those on the losing end soon found that they were stripped of all of their material goods and/or killed, but since the bandits had become entrenched, trying to directly fight back didn't work out. There was too much of a power disparity, but instead of cops having the power, the bandits had it.

Because of the futility of direct combat, what the average Joes did about this was NOT become strong, mighty, self-defending warriors IRL. Instead, the situation left a wide opening for a group to come in and promise strict law and order, and an end to the street banditry. And so, the Taliban became the government. The Taliban, as we know, went far beyond their original mandate of restoring law and order (and police), to impose their hyper-restrictive rules on everyone. And so it went, until they got themselves invaded.

Somalia was another place that essentially became a no-police state after its original government either totally collapsed or lost the vast majority of their territorial control (they may have had a single city left; I don't quite recall). Sea piracy is what they became known for, but inland, it is my understanding that street banditry and other crime also spiked. Now, I've read that things are calming down - because some Islamic group has come in and is enforcing order again. I expect it to end badly, but maybe they won't be as nuts as the Taliban...

Because of these things, I have come to the conclusion that police are necessary evils. They not only make sure that I don't have to pay 10 bogus "tolls" to street bandits just to go to the store (or war my way down the road like in a postapolcalyptic movie, hoping that I would always win) - the current police prevent the hyper-authoritarian insanity that comes AFTER everyone gets so sick of said bandits that they will accept ANY government that can put an end to it.

~~~~~~~~~~

As for the US police in particular, I've been fortunate to have always lived in areas with good or neutral ones. I think that in most areas, they are unnecessarily maligned. Most of this country is not metropolis territory, and almost all contemporary negative cop-related events seem to come out of big cities or city-size suburbs very close to (and blended with) them.

That said, there are certain cities where I think the entire department should be fired, from the chief on down, and replaced by people who have never been exposed to and contaminated by the prior culture of that department. LA and Chicago come to mind as good candidates for that treatment.

That said, the best way to deal with any cop is to avoid having to deal with them at all whenever possible. This is hard in cities, where there are a lot of them literally paid to cruise around (in their "cruisers" lol) and look for trouble. That's a bad setup, because it easily leads to them creating the trouble. In the rural areas, they're far more prone to stay in their holes until someone calls them out, which is what they all should do anyway.

The annoying thing is that the negative situations that arise from police oversaturation often arise after civilians in the affected areas call for a "strongly visible police presence." Then you end up with these bored loose cannons roaming around and being menaces because they really don't have anything/enough good to do.

I'd rather have cops be like home repair tradespeople: They stay invisible and inside their shops unless called, but once called, they come out quickly to deal with the problem. This is the status quo in some areas, but not enough of them. If they worked like that, they would surely be more prone to remember that they are supposed to serve the people, rather than try to be boss. And yes, sometimes that service does entail catching some criminal so that Grandma doesn't have to get out her shotty and DIY it.

[Highever]

In Louisiana, where apparently it takes more time and training to become a hairdresser rather than a cop, I would say bad.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Good. Order is one of the fundamental conditions for a society to flourish. Most enter the force for good reasons, but as with anything the bad apples can cause problems.

[Kernen]

Almost certainly. Even though its against your own interests to support police over civilians unless you are yourself an officer.

It should be police and civilians, rather than police over civilians. There's no need for antagonism as the interests are the same, at least in principle. The police need some degree of authority in order to conduct investigations and arrests but the conditions of their authority should be as narrow as is needed to enforce the rule of law. Over broad authority or opacity in decision making lead to public distrust, unneeded violence, and ultimately more difficulty enforcing the law. So, police and civilians should be complementary with each aiding the other and engaging in open, civil dialogue.

Talking to police will never, ever help you. It can only hurt. Nobody should cooperate with them for their own benefit.

[Unueco]

Police are good, they provide a vital public service.

[Alvecia]

It should be police and civilians, rather than police over civilians. There's no need for antagonism as the interests are the same, at least in principle. The police need some degree of authority in order to conduct investigations and arrests but the conditions of their authority should be as narrow as is needed to enforce the rule of law. Over broad authority or opacity in decision making lead to public distrust, unneeded violence, and ultimately more difficulty enforcing the law. So, police and civilians should be complementary with each aiding the other and engaging in open, civil dialogue.

Talking to police will never, ever help you. It can only hurt. Nobody should cooperate with them for their own benefit.

That seems awfully narrow minded.

[Kernen]

Talking to police will never, ever help you. It can only hurt. Nobody should cooperate with them for their own benefit.

That seems awfully narrow minded.

It isn't. Police will use what you say against you, and will attempt to mislead you, trick you, and put words into your mouth. If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you. If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that. Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to make an arrest, they will.

