Well, maybe. http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/ A running log of cops abusing their power - and, as it turns out, it happens a lot. A whole lot. There are about 10 cases per day listed there. Check out all the sexual assault charges! Look at all the planted evidence! Woo-hoo, the police are good for society! Cops are infinitely more frightening than the criminals they're allegedly protecting us from.
Not a big fan of the police..... I don't think they are all bad, but I'm not willing to risk my life with that assumption, especially given my family's history with them.
The War on Drugs has perverted the police force to the point that they have a term, "testi-lying," for what they do when they go to court for drug cases. I don't believe that all cops are bad, but when there is the potential for so much money for as little as looking the other way, even a good cop might think of exploring the grey areas.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oFvGeMDW7bw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
800,000 police officers in the USA. Assuming all accusations are correct, 3650 felonies per year. National crime rate is 3,977 reported crimes per 100,000 people, so if police were equal to the average person, the back of napkin number of 3,650 felonies would need to be adjusted upwards to 31,816 felonies to make the police equal to the population at large.
but these are only crimes committed while on duty right? or did they count crimes committed while off duty, such as spousal abuse or dwi?
It is even worse than that for the cop haters, because not all of the alleged police misconduct would be felonies. Things like sending explicit text messages to a married woman while on duty or having sex in a public park are citation offenses, misdemeanors at worst. That means the cops are about 1/10 as likely to commit a felony as compared to the population at large. The police officers are also drawn from a limited age range, whereas I believe the per capita crime rates include infants and the elderly.
The following comparisons are made between the NPMSRP 8.5 month statistics projected out to one year and the 2008 US DOJ/FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics and the 2004 Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Sentencing Statistics: * 1 out of every 266 (376.5 per 100k) police officers were accused of a violent crime. Per the UCR, 1 out of every 220 (454.5 per 100k) citizens were accused of a violent crime in 2008. * 1 out of every 1,875 (53.3 per 100k) police officers were accused of homicide. Per the UCR, 1 out of every 18,518 (5.4 per 100k) citizens were accused of homicide in 2008 while 1 out of every 4037 (24.77 per 100k) officers died in the line of duty in 2009. * 1 out of every 947 (105.63 per 100k) police officers were accused of sexual assault. Per the UCR, 1 out of every 3,413 (29.3 per 100k) citizens were accused of sexual assault in 2008. * 33% of police officers charged in 2009 were ultimately convicted while 68% of citizens charged were ultimately convicted in 2004. * 64% of police officers convicted were actually sentenced to spend time in prison in 2009 while 72% of citizens were sentenced to incarceration in 2004. * Law enforcement officers were sentenced to an average of 14 months in prison when sentenced to incarceration in 2009 while citizens were sentenced to an average of 37 months in prison when incarcerated in 2004. http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?page_id=1588 From the FAQ: Q. Why bother with doing all this? A. It’s the only comprehensive way available to gather data on how prevalent police misconduct might be, what types of police misconduct are most prevalent, and to publish any semi-meaningful statistical information about police misconduct since nobody else, not even the government, is doing so currently. ... and with all the haggling over crimes-per-cop and such, it's good to keep one thing in mind - these are cops. Their job is to UPHOLD THE LAW.
I agree that if we could replace them with reanimated cyborg Robocops programed to follow the law with absolute rigidity it would be a good idea. Alas, the technology isn't currently possible, not to mention the legal ramifications. Alternately, we could find the children who are pathologically incapable of breaking the law and force them to become police. But again, that is something that legally isn't feasible. Unfortunately, we are limited to those human beings who are willing to enter the profession. Fundamentally these people are trained to respond to situations with force, they operate at a high level of testosterone and adrenaline, and they are subjected nonstop to the world of criminals and crime. And, again, they are still human beings through the entire process. Effectively, police officers are the law's hired muscle. That is just the way it is. I think you have an unrealistic expectation that these people are going to suddenly become trans-human by virtue of getting hired. I know many people had and still have the same unrealistic expectation for super-human behavior with regard to restraint and soldiers in combat in Iraq. The PD works with what they are able to get. If you think you could do a better job, HPD is hiring. Visit http://www.hpdcareer.com/ Perhaps you can live up to the standard you want to set for them.
Police are no good. But it isn't their fault. There would be fewer abuses of power if we ended the war on drugs. It hasn't stopped, or even slowed down, drug use. It's a waste of money. It congests our legal system with non-violent crimes. It encourages black market violence. It strains the faith of law-abiding citizens in the legal system. It serves as justification for the erosion of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. The war on drugs is a war on the citizens of this nation. I have no respect for those who would justify the war on drugs.
<a href="http://s62.photobucket.com/albums/h99/notafaker/?action=view&current=nwa.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h99/notafaker/nwa.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
My son is a police officer. He's a decent, hard working man who does his job to the best of his ability, all the while hoping to make it home safely each day to his two children. And he is woefully underpaid for the work he does. Quit looking at the profession as a whole and look at the individual officer. You may have a different view.
A relevant discussion from a previous thread. I sincerely distrust the police, and I automatically assume that my interactions with a police officer will be negative. I have no reason or rationale to assume otherwise. And it's their own damn fault.
You automatically assume negative interaction? That sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy. Why is it the police's fault that you can't obey the law? When you are approached, act respectfully and cooperate. You might have a different encounter. I am nearly 50 years old, and never had a negative encounter. Why? Because I don't do things that promote a policeman's involvement, and on those rare occasions, I accepted the blame for what I did wrong. Please, describe a few of these "negative encounters" so that I have a basis to understand your point of view.
This. It's important to remember that police are people. Some are good, some are bad. Some are dedicated to what they do, some couldn't care less. Some are honorable, decent, hard working folks, and some are just douchebags on a power trip. The problem is that society gives police the benefit of the doubt in almost all cases. We assume they uphold the law, they "do the right thing", they protect and defend the citizenry when, in fact, they may or may not be doing those things. And when they don't, the consequences are quite dire for those involved.
Nice shift. I never said I "did not obey the law" nor did I say I had specific "negative encounters". I also did not blame police officers for my presumed (by you) law-breaking. What I did say is that I assume they will be negative because of my assertion that police officers (even the "good" ones) tacitly endorse the behavior of those "reckless few" via methods such as the well-known "blue wall of silence". It's not so much an accusation of their intent as it is a preemptive guard against situations and other well-known tricks that eventually resulted in Miranda rights. We've all heard the importance of maintaining your silence, and you would be wise to heed that advice based on anecdotes and data that supports it. Again, if the police want to be trusted further, they should focus on correcting the aforementioned data that causes this mistrust. Acknowledging and understanding human fallibility as a given, making it a point to extricate those "reckless few" with impunity would go a long way.
i kinda think that's the op's point. personally, i don't think all cops are bad, but those that are, are not punished enough. people who are in a position of power should be held to a much higher standard to other professions. if a cop is found guilty of misusing his power or corruption, the book should be thrown at them. preferably by someone who throws books extremely hard.
