What's with authorities and their crave for power?
- Thread starter YowYan
- Start date
yeah its true and i couldnt tell you man. the wrong people given some power i guess, power trips? the night i was hit. i answered their questions and wanted to go home but before they did let me go, said incident occurred
sadly the police got meh
It's a difficult line for some to handle.
On one hand - if I'm an officer, I'm not necessarily there to be your pal or your conscience. I'm there in a catch-22. I am either harassing an innocent person (if I take action before a criminal act occurs) or being lax/negligent when I have to interrupt a criminal act in progress. The middle-ground where you actually prevent a crime is only a few seconds long and it's exceptionally unlikely that I will be in the right place at the right time making the right judgment.
That is the key thing that makes an officer "superior" when on duty... the fact that they are on duty and that they are accountable for your actions as well as their own. You are not on equal terms with an officer on duty. You are responsible solely for you (and maybe your kids). If they stop to eat at Burger King - that Burger King becomes their immediate responsibility.
Which is why, even for the good cops, it can be difficult to identify with the person. They are often thinking higher-order - a different level of civil service - than the individual (who is more worried about their personal and family lives).
An officer tells someone to do something often out of regard for a bigger picture (such as apprehending someone who is near the scene of an active shooter... it's done to prevent that person from turning into an additional shooter... because you just don't know ... and it's also done to make sure that there aren't more targets wandering into the fray... all the person sees is that they were walking along and now this cop is telling them to get on the ground...).
Which brings us to the other hand:
The police are the functional interaction between the government and people. Perhaps in no other portion of government employment/service has as direct an impact on the population as the police. Police are first-responders to crimes that have shattered and/or disturbed the lives and security of individuals. They provide structure and organization during times of crisis, and during times of celebration (when police facilitate parades, fairs, festivals, etc). They speak to children in schools about various concepts of safety and personal integrity...
So... no - the average person is not superior to an officer. Nor is that person equal to the officer. True - not all officers are shining examples of what they should be; but the fact of the matter is that we have designated the title and position of a law enforcement officer to have superior authority in a situation (and a court that has an even greater authority than the officer).
It's not that officers "forget who they serve" - it's, on one hand, that people tend to forget their own place in things... and on the other - officers tend to lose touch with what it is like to be a person in those scenarios.
KiraGirl K
Active member
I agree.
Crave for power and this case don't have a direct connection, so the thread title is a bid misleading.
I would say police officers aren't authorities>>> they are the executives.
Now that is unacceptable. Once the person is compliant - the use of force (hard controls and above) ends. Force may only be used to elicit compliance - which a person properly restrained can, really, only warrant hard controls in the most extreme of cases (you may be able to pull out a few wildcard cases where intermediate weapons or even deadly force are justified... but you're talking some very isolated and special cases). Even then - it has to be reasonable application of force. I could use my baton to leverage you, but not strike you while restrained (I'd have to be able to justify to a very critical group any strikes made).
And God help me if I shoot you while restrained. That's breaking all ten of the commandments while committing treason and confessing to being a child rapist. Actually, it's worse than that. Handcuffed people with bullet wounds make for pictures that reach critical mass when they hit the media streams.
But, pretty much, once you're restrained, there's hardly ever going to be justifiable reason to escalate beyond soft controls. ... And even then - once the threat ends or compliance is obtained... you de-escalate to the minimum force necessary.
Again... what we were trained for maritime security operations.
A guy I met in Politics told me his dad works in the Police, and he was basically given the choice of going the good or the other way at the end of his interview back 1989. That's the UK we're talking about.
And after Hillsborough files for the British people in here, I'm not sure to what extent can they be trusted. 41 deaths out of the 96 could have been prevented according to the recent findings.
And yea, during 2010, Alfie Meadows had his share of Police love, while protesting against tuition fees.
And after Hillsborough files for the British people in here, I'm not sure to what extent can they be trusted. 41 deaths out of the 96 could have been prevented according to the recent findings.
And yea, during 2010, Alfie Meadows had his share of Police love, while protesting against tuition fees.
You must be registered for see images
UchihaBrat
Active member
You really know what you're talking about!
