[Ridemonkey]

OK - I am pro-police.

I am even in favor of the loss of some civil liberties in the name of making this country safer. Want to check my trunk for bombs or guns? Sure go ahead. Kill my dog while you're at it? Arrest me cuz I was on my way to the bar, where I was going to have a drink?

The line between justifiable police action has gotten pretty gray. A few issues have made me so angry lately that I question the state of law enforcement in this country (and I have been interested in joining the force myself).

How do these things continue to be justified:
1. Killing of family pets. This isn't new. When I was growing up, the cops shot our neighbors dog cuz it had gotten out of the yard. They left the body in the neighbors driveway with a business card on top of it. I wonder if the card said "protect and serve".

2. Operations targeting lawful citizens and lawful actions. This arresting people in the bars is just plain stupid and creates an environment where we feel we should fear, rather than rely on, our police force.

3. Filling quotas and raising funds under the guise of "maintaining law". How many small towns design these speed traps then nail people for being just a few miles over the speed limit? To protect? To serve? No - to raise money.

I've had it with this crap.

Disclaimer: I don't dislike all or even most police. When replying please address the issues stated here. No need to resort to blanket statements like "police are never appreciated", etc. I can think of many instances when police did their job very well.

 

[patconnole]

Could you give more detail on each situation? mainly the killing of pets and arrests in bars.... Where is this happening, why?

 

[Ridemonkey]

From these threads in the lounge:

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=41440&perpage=15&pagenumber=1


http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=41442

 

[slein]

to serve and protect? this statement can sound kinda funny when if you realise that policing laws is a means of forcing external power. this is the fundamental force of instilling fear into people. the whole idea of uniforms, weapons and armour are a means of protecting and serving some while not doing so to others.

there is an neighbourhood area in Canada's capital that houses the very rich. you can see the service the area gets when there is just one crime there. the first night, you'll see five cruisers in the area. the next night, ten... and so on. its funny because crime happens all over the city, yet when it happens to the rich, they get their protection and service straight away.

we have to realise that police work for the status quo a.k.a. the rich and powerful. those that control votes control police. and just like every organisation, you have your good apples and your bad apples.

i, for one, never give police a hard time. i know that they are out there to protect us from those that would cause us harm. they're human too, and they get their orders from someone else. too bad that the system isn't always impartial.

would i ever become a cop? damn straight.... would i be a good one? sure. would i shoot someone's pet for the f*ck of it? nope. would i enforce laws that seem a little ridiculous, even on so-called lawful citizens? not when anyone's looking. there is always a time for better judgement, and when you're policing, you must realise when your actions will cause more harm than good.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey


3. Filling quotas and raising funds under the guise of "maintaining law". How many small towns design these speed traps then nail people for being just a few miles over the speed limit? To protect? To serve? No - to raise money.

Think about this one for a second RM. Why would they want to raise money? You think theres some guy who just gets to keep it or something? This money goes to the police force to better pay the cops who maintain order on the streets, and to the fire dept. who will come and put out your house when its blazing with fido in the upstairs bedroom.
Think of speeding tickets as a tradeoff. Would you rather have speeders pay for police services, or have it come directly out of your paycheck?
Anyway........its called a "limit" for a reason.

 

[the BIG cheese]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Think about this one for a second RM. Why would they want to raise money? You think theres some guy who just gets to keep it or something? This money goes to the police force to better pay the cops who maintain order on the streets, and to the fire dept. who will come and put out your house when its blazing with fido in the upstairs bedroom.
Think of speeding tickets as a tradeoff. Would you rather have speeders pay for police services, or have it come directly out of your paycheck?
Anyway........its called a "limit" for a reason.

it already does, its called taxes!

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by the BIG cheese
it already does, its called taxes!

well yes, i know this, but you can bet it would be alot more if it were not for citations, court costs etc....

 

[johnny33fb]

Ridemonkey: "I am even in favor of the loss of some civil liberties in the name of making this country safer. "

Why would we give up what this country was founded on and fought wars to protect, it would be a disrespect to all those who have ever served our country.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
Ridemonkey: "I am even in favor of the loss of some civil liberties in the name of making this country safer. "

Why would we give up what this country was founded on and fought wars to protect, it would be a disrespect to all those who have ever served our country.

Because police looking in my trunk doesn't hurt me one bit, but it could save a lot of lives.

 

[johnny33fb]

There is nothing wrong with police searching your truck, thats your choice to let them, its everyones right to make that choice some may not, they have no right to search anyones truck (or whatever it may be) without reasonable suspicion, or search warrent. While i would agree with you that having police searching everyones stuff without due cause would stop alot of things from happening, they have no right to, end of story. This is why our country is the best.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Originally posted by johnny33fb
There is nothing wrong with police searching your truck, thats your choice to let them, its everyones right to make that choice some may not, they have no right to search anyones truck (or whatever it may be) without reasonable suspicion, or search warrent. While i would agree with you that having police searching everyones stuff without due cause would stop alot of things from happening, they have no right to, end of story. This is why our country is the best.

Then people will die from terrorist acts and the authorities are powerless to stop it. And why? Just so we can satisfy our egos and tell the cops to stick it when they want to look in the back?

 

[johnny33fb]

Ridemonkey: "Then people will die from terrorist acts and the authorities are powerless to stop it."

Having searches everywhere we go, would be certainly not stop all terrorist acts, and the tsa is a joke anyway, we need to remodel that completely. If we had searches all the time by the police two things would happen A. many of the same people would get searched over and over again who are totally innocent (have you ever been to the airport and seen some of the people they search? I see them pulling over like a 9 year old and a grandmother i mean these random searches are completely pointless, the tsa should be more like the El-Al from israel where they have more extensive trained people who talk to/interview people before the flights and they have been very successful with this method) and this would be a waste of both peoples time and make them not want to go along with the searches B. The police wouldnt be enforcing many the laws are that on the books because they would be wasting their time on random searches.

"And why? Just so we can satisfy our egos and tell the cops to stick it when they want to look in the back?"

Could you reword that for me i don't understand what you were trying to say.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Actually I have been the target of some of these airport searches. No skin off my back.

The point was to talk about these dog killing, anti-beer, man-boys that have been in the news recently.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
well yes, i know this, but you can bet it would be alot more if it were not for citations, court costs etc....

I would venture to guess that the money accumulated from traffic violations does NOT cover the costs of policing traffic laws (yearly salaries of traffic cops + squad cars monitoring traffic + overhead for office space, uniforms, training, etc.) in most parts of the country. The defecit is subsidized by taxes. After all, if it DID cover costs, State Troopers would be free; that is, a budget of zero.

Total guess though...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
I would venture to guess that the money accumulated from traffic violations does NOT cover the costs of policing traffic laws (yearly salaries of traffic cops + squad cars monitoring traffic + overhead for office space, uniforms, training, etc.) in most parts of the country. The defecit is subsidized by taxes. After all, if it DID cover costs, State Troopers would be free; that is, a budget of zero.

Total guess though...

No, thats what i meant.

I was just saying we'd be taxed alot more if it were not for citations and whatnot. Which leads me to another question, do state and local police departments recieve federal funding at all?

Im wondering because in TN, specifically, there is no state income tax, and sales tax is about on average with the rest of the country. Id say that citations cover alot of the funding for local departments.

But thats also a guess.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
No, thats what i meant.

I was just saying we'd be taxed alot more if it were not for citations and whatnot.

But my point is, if the traffic cops don't cover their own costs than they COST the department money. That's your tax money they're spending. Yes it's cheaper than paying them to sit their and NOT collect tickets, but it's not cheaper than firing them. And the money they bring in doesn't help any of the rest of the police force, it just makes traffic cops cheaper to keep on staff. It's not what you meant, but that's what it amounts to.

I don't propose that we eliminate traffic cops, but if a department tries to justify them as a money making (or tax cutting) venture, they are lying.

I also realize that in most towns, cops only do traffic work until a real crime occurs and they get called off to real work, in which case money they bring in DOES cut taxes... but that still doesn't justify State Troopers.

Anyway, I just like arguing with you Burly. I guess you're right that sometimes I disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, but only with unimportant stuff...

 

[the BIG cheese]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
No, thats what i meant.

I was just saying we'd be taxed alot more if it were not for citations and whatnot. Which leads me to another question, do state and local police departments recieve federal funding at all?

Im wondering because in TN, specifically, there is no state income tax, and sales tax is about on average with the rest of the country. Id say that citations cover alot of the funding for local departments.

But thats also a guess.

i dont have all the numbers to back this up but....

i think the whole issueing traffic ticket thing and meeting a quota is to justify thier station being there. i.e. they dont issue enough tickets they get closed down(mainly highway troopers).

to answer your question i dont think that the federal goverment gives any federal funding to local police. the police are dependent upon state goverment and anything like the police (fire dept, street cleaning, ect)

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
But my point is, if the traffic cops don't cover their own costs than they COST the department money. That's your tax money they're spending. Yes it's cheaper than paying them to sit their and NOT collect tickets, but it's not cheaper than firing them. And the money they bring in doesn't help any of the rest of the police force, it just makes traffic cops cheaper to keep on staff. It's not what you meant, but that's what it amounts to.

Id be willing to bet that the money gained from citations, fines and the court costs far outweighs the cost of a fleet of traffic cops. That money goes to the entire dept. i bet. I mean, just think of the cash they rake in from citations, its alot.

Also, i dont think there are enough cops on the streets in some areas, so they dont need to justify their being there in my opinion. Firing them might save us a little money, but what would it cost us in the long run?

 

[Captain Cogset]

Originally posted by the BIG cheese
i dont have all the numbers to back this up but....

i think the whole issueing traffic ticket thing and meeting a quota is to justify thier station being there. i.e. they dont issue enough tickets they get closed down(mainly highway troopers).

to answer your question i dont think that the federal goverment gives any federal funding to local police. the police are dependent upon state goverment and anything like the police (fire dept, street cleaning, ect)

The majority of the money collected from traffic tickets goes to the state. The rest is split between the court system and the city that issued the ticket. The money that the state or the city get goes to a general fund not to the traffic division of the agency.
The are no quotas per se, but each officer needs to justify his time if he wants to keep his job. If there is no crimes happening then that means writing tickets or warnings. No stations get closed down because they don't generate enough tickets.

The Federal government does provide grants to city agencies occationally. The grants must be spent on what the Feds want it spent on, such as hiring new cops or expanding a DUI program.