Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Cop Types....

  1. #1
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,707

    Cop Types....

    Bad laws attract bad people to enforce them - while pushing out the good (and semi-good) people. It's a sort of Gresham's Law as applied to human society. And more, a sort of authoritarian feedback loop that makes the situation progressively worse as time goes by.



    Consider the position of "law enforcer" in 2012 America. What does it entail? When we had peace officers, it mostly meant going after thugs - people who victimize others by threatening them with violence. Frauds and crooks, too. In brief, it meant going after those who violate the rights of others.


    It was - generally - an honorable way to earn one's living. Most citizens therefore respected cops - or at least did not actively dislike and fear cops. Most cops were "ok." They - generally - could be counted on to leave you alone unless you'd actually done something to warrant not being left alone. It was a quid pro quo that made sense no matter which side of the fence you happened to be on.


    Today, it is law enforcement that threatens harmless, morally (if not legally) innocent people with violence. The guy who, for example, grows a small batch of pot plants in his backyard (as opposed to the lawful citizen who brews his own beer). Or the seatbelt scofflaw - whose actions threaten harm to none except, perhaps, himself (and even then, only potentially). Or the farmer who sells "unapproved" milk to his neighbors. And the students who dare to exercise their right to peaceable assembly. The driver who declines to be a witness against himself and refuses to submit, sans warrant - and very often, sans probable cause - to a random stop and search of his vehicle and person.



    The list of victimless crimes - and latter-day victims of law enforcement - is long. Citizens are aware of the creepy fact that being a peaceful, harmless person who respects the rights of others is no longer sufficient to avoid becoming the target of a law enforcer. That the law increasingly targets people who have violated no other person's rights - but who have violated "the law." That is, who have committed some affront against the state.


    Which is why citizens today increasingly dislike - and fear - these law enforcers. It is also why today we have essentially three kinds people who suit up for this sort of work:


    Type one: The robotic "just doing my job" type. He is either not smart enough or introspective/thoughtful enough to consider the nature of the system; whether the laws are just or even reasonable. This is the cop type that can't be reasoned with and more, the type who will enforce any law and any order simply because it's an order or because it's the law. Nothing more is required. He just follows orders. And it's our job to Obey.


    The upshot is this type of cop is only bad to the extent that the laws he enforces are bad. There is a limit. He usually won't exceed the law or go beyond what he is ordered to do (because then he'd be exercising initiative and this type of cop is almost constitutionally incapable of that because it conflicts with his inner prime directive of obedience to the hierarchy.) He is fundamentally a bureaucrat. Bad perhaps, but not usually deliberately vicious.


    Type two: The power-luster. This one enjoys wielding power over others. It makes him feel big and strong. He is often narcissistic and may even be sadistic. He absolutely lacks empathy. He sees us as " civilians" - or worse. And it's our job to Submit.


    This type of enforcer is frightening because given the opportunity he will assault and possibly even kill you. And he's actively looking for that opportunity. A recent example being the group of such enforcers in Fullerton, CA who beat a helpless homeless man to death (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKGMaJG7gT4). And they will feel no remorse afterward. Indeed, they will get pleasure out of it. This is the sort of person who would have - and may yet again - line people up in front of a ditch.


    Or man an oven.


    Type three: The old school cop. He is usually old, literally. A relic of the days when cops didn't expect immediate submission, when cops were expected to treat citizens civilly. He has mellowed - or become aware (and thus, cynical) about the nature of The Job. He tries to be decent, within the boundaries of what's possible given "the law" and current law enforcement culture. He's close to retirement, though, and doesn't want to make too many waves. He's also rare. You might get him one out of ten times these days.


    Expect to see much less of him in the future, too.


    His type is being screened out, actively and otherwise. Actively, because our increasingly militarized "law enforcement" agencies seek order-followers as new recruits. And who better-prepared (better conditioned) to follow orders than ex-military? A decade's worth of combat (well, occupation) hardened veterans has streamed back to the Homeland in search of work - and what work are they better-prepared for than law enforcement?



    Note well that these law enforcers typically have a military rank structure. The head enforcer is often festooned with general's stars or a colonel's silver eagles. They wear menacing black BDUs, complete with flak jackets or body armor. Even in the country, were the major crimes are hunting out of season or getting a bit too boozed up on a Friday night. I live in an extremely rural part of southwest Virginia in a county that has literally one traffic light. Yet even here, courtesy of the Heimatsicherheitsdeinst apparat that sprouted after 911, there is now a bulletproofed "command post" and all the accoutrements of a fully militarized "law enforcement" department.



    They, too, are just "following orders." And local people have noticed that the new crop of cop is crew cut and unforgiving. Andy Griffith need not apply. His kind's not wanted anymore. Of course, Andy wouldn't want any part of this mess anyhow.