Even if I would disagree with you on some points, that disagreement isn't directed at you as much as it is at the mad society we've created.
And despite my feelings about that, I feel rather safe knowing you at least put this much effort into it all and seemingly in goodwill.
Thank you for doing a great job on informing us of your difficulties with work interactions! I'll heed and consider what you've said if I ever get into a situation where it might be useful for a better conclusion!
Also, about the superior part, normal citizens contra officers. Do you think it is that some citizens mistake their position, as relative to an officer, as related to the authorized privileges by the government? I'm not quite sure I understood this part:ghehe:
I mean, you have as an officer been authorized to legally do things a normal citizen can't, do they forget this?
Few things are ideal.
I have many gripes with my local police department for what I see are lacks of resolve and overall lethargy. While I should not discuss too many details regarding events yet unfolding (meaning I only have bits and pieces of the facts)...
Recently, some items of mine were liberated from my custody while overseas. A woman, apparently, found some of these items in the possession of her grand-daughter, and approached the police knowing that these items had to have been stolen (or, at the very least, belonged in the care of the person whose name was written upon them). Allegedly - the police took no action to resolve the issue.
The woman then went to a bank (exactly how this came to be a logical course of action, I'm not entirely sure) - and a woman there happens to be the mother of one of my friends (well - she is kind of a direct friend, but I was introduced to her as the girlfriend of a class-mate, friend, and co-worker of mine before she was really more of a direct friend). She recognized the name and managed to contact with me (though this is as far as anything has yet gone).
Now... one thing the police should be able to do is work with government officials to return property to its owners when it is brought to their attention. It may not be written out verbatim in their job description or mission statement... but it's a logical function of their department.
Also. If there is not a major meth bust going on at least twice a week... someone isn't doing their job. The **** is rampant here, is a primary motivator behind theft in the region, and it needs to stop. You're not going to stop it with laws against buying Equate's cough syrup (though the police should have and maintain informants within pharmacies and retail stores to identify frequent or excessive buyers...) - you're only going to stop it by dropping the hammer on the small production/distribution cells. True... you're never going to be able to eliminate the determined tweaker who will cook it up for himself (and possibly a couple others) - but you can break up the rings of it.
But, I wouldn't be popular in law enforcement. I would be a bit too... I'm not really sure what the word would be. I would not pursue possession and distribution of pot. Instead, I would work to form a sort of standing agreement with the 'pot community' - "You all have some good ears to the ground and eyes on the world. Help keep me busy busting meth keeping it stamped out... and we can all co-exist." And I'd run a very aggressive -military-like- offensive against meth as far as I'd be allowed (official jurisdiction be damned - if the county will let me go after the draino-drinkers, I'll push the borders of the county... and keep going until Kansas starts wondering why the hell their meth problem took a dive off a cliff and looking for answers).
I've already hinted at my strategy - ground-level informant networks with centralized reporting and tracking (would be somewhat manpower intensive - but computers can help reduce the manpower overhead when used efficiently... which is something few people in government know how to accomplish, but I do). You use that to prioritize and select your targets. Then you have your response teams that do nothing but kick doors in. We'll keep a judge hog-tied to a chair somewhere to approve warrants.
It'd be effective... but we'd soon run out of jail space. That, and I'm sure that the media coverage would be a mixed bag. On one hand - less meth is always a good thing. On the other hand... the idea that you have police conducting a shock&awe campaign through residences would be a bit unsettling. There would also be interviews with plenty of people who claim to be completely innocent and would have these stories about how the police shattered their door with det-cord and proceeded to hunt down everything in the house.
And there may be a few legitimately innocent people caught up in the mess. And those stories would pretty much put an end to the campaign.
But... I think I've digressed quite far from my original point.
Well... to be kind of fair... I've often had people ask me, directly: "What are you, some kind of saint? You don't drink, you don't smoke... you claim to be a virgin still, and everyone believes you... do you have any vices!?"