If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested. This is completely contrary to popular belief.

And even if you’re innocent, an innocent person can still make some assumption about a fact or state some detail about the case they overheard on the way to the police station, and the police will assume that they only way the suspect could have known that fact or that detail was if he was, in fact, guilty.

Example: Suppose a police officer is questioning a suspect about a homicide. He says that the victim died in a gangland style execution. The suspect makes the statement “I don’t know who killed the victim. I’ve never owned a gun in my life. I don’t even like guns.” On it’s face, there’s nothing incriminating about that statement. But suppose at trial, the prosecutor asks the police officer if anything about that statement surprised him. The police officer answers “Yes, it surprised me when the suspect mentioned a gun, because I had never mentioned a gun before that. I merely told him that I was investigating a homicide.”

When the officer said there has been a homicide, the suspect may have simply assumed that the killing was done with a gun. Or the suspect may have overheard in the police station some other officer talk about the fact that it was a shooting. But if the officer taking the statement had never mentioned a gun or a shooting, and the suspect makes the statement that he had never owned a gun, you give the prosecution the opportunity to create some high drama and has made a statement about a gun because he is, in fact, the murderer. And as the murderer, he knew that a gun was used.

This is just one of many, many reasons why talking to the police will never help you. Even if you're guilty and want to confess, talking to the police won't help you.

[Alvecia]

That seems awfully narrow minded.

It isn't. Police will use what you say against you, and will attempt to mislead you, trick you, and put words into your mouth. If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you. If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that. Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to make an arrest, they will.

If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested. This is completely contrary to popular belief.

And even if you’re innocent, an innocent person can still make some assumption about a fact or state some detail about the case they overheard on the way to the police station, and the police will assume that they only way the suspect could have known that fact or that detail was if he was, in fact, guilty.

Example: Suppose a police officer is questioning a suspect about a homicide. He says that the victim died in a gangland style execution. The suspect makes the statement “I don’t know who killed the victim. I’ve never owned a gun in my life. I don’t even like guns.” On it’s face, there’s nothing incriminating about that statement. But suppose at trial, the prosecutor asks the police officer if anything about that statement surprised him. The police officer answers “Yes, it surprised me when the suspect mentioned a gun, because I had never mentioned a gun before that. I merely told him that I was investigating a homicide.”

When the officer said there has been a homicide, the suspect may have simply assumed that the killing was done with a gun. Or the suspect may have overheard in the police station some other officer talk about the fact that it was a shooting. But if the officer taking the statement had never mentioned a gun or a shooting, and the suspect makes the statement that he had never owned a gun, you give the prosecution the opportunity to create some high drama and has made a statement about a gun because he is, in fact, the murderer. And as the murderer, he knew that a gun was used.

This is just one of many, many reasons why talking to the police will never help you. Even if you're guilty and want to confess, talking to the police won't help you.

My bad. It's narrow minded and presumptuous

[Ethel mermania]

That seems awfully narrow minded.

It isn't. Police will use what you say against you, and will attempt to mislead you, trick you, and put words into your mouth. If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you. If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that. Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to make an arrest, they will.

If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested. This is completely contrary to popular belief.

And even if you’re innocent, an innocent person can still make some assumption about a fact or state some detail about the case they overheard on the way to the police station, and the police will assume that they only way the suspect could have known that fact or that detail was if he was, in fact, guilty.

Example: Suppose a police officer is questioning a suspect about a homicide. He says that the victim died in a gangland style execution. The suspect makes the statement “I don’t know who killed the victim. I’ve never owned a gun in my life. I don’t even like guns.” On it’s face, there’s nothing incriminating about that statement. But suppose at trial, the prosecutor asks the police officer if anything about that statement surprised him. The police officer answers “Yes, it surprised me when the suspect mentioned a gun, because I had never mentioned a gun before that. I merely told him that I was investigating a homicide.”

When the officer said there has been a homicide, the suspect may have simply assumed that the killing was done with a gun. Or the suspect may have overheard in the police station some other officer talk about the fact that it was a shooting. But if the officer taking the statement had never mentioned a gun or a shooting, and the suspect makes the statement that he had never owned a gun, you give the prosecution the opportunity to create some high drama and has made a statement about a gun because he is, in fact, the murderer. And as the murderer, he knew that a gun was used.

This is just one of many, many reasons why talking to the police will never help you. Even if you're guilty and want to confess, talking to the police won't help you.

That's if you are suspected of a crime, reporting one is a different matter