    Would you?


    Throw it in the Woods?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    I can't for the life of me understand why a woman - who I generally consider to be much more nuturing and peaceful than men - would want to become a cop. Worse yet, a black woman!

    MLK fought his whole life against white police abuse on blacks, and now you see both black men and black women gang beating people.

    Being a man, I can see why little boys with dreams of a Clint Eastwood style shoot-out would become cops, but a woman? What in god's name could possibly be going through her mind?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    It's a sort of Gresham's Law as applied to human society. And more, a sort of authoritarian feedback loop that makes the situation progressively worse as time goes by.

    You just have to look at Direct TV and all the police shows.

    The mind set of "all crimes must be prosecuted" (I say persecuted) no matter what the cost, no matter if it solves anything, someone must pay, and we're going to get them, and if they think it's unjust - we will bankrupt the people to pay for their defense.

    It proves nothing, it solves nothing. Meanwhile our legislatures pass more and more laws. The latest law in Minnesota:

    "Under the law, motorists traveling on a road with two or more lanes must keep over one full lane away from stopped emergency vehicles that have flashing lights activated. Drivers must reduce speed if they are unable to safely move over a lane.

    Fines can top $100.

    So far this year, the State Patrol has cited 728 motorists for move over violations.
    Common sense dictates that you're going give someone as much space as you can. But that's not enough - we have to have a law - So in rush hour three / four lanes are supposed to become 2? This creates more of a hazzard than not having the law.

    Really, they are doing nothing more than making a case for having a job. It's an ugly, horrible situation.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by dBrong View Post
    You just have to look at Direct TV and all the police shows.

    The mind set of "all crimes must be prosecuted" (I say persecuted) no matter what the cost, no matter if it solves anything, someone must pay, and we're going to get them, and if they think it's unjust - we will bankrupt the people to pay for their defense.

    It proves nothing, it solves nothing. Meanwhile our legislatures pass more and more laws. The latest law in Minnesota:



    Common sense dictates that you're going give someone as much space as you can. But that's not enough - we have to have a law - So in rush hour three / four lanes are supposed to become 2? This creates more of a hazzard than not having the law.

    Really, they are doing nothing more than making a case for having a job. It's an ugly, horrible situation.
    Correct, that's why such laws are constitutionally illegal -at both the state and federal level - and null and void and should not be respected.

    I vowed a long time ago to never, ever pay another frivolous traffic citation and I haven't. It's nothing but a money maker for the state. It's legalized highway robbery.

    When more people do the same then maybe something will change. I don't even pay attention to such ridiculous, obviously absurd things anymore.

    It's tremendously, emotionally, intellectually and socially liberating. I highly recommend it.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Did you guys see this yesterday? Cops killed a 13-year-old boy with a pellet gun. Texas' finest.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-police-kill-8th-grader-carrying-pellet-gun-15294317

  6. #6
    Senior Member grouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,126
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    Did you guys see this yesterday? Cops killed a 13-year-old boy with a pellet gun. Texas' finest.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-police-kill-8th-grader-carrying-pellet-gun-15294317


    So, if it was a real gun and not one that was indistinguishable as a fake, the police should have let him open up like another Columbine? He had assaulted another student shortly beforehand, for no known reason. No, he was told to drop it and didn't. That's just a kid being stupid. Stuoid hurts.
    Honk if you love Jesus.

    Text if you want to meet him.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by grouch View Post
    So, if it was a real gun and not one that was indistinguishable as a fake, the police should have let him open up like another Columbine? He had assaulted another student shortly beforehand, for no known reason. No, he was told to drop it and didn't. That's just a kid being stupid. Stuoid hurts.
    You sound like you work for the gov't. That's exactly the kind of false reasoning the gov't uses: one person, or one group of people do something so now EVERYONE is suspected of the same thing. That's how they justify the TSA. Terrorists (18 men out of a planet of 4 billion people) hijacked planes and killed people, so now EVERYONE flying on an airplane is to be treated as a suspected terrorist.

    That kind of fearmongering is what keeps the gov't in power and keeps cops who kill innocent children on the streets.

    He assaulted another student? You mean he punched another student? Now there's something new: kids getting into fights. I got into my first fight in 5th grade with a playground bully named Andy Stevens. And since you were there, you know he punched the other kid "for no reason" huh?

    See how the media massages the psyche of weak minded people such as yourself? It wasn't a middle-school fight, it was an assault. He didn't have a toy pellet gun, he was brandishing a weapon. Eric has written articles on this sort of brainwashing.