I'm a very principled and heart-felt person... it's difficult to get me to abandon those principles, and it's rare when I fail to act according to them. So - I wish there were more people who were like me in that regard. I am not sure why, exactly, but I seem to be much more affected by my own personal failings to uphold my principles when compared to others... I remember the times that I became a person I am ashamed to have any relation to (much less that it be myself at another time) - and I resolve to never again be that person. Others tend to lapse into it without realizing they have become someone else... or find such to be acceptable to their person.
A fellow service member (also a highway patrol officer) passed along a great piece of advice:
"The officer always thinks he/she is right. Whatever you did or didn't do - just take the ticket. You will have your day in court. Even if the officer is over-stepping his or her bounds - just go with it and remember that you will have your day in court."
Now - there are a few instances I would like to add a bit more to it. If you are being arrested or having essential property seized - you do have a right to personal defense and to a proper charge. This is really a gray area - because there are many reasons an officer may be doing such a thing (that are not to harm or deprive you of anything) ... but I'm not going to sit here and say: "Yeah, just do whatever an officer tells you - even if it is to take off your clothes and put yourself in handcuffs." There are plenty of instances where criminals have impersonated officers, and plenty of instances where officers have done criminal things. ... And historical examples of entire departments/county institutions that were corrupt and oppressive.
But, in most practical cases, it's better to just roll with it and address any grievances later. If for no other reason than the officer has a baton and a firearm to enforce whatever he/she is telling you to do... and it's almost never worth pushing the issue.
People have rights.
The problem is that people interpret these rights differently. I, personally, interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that my right to own and carry a firearm shall not be 'abridged' (meaning shortened, reduced, or bypassed). That means no city or state has the right to tell me I cannot have a firearm on my person.
That's not the way others have interpreted it, and laws exist at state and local levels regarding who can brandish a firearm, where, and whether or not any special permits are needed to do so.
Realistically - I do not exercise the right I feel I have because I am aware of the conflict it will create. But others are not always this way (though not necessarily in regards to firearms). They feel they have a right, and when the officer interrupts their behavior - they want to try and run the show as the legal expert. They may be right... they may not be - but they don't really stop and think how likely it is that the officer will simply evaporate at their challenge.
UchihaBrat
Active member
Damn, you should in other words, as I see it:
- Get promoted, but not without someone whom has your back, in case you need help as well as when you go too far. So it'd have to be someone trustworthy and with good judgement. Hope you have someone like that.
- With such a plan you'd probably also need to smart going about it, and very meticulous not to step where you shouldn't, taking into consideration what you did about the innocent claimers.
Good luck!xd
Hmm~ We all have our flaws, no one is spared off of them, or rather, it's probably super rare and what a flaw is depends on how you see it, which means it can't really be a well defined thing, seeing as there's more than 7 billion of us.
But then, for those whom are already halfway down in the puddle of flaws, I personally believe that that's where we'll have to start. We may have been able to avoid getting in there to begin with, but that's speaking in 'what ifs and maybes,' it doesn't help as it's past tense and we have to deal with the present. I think, reading your text, that you're doing well, or at least so it seems. You know the uncertainty of the internet and how you should always criticize this and that, no offence whatsoever. It's just an ingrained thing of mine.
Hmm, that's even more elaborative on the issue.
It makes me recall the Utöya incident where the Norseman Breivik cloaked his real intentions through using a uniform and people's general carelessness(not that is should be like that, but it's the world we live in eh?).
I actually called the police about this, asking how you would identify a police officer, were they making ridiculous requests and if you doubted their legitimacy.
For example:
There are the civil cops here in Sweden(they dress in according to civil code), but whom is to say whether their 'badge'(they use an identification card of sorts here in Sweden I think) isn't forged?
Well, their(the police I spoke to) answer was: Ask them if they can prove their belonging to the police by showing you their badge so that you can call the police and have them check a certain identification number all officers have.
It is as you say though, a grey area as many times intentions aren't know, pointing at the importance of communication
100% agreement on this one I tell you! People are far too confrontation-hungry for their own and others' good when it comes to these situations.
I get the impression that they somehow do this because of some decrepit sense of 'f*ck the police' mentality. It's really sad because it's generalizing and making more difficult the work of good policemen and women..