    Let me ask you this. What if your kid came home from school one day and pointed a pellet gun at you and your family but it was indinstinguishable from a real gun. Would you tell him to put it down and if he refused, would you shoot him? Would the thought even cross your mind? No, of course not. Why? Because you care about him and you want to find out whats going on and keep him and your family safe. So what do you do? You do whatever you can to resolve the situation peacefully and safely. Killing your son is not even an option.

    But what if you call the cops? What will they do to your son? They'll shoot him as soon as look at him. Why? Because they don't care about your son or anybody else. They have no social skills. They have no interest in trying to "talk the kid down" or find out what it is he has in his hand. Did they even ask him?

    And why three fatal shots? Why not - at worst - a leg shot or something similar to disable and disarm him? The articles says the halls were clear so no one else could have been harmed.

    Your callus attitude towards this kid being "stupid" and so therefore he's dead is disturbing. To know that such murdering minded people exist alongside me and my family is scary. And I don't know who you are.

  8. #8
    Senior Member grouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,126
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post

    He assaulted another student? You mean he punched another student? Now there's something new: kids getting into fights. I got into my first fight in 5th grade with a playground bully named Andy Stevens. And since you were there, you know he punched the other kid "for no reason" huh?


    Let me ask you this. What if your kid came home from school one day and pointed a pellet gun at you and your family but it was indinstinguishable from a real gun. Would you tell him to put it down and if he refused, would you shoot him? Would the thought even cross your mind? No, of course not. Why? Because you care about him and you want to find out whats going on and keep him and your family safe. So what do you do? You do whatever you can to resolve the situation peacefully and safely. Killing your son is not even an option.

    And why three fatal shots? Why not - at worst - a leg shot or something similar to disable and disarm him? The articles says the halls were clear so no one else could have been harmed.

    Your callus attitude towards this kid being "stupid" and so therefore he's dead is disturbing. To know that such murdering minded people exist alongside me and my family is scary. And I don't know who you are.


    First off, were YOU there? I went by the teachers who said he walked into a class room and made an unprovocked attack on another student. Would you allow someone to walk into your house and make an unprovocked attack on you or your family?

    If my kid pointed a weapon at me, he would be missing some fingers at the least and be shot at the worst. Most gun killings in this country are done by family members.

    Callous towards someone who committed "suicide by cop"? Yep, tough tittie. 15 is old enough to know what will happen to one self if you aim a firearm at a cop.

    Three fatal shots? How about three police officers who fire one shot each. You can sit around with your buddies whining about the "LAW" and how it useless but unless you've been there, don't talk about it. Consider, a police officer is in a distinctive uniform. It's like that on purpose. It's also a target by nuts who are in love with their fire arms and don't care about others. I'll bet if there was video of the incident with the 15 year old, all three police officers fired at the same time.

    If you EVER shoot someone and it doesn't require the use of deadly force, you are a menace to society. You NEVER shoot someone to wound, to scare them or anything other than to stop them. I was raised from an early age to respect firearms and treat them all as loaded. To keep them aimed in a safe direction. You do NOT draw a weapon on a man unless you intend to shoot him. Maybe you won't have to, but you don't do it unless you are ready and feel you need to. You NEVER shoot unless you intend to hit that man. You NEVER hit that man with a bullet unless you are serious. You may not kill him but you had better be prepared in case you do.

    I saw a couple of whiners on Fox News yesterday that were judging a young mother who was recently widowed in the last month who had two men break into her home. She was protecting herself and her new born baby. She retreated into a far corner of the house to get away. She locked the door and was talking to a police dispatcher about how she was ready to shoot if she had to. One of the men broke down the door and came at her with a knife. She is alone with her baby and a shot gun. She blew him away. Maybe she should have said "Please go away, pretty please". If I were to meet that young woman, the only thing I would say is "What size shells do you use?" I would then buy her a box of shells to replace the shell she used to clean the community of a loser.

    Geez, grow up. A weapon is a weapon. The kid wasn't a child when he had what looked like a regular firearm. Had it had a red tip, I would hang the police. However, they had no way to know it wasn't real. In a situation like that, you have to make a slip second decision. What if it was your child he was going after? What if he was attacking your child with what looked like a firearm and they shot him to keep your child from being hurt?
    Last edited by grouch; 01-06-2012 at 11:01 PM. Reason: I kant spel wurth a durn.
    Honk if you love Jesus.

    Text if you want to meet him.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by grouch View Post
    First off, were YOU there? I went by the teachers who said he walked into a class room and made an unprovocked attack on another student. Would you allow someone to walk into your house and make an unprovocked attack on you or your family?

    If my kid pointed a weapon at me, he would be missing some fingers at the least and be shot at the worst. Most gun killings in this country are done by family members.

    Callous towards someone who committed "suicide by cop"? Yep, tough tittie. 15 is old enough to know what will happen to one self if you aim a firearm at a cop.

    Three fatal shots? How about three police officers who fire one shot each. You can sit around with your buddies whining about the "LAW" and how it useless but unless you've been there, don't talk about it. Consider, a police officer is in a distinctive uniform. It's like that on purpose. It's also a target by nuts who are in love with their fire arms and don't care about others. I'll bet if there was video of the incident with the 15 year old, all three police officers fired at the same time.

    If you EVER shoot someone and it doesn't require the use of deadly force, you are a menace to society. You NEVER shoot someone to wound, to scare them or anything other than to stop them. I was raised from an early age to respect firearms and treat them all as loaded. To keep them aimed in a safe direction. You do NOT draw a weapon on a man unless you intend to shoot him. Maybe you won't have to, but you don't do it unless you are ready and feel you need to. You NEVER shoot unless you intend to hit that man. You NEVER hit that man with a bullet unless you are serious. You may not kill him but you had better be prepared in case you do.

    I saw a couple of whiners on Fox News yesterday that were judging a young mother who was recently widowed in the last month who had two men break into her home. She was protecting herself and her new born baby. She retreated into a far corner of the house to get away. She locked the door and was talking to a police dispatcher about how she was ready to shoot if she had to. One of the men broke down the door and came at her with a knife. She is alone with her baby and a shot gun. She blew him away. Maybe she should have said "Please go away, pretty please". If I were to meet that young woman, the only thing I would say is "What size shells do you use?" I would then buy her a box of shells to replace the shell she used to clean the community of a loser.

    Geez, grow up. A weapon is a weapon. The kid wasn't a child when he had what looked like a regular firearm. Had it had a red tip, I would hang the police. However, they had no way to know it wasn't real. In a situation like that, you have to make a slip second decision. What if it was your child he was going after? What if he was attacking your child with what looked like a firearm and they shot him to keep your child from being hurt?
    Ok pal. Glad to know you're an ignorant, immoral, insecure thug who believes that force is the answer to problems with children. I hope you don't have any.

  10. #10
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,409
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    Ok pal. Glad to know you're an ignorant, immoral, insecure thug who believes that force is the answer to problems with children. I hope you don't have any.
    If you lived over here and saw just how many murders are committed by 'kids' you might like to have a slight re-think. Too many teens and under-teens these days are amoral, emotionless, drug taking, gang-minded little thugs who think that violence, especially to the extent of killing, earns them 'Respect' amongst their peers. These feral little monsters know exactly what they are doing, they also know all their rights but, sadly, are totally unaware of any of their responsibilities.

    Point a gun at me, get shot is my motto. Or it would be if our pathetic excuses for government allowed us to own/hold/use hand guns.

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  11. #11
    I know this is an old thread, but this basically explains how I feel about the whole situation.

    Are all cops "bad"? Maybe in some sense, but they aren't all exactly the same.

    The deliberate sociopaths (Type 2) are the ones that really tick me off.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    89
    If any cop was "good" they would simply realize "Hmm...If there weren't people like me working for the government, there wouldn't be a government to complain about" and they'd quit. Instead, they think they're being smart than the rest of "us" ("us" being those of us who actively work to NOT work for the government) by thinking they can play both sides of the fence, or thinking that if they uphold 10 bad laws, but let one person go for something that shouldn't even be a crime in the first place, they are making a difference. The difference they are making is only a difference in their fantasies, not in reality.

    American government will collapse at some point, and when it does, all those "good" cops will be roaming around in gangs (like they do now) robbing and stealing from people. shtfschool.com has some pretty good first hand accounts of what cops did when society collapsed in Serbia in the mid-1990's. It will be even worse here in America because there will be more people clinging on to the notion of "good" cops and they will get completely taken advantage of by the "good" cops who "earned" the right to rob from others because they work for the biggest gang in history, and must uphold it's rules. I mean afterall, what would us idiot peasants do without a government telling us, at the barrel of a gun, what to do?

  13. #13
    If any cop was "good" they would simply realize "Hmm...If there weren't people like me working for the government, there wouldn't be a government to complain about" and they'd quit.
    Most people aren't logical.

    Most people have never considered anarcho-capitalism... like... at all. Its literally never crossed the minds of most people.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Southside, Virginia, way out in the sticks.
    Posts
    104
    That has probably always been the case, y'all. Mark Twain, writing in the 1870s said something along the lines of " this shows what a dull-witted slug the average human being is". We're mostly retards, y'know.

Similar Threads

  1. Motorcycle Types - It's Getting Real Complex
    By Marc in forum On Two Wheels
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-19-2012, 11:38 PM
  2. For all you pilot types....
    By Eric in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 04:58 PM
  3. Transmission types explained
    By Eric in forum Car Care & Repair
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-28-2006, 10:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •