When the cops are the criminals

[Pointedstick]

http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/a-c ... +darrenorf

The deputies must have seen us leave and followed us back to our tents. No sooner had we sat down and cracked a beer (totally legal), we saw flashlights approaching and, when they were 20 or 30 feet out, heard a man shout, "Who's dogs are these? Get them under control or I'll shoot them!"

Both Wiley (85lbs) and Sansho (75lbs) are big dogs and they do sometimes growl, bark or generally act like dogs do when a stranger approaches us in the middle of the night. Neither one is remotely aggressive or dangerous in appearance. Just a couple of fluffy house pets who are good with kids and other dogs and people in general. They did not act in an aggressive manner as the police approached and were not rough housing either; they were exhausted from being the centers of attention in a crowd all night.

[...]

The cop with the gun then approached me and explained in great detail how he was authorized to shoot any dogs he felt were a threat. "I can shoot any dog that approaches me," he said holding his gun, in a gloating manner. "All I have to say is that I feel they're a threat."

[Mountaineer]

WHO and UNICEF are not exactly cops, but this story, if true, reeks of corrupt authorities.  This is an interesting thread to see the various viewpoints and preconceived notions people have about the story; it seems that only a few are capable of being objective relying on external sources of "truth", most are subjective and rely on their own preconceived notions to determine "truth".

http://www.alpb.org/forum/http://77.104 ... ic.php?t=9

An excerpt:

"The following is a statement from the Catholic bishops of Kenya:

Dear Kenyans, due to the direction the debate on the ongoing Tetanus Vaccine campaign in Kenya is taking, We, the Catholic Bishops, in fulfilling our prophetic role,  wish to restate our position as follows:

The Catholic Church is NOT opposed to regular vaccines administered in Kenya, both in our own Church health facilities and in public health institutions.

However, during the second phase of the Tetanus vaccination campaign in March 2014, that is sponsored by WHO/UNICEF,  the Catholic Church questioned the secrecy of the exercise. We raised questions on whether the tetanus vaccine was linked to a population control program that has been reported in some countries, where a similar vaccine was laced  with Beta- HCG hormone which causes infertility and multiple miscarriages in women.

On March 26, 2014 and October 13, 2014, we met the Cabinet Secretary in-charge of health and the Director of Medical Services among others and rasied our concerns about the Vaccine and agreed to jointly test the vaccine. However the ministry did not cooperate and the joint tests were not done.

The Catholic Church struggled and acquired several vials of the vaccine, which we sent to Four unrelated  Government and private laboratories in Kenya and abroad.

We want to announce here, that all the tests showed that the vaccine used in Kenya in March and October 2014  was indeed laced with the Beta- HCG hormone.

On 13th of October 2014, the Catholic Church gave copies of the results to the cabinet secretary and the Director of Medical Services. The same was emailed to the Director of Medical Services on October 17, 2014.

Based on the above grounds, We, the Catholic Bishops in Kenya, wish to State the following:

That we are shocked at the level of dishonesty and casual manner in which such a serious issue is being handled by the Government."

... Mountaineer

[Ad Orientem]

VENTURA, Calif. (CN) - A 2-year-old boy was burned by a police smoke bomb in a terrifying "no knock" raid at the wrong home, his family claims in court...

In their lawsuit, the Salinas family says they were sleeping on April 16, around 4 a.m., when they were awakened by scuffling footsteps and vehicles outside their condominium. When Jose Salinas drew the curtains of his bedroom window, he saw the barrel of a policeman's gun pointed at him.

Police broke the front windows of the home and set off three smoke bombs. Police then crashed through the front door with guns drawn, yelling, "Get down and put your hands to your head!"

With laser guns pointed at them, Paulina and Jose Salinas were handcuffed and put to their knees. Their 10-year-old daughter and 6-year-old son were shoved into a corner.

As police approached one of the bedrooms, Paulina Salinas and her two older children told officers there was a 2-year-old in the room. Police ignored them, told them to cover their ears, and threw a smoke bomb into the room as 2-year-old Justin Salinas stood near the door.

When the smoke bomb detonated, shrapnel from the blast hit Justin in the foot, causing first-degree burns and glass cuts.

The family was detained for four hours although "there was no resemblance of any claimant to any of the previous tenants at the location," according to the complaint.

From here...
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/1 ... y-says.htm

[moda0306]

i stopped caring today http://joeforamerica.com/2014/12/wisconsin-policeman-stopped-caring-today/ a police officers perspective.

Part of me is very sympathetic to what he is saying.

The other part of me thinks "you're a hyperbole-filled sympathy-seeker and should quit your job if you don't like it."

[MachineGhost]

The other part of me thinks "you're a hyperbole-filled sympathy-seeker and should quit your job if you don't like it."

You know what they say...  money talks, B.S. walks.

[Kbg]

I think if you look at the evidence it is pretty clear what is going on. The United States is just flat out more dangerous than most other countries similar to the US. For example, 43 US officers were killed by gunfire this year. There have been zero in both the UK and Australia and three in Canada this year.  Canadian pop is 35M, UK 64M, AUS  23M and US pop is 316M.

So my guess is the average US cop (particularly those in big cities) believes death is a distinct possibility. I am not a police officer, but unless you have been in daily situations where death is a distinct possibility you really have no right to judge nor do you have any clue what happens to you when you come to the realization that that possibility is happening now (or you perceive it to be happening now).

[Mountaineer]

Microsoft is currently fighting a federal search warrant demanding that the company release emails stored in Ireland.

Here’s why you should be extremely concerned by a U.S. court’s actions — and what you can do about it.

......

The Microsoft warrant brings up numerous long-term implications. For example, if the Feds prevail, what would stop a judge outside the U.S. from compelling Microsoft to hand over the contents of your Outlook.com account? Citing the Microsoft case, could officials in, say, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, or any other country you care to name force Apple into recording your iPhone conversations?

In other words, are you willing to subject yourself to any analogous “probable-cause”? requirement issued by any country on the planet?

In my opinion — and the opinion of many others who value privacy — that way lies madness. Even given the constitutional complexities of the case — which Orin Kerr explains in detail in a Washington Post article — the net result is another self-inflicted wound for the U.S.


http://windowssecrets.com/top-story/def ... a-private/

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

http://windowssecrets.com/top-story/def ... a-private/

The Southern Distrct for New York is the most corrupt and crony venue in the country, so it's no big surprise here.

[LC475]

Guys the police are not our enemies.  They protect us from common criminals and murderous Islamic terrorists every day.

Every day.  Every single day.

Right.

I try to have as few enemies as possible, but I do have a thought on this.  The same rules should apply to everyone.  The same legal requirements and the same moral principles should apply across the board to each and every one of us.  Whether or not we wear a special hat, or a special uniform, or have a special title, or a special badge.

Sometimes policemen commit murder.  No one can dispute this.  This is a fact.  Sometimes policemen commit murder.

I just think that when they do, they ought to be treated as murderers.  They ought to be tried -- by the same standards as peon, non-uniform-wearing people -- and punished -- again, by those same standards.  I think that is a reasonable position.  I don't think that position is anti-anyone, nor hating on anyone.  It is only reasonable.  It is only just.

[Libertarian666]

Guys the police are not our enemies.  They protect us from common criminals and murderous Islamic terrorists every day.

Every day.  Every single day.

Right.

I try to have as few enemies as possible, but I do have a thought on this.  The same rules should apply to everyone.  The same legal requirements and the same moral principles should apply across the board to each and every one of us.  Whether or not we wear a special hat, or a special uniform, or have a special title, or a special badge.

Sometimes policemen commit murder.  No one can dispute this.  This is a fact.  Sometimes policemen commit murder.

I just think that when they do, they ought to be treated as murderers.  They ought to be tried -- by the same standards as peon, non-uniform-wearing people -- and punished -- again, by those same standards.  I think that is a reasonable position.  I don't think that position is anti-anyone, nor hating on anyone.  It is only reasonable.  It is only just.

You are absolutely right, and it will never happen. Police, district attorneys, and judges are part of the same system, and they WILL NOT be subject to the same treatment that the rest of us peons will. There is no way for us to make that happen, and they have no interest in its happening, so it won't.

[Reub]

Happy New Years to all of you cop haters.

[Pointedstick]

I regret to admit that I am slowly changing my mind on this subject. While it always sucks when cops oppress innocent people or use unnecessary force on the guilty, the unhappy notion that such things are required to contain an entrenched underclass haunts me. What if all of this brutality is necessary? Or at least, if not necessary, what if it is the natural, unavoidable result of asking them to police people who are violent, lawbreaking, and not of their tribe?

I think if we want to end it, we need to not have an underclass, hopefully, by bringing them into the fold of normal society.

[Ad Orientem]

I regret to admit that I am slowly changing my mind on this subject. While it always sucks when cops oppress innocent people or use unnecessary force on the guilty, the unhappy notion that such things are required to contain an entrenched underclass haunts me. What if all of this brutality is necessary? Or at least, if not necessary, what if it is the natural, unavoidable result of asking them to police people who are violent, lawbreaking, and not of their tribe?

I think if we want to end it, we need to not have an underclass, hopefully, by bringing them into the fold of normal society.

The police are an extension of government, which is a necessary evil. Most cops are basically honest people trying to do a thankless, and frequently dangerous job. This thread has perhaps failed to take that into consideration. This in no way absolves the corrupt and abusive ones, or those who willfully ignore them, or when unable to ignore them then excuse them. But yeah, anarchist claptrap not withstanding, in the real world some instrument for protecting the rights of the people and maintaining an orderly society is required.

Unfortunately in the real world perfection doesn't exist. Thus we have to make due with what is available.

[Jan Van]

... I think the problem is that this kind of contact with the most awful part of society can cause police officers to develop an attitude that everyone they meet is a potential psychopathic murderer who at best is not to be trusted and at worst is probably itching to attack them for no reason, so they feel like they'd better be ready to unleash hell at a moment's notice.

And maybe not just "the most awful part of society"?
A friend from the Netherlands was visiting me a while ago. He also visited some people in Florida. One evening they were walking around on the street when his friend, an fairly big ex-army guy, suddenly says, "let's cross the street!". My friend was wondering why, so the guy said, "over there!".  Turns out there was a black guy walking on the sidewalk down the street from them. Just some regular guy. So my friend was kind of taken aback, wondering wtf was going on. So I can see things go horribly wrong if that's the attitude of some cops.

[LC475]

Most cops are basically honest people trying to do a thankless, and frequently dangerous job.

Most roofers are basically honest people trying to do a thankless, and frequently dangerous, job. 

And when a roofer murders someone, they are treated like a murderer.

(In fact the job of roofers is constantly dangerous, not just frequently, and is dangerous at a demonstrably far, far higher level than that of cops.  Just by the way.)

[Jan Van]

(In fact the job of roofers is constantly dangerous, not just frequently, and is dangerous at a demonstrably far, far higher level than that of cops.  Just by the way.)

The 10 Deadliest Jobs In America

Roofers are #4. Cops aren't on the list.
Not sure why people can't handle criticism of cops. Nobody is perfect. A few bad apples and such.

Reminds me of this:

its not so much the criticism that bothers, it is the sloppy use of gross generalizations, and blanket dislike based on a few bad cops or bad experiences, that those who respect the tough job, get irritated by..

i wonder if there is a measure of mentally dangerous jobs out there somewhere? i would bet cop ranks far higher for being mentally and emotionally taxing than it does for physical danger, and probably would be near the top of the list for all jobs..

[Jan Van]

I'm sure y'all saw this...

Off duty, black cops in New York feel threat from fellow police

[WiseOne]

I think if we want to end it, we need to not have an underclass, hopefully, by bringing them into the fold of normal society.

+1!

The question of course is how to accomplish that.  Get them off welfare?  Tried & failed.  Midnight basketball?  Tried & failed.  Housing, medical, and food assistance?  Stricter sentencing to serve as a deterrent for would-be criminals?  Anti-segregation laws?  None of these have done a thing.

Instead of limiting their playbooks to responding to perceived oppressors, I so wish that people like Rev Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and yes - Barack Obama would instead encourage people to stop robbing convenience stores and behaving like thugs, go out and get jobs, and educate their children.  That's what will get them out of the gutter in the end.  It has nothing to do with being a racial minority.  Black immigrants from Africa become productive members of society and don't fall into this trap.  I guess it's an unfortunate, lingering aftereffect of slavery...but come on, it's been 150 years!!!

[moda0306]

(In fact the job of roofers is constantly dangerous, not just frequently, and is dangerous at a demonstrably far, far higher level than that of cops.  Just by the way.)

The 10 Deadliest Jobs In America

Roofers are #4. Cops aren't on the list.
Not sure why people can't handle criticism of cops. Nobody is perfect. A few bad apples and such.

its not so much the criticism that bothers, it is the sloppy use of gross generalizations, and blanket dislike based on a few bad cops or bad experiences, that those who respect the tough job, get irritated by..

i wonder if there is a measure of mentally dangerous jobs out there somewhere? i would bet cop ranks far higher for being mentally and emotionally taxing than it does for physical danger, and probably would be near the top of the list for all jobs..

The problem is that there are a huge percentage of police that either a) defend the disgusting behaviors of their overly-aggressive/murderous peers, and/or just act like dicks in general. This leaves us with what I believe is a minority of police officers that behave in a generally professional way AND truly act in opposition of overly-aggressive police action.

So the "over-generalization" is a lot easier to understand when you see the attitude of cops that aren't the public servants they see themselves as and we would like them to be.

And in the end... If you don't like the job, don't do it... You don't get a pass at being an ass because your job is stressful.

[moda0306]

the "thin blue line", "us VS them" attitude is a problem, a good cop shouldn't turn their head if another cop is corrupt violent or just acts like an ass to the public. i don't have a solution to it but it is part of the problem for sure..
i still doubt that the good ones are a minority by any stretch, i suspect a small minority of bad cops and jerks draw far more attention and stick in the memory far more than the much larger number of good guys, doing a tough job ever could.
based on personal experience through work, i have met and interacted with many different officers over the last 6 or 7 years and i have not met a jerk or an ass in the bunch, not even a good cop having a bad day.. the perception of the people who were doing wrong, acting up who the cops were called to deal with might be different but then they are idiots who do stuff that would embarrass the average sane 5 year old, so i wouldn't put much stock in there perception of events..

Well I've heard a podcast recently where the guy was saying that unless you're trying to be a martyr of sorts, act as much like a CITIZEN who has just screwed up rather than a wrong-doer just doing what he does as often as possible.  He was firmly of the belief that cops were essentially mostly control freaks, but it's easy to disarm that nature of them (and get away with far more) if you appeal to that and recognize (even if fake) their authority.

My problem is that unless I'm doing something illegal, their default attitude towards me should be that THEY are a public servant, and I am part of the public.  When you make EVERYTHING under the sun illegal, it makes it so that role is flipped far more often than would otherwise be necessary, and results in all sorts of unnecessary antagonization (thinking of that black dude who got shot for going into his car to get his wallet after the cop pulled him over for not having his seabelt buckled).

Part of me blames the law-makers for forcing so many situations to be necessary to escalate to a situation where a cop has to exercise his authority backed by force.

My cousin is an Army ranger, and what he said about the military I think is pretty true of police duty as well... there's essentially 3 types of people that put themselves in these positions, and there aren't nearly enough people in the first category doing these jobs:

1) Very capable people who simply want to help in a way very few of us are willing/able to put ourselves on the line... for the sake of their community/country.

2) Somewhat confused people who need some direction, order and income in their lives.

3) Bullies who want to get away with abuse and murder.

In the end, unless you're in the martyr business (a role I have to have a decent amount of respect for simply because of its necessary role in molding the world to be a better place), I have little respect/patience for people who can control situations to their benefit but choose to subject themselves to more suffering through poor decisions (even if they are in the "moral right"), and then complain that they're not being treated fairly.  This applies to thugs as well as police officers.  If you're not willing to take action to improve your happiness... why the hell should I have the duty to... :/ 

[Jan Van]

[moda0306]

Well I've heard a podcast recently where the guy was saying that unless you're trying to be a martyr of sorts, act as much like a CITIZEN who has just screwed up rather than a wrong-doer just doing what he does as often as possible. He was firmly of the belief that cops were essentially mostly control freaks, but it's easy to disarm that nature of them (and get away with far more) if you appeal to that and recognize (even if fake) their authority.

My problem is that unless I'm doing something illegal, their default attitude towards me should be that THEY are a public servant, and I am part of the public. When you make EVERYTHING under the sun illegal, it makes it so that role is flipped far more often than would otherwise be necessary, and results in all sorts of unnecessary antagonization (thinking of that black dude who got shot for going into his car to get his wallet after the cop pulled him over for not having his seabelt buckled).

Part of me blames the law-makers for forcing so many situations to be necessary to escalate to a situation where a cop has to exercise his authority backed by force.

My cousin is an Army ranger, and what he said about the military I think is pretty true of police duty as well... there's essentially 3 types of people that put themselves in these positions, and there aren't nearly enough people in the first category doing these jobs:

1) Very capable people who simply want to help in a way very few of us are willing/able to put ourselves on the line... for the sake of their community/country.

2) Somewhat confused people who need some direction, order and income in their lives.

3) Bullies who want to get away with abuse and murder.

In the end, unless you're in the martyr business (a role I have to have a decent amount of respect for simply because of its necessary role in molding the world to be a better place), I have little respect/patience for people who can control situations to their benefit but choose to subject themselves to more suffering through poor decisions (even if they are in the "moral right"), and then complain that they're not being treated fairly. This applies to thugs as well as police officers. If you're not willing to take action to improve your happiness... why the hell should I have the duty to... :/

i would blame the law makers as well... that's what you get when you hire/pay people to do nothing but make laws.. we really should have had a system where all law makers were required to spend 1/3 to over 1/2 of the time they spend working each year repealing bad and dysfunctional laws created in previous years..

there is something to recognizing the fact that police officers have a functional need to maintain there authority even during non critical interactions with the public. in fact they are well trained in psychology and how to use language and body language to do so, they are not store clerks trying to make a sale or just some guy who can be your buddy when they are on the job, letting "the authority" slip in a non critical interaction can result in not having it when it is needed. and that is probably the most mentally and emotionally taxing part of the job ...never knowing when some non critical interaction is going to blow up... i can empathize with the need to be curt, brusk, to the point, (or somewhat assholish) when you never know if being relaxed and chummy might turn an easy arrest, where the suspect allows himself to be cuffed, into a fight where the suspect thinks the cop is weak and can be resisted.

Simon,

While I think there are some structural changes we could make to government that woul improve things (and would agree with libertarians on a good number of those things), I don't see how you could have a U.S. or even state government where you don't have people who's only job is NOT to make laws.

In fact, our constitutional government specifically firewalled off that function to a congress/senate for a reason. It keeps them out of enforcing and interpreting those laws, and puts checks and balances between different parts of government.

So while I am certainly sympathetic to the quasi-libertarian cause to eliminate a ton of these victimless crime laws, I'd be curious to know how to create the structural environment to support that, and how eliminating the law-making role of congress/senate would even be possible or bring that about.


In fact, I've found that the creation of agencies, which I'll admit are borderline-if-not-fully unconstitutional in spirit, is one of the biggest reasons we HAVE so many laws/regs to follow.  I think it is the combination of the law-making arm with the other two arms of government that actually makes it SO efficient for them to just make new laws rather than having the structure of it only going through a single avenue (legislature).


But I'll also point out, while state/local governments are more easily avoidable if you disagree with them, I'm flabbergasted at the stupidity of so many of the laws at those levels.  You get these small-town statists on the right and left that want to micro-manage everything, and police to back it up, and pretty soon you're driving your red 2-door foreign car at 31 mph through Pleasantville at 10:00 AM on a Sunday and you've got Barny Feif loading his single bullet into his gun ready to kick out the rif-raff over tint levels on this guy's windows.



Lastly, I'd disagree with the functional need for police to make their authority ever-present.  Simply-put, because... it's not!!  They have no authority over me until I've met a cerain degree of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc of having done something illegal.  In-fact, I'm not exactly sure where it is in the letter of the law, but I'd be surprised if police didn't have a legal, defined DUTY to address a concern of a member of the public as a legitimate concern (ie, if I come up yelling that my daughter was lost at a state fair, he'd have to take due care to help me with that situation if he wasn't pre-occupied with a more important situation).

So for a police officer to carry this entirely FALSE image of supreme authority around isn't just annoying, but to me it's borderline public fraud.  It should be very clear what the relationship is between the public and the enforcement arm of the law.  Tryng to put forth a very different picture than the TRUE authority police have is one of my biggest pet-peeves with police.

[moda0306]

i think you are mixing the appearance and psychological presence of authority with real authority, IE a cop has no right to restrain you or search you etc. without cause but has every right to constantly present himself as someone who must be given a measure of respect or is not to be messed with, even if that means you get the impression he is an ass for doing it... and if the cops themselves are mixing the two up, then they would be the bad ones we have legitimate cause to bitch about..

as for instituting a Congressional or state legislature "period of law removal" in each session, i don't know that it could be done without some strange repercussions and unintended consequences.. which is why i said "should have had", it is very hard to envision without the advantage of it having been a part of our system from the start

Well if we're putting "cops that falsely represent their authority" into the list of "bad cops," the we're dealing with a hell of a lot more than "a few bad apples."

Many cops out there would love the public to have the idea of police as folks that when they say "jump," the members of the public say "how high?"

There's varying degrees of using/abusing that misinterpretation of their authority, but it's quite common.


To your exact language, a cop definitely has the "right" to present himself as "someone who must be given a measure of respect or is not to be messed with," but we have the right then to say he's a power-hungry pig, especially if it isn't representative of his true authority.  I'd say the same thing about someone with a similar attitude at the DMV or SS administration who is a battle-axe to the public.  YOU are serving ME.  You may have a right to act the way you do, but insofar as it is your DUTY to serve the public in an honest manner, if you are trying to present a fraudulent level of authority over me, I have the right, and some would say the civic duty, to ask that you be shit-canned or change your attitude about your job.

And in the end, I don't think ANYONE should be "messed with," and EVERYONE should be given a measure of respect.  This should be our default.  It shouldn't take a gun and uniform and a scowl to bring it about.  And if they're going to scowl, because they're looking for REAL crime happening (I think of the assassin-looking guy with a SMG in front of the white house the time that I went to it), that is just fine, but that is a VERY different role than the one police have with the public 95% of the time, where they are bringing the sternness of life-or-death criminal situations to everyday interactions with people who didn't have seatbelts on.

They don't get it both ways.  They don't get to pull me over for having a tail-light out, but act like I'm inconveniencing them because there's a rapist on the loose and I'm hindering their investigation.



Part of me would like to see sunsets of no more than X (10? 15? 20?) years on any law passed, just to make sure we are actually FORCING ourselves to reassess these things.  It's still illegal to buy liquor on a Sunday here in the great state of Minnesota.  This would never actually PASS as a law today, but nobody has the balls to make a huff about getting rid of it.  Small example, but always screws me up during football season .

The problem would be a lot of volatility in government policy.  I prefer consistency/stability, but I realize that keeps a lot of shitty laws around.

Oh well... last time I checked, winning the lottery for "King for a Day" was even less likely than winning the MN State-sponsored lottery monopoly.

Well if we're putting "cops that falsely represent their authority" into the list of "bad cops," the we're dealing with a hell of a lot more than "a few bad apples."

Many cops out there would love the public to have the idea of police as folks that when they say "jump," the members of the public say "how high?"

There's varying degrees of using/abusing that misinterpretation of their authority, but it's quite common.


To your exact language, a cop definitely has the "right" to present himself as "someone who must be given a measure of respect or is not to be messed with," but we have the right then to say he's a power-hungry pig, especially if it isn't representative of his true authority. I'd say the same thing about someone with a similar attitude at the DMV or SS administration who is a battle-axe to the public. YOU are serving ME. You may have a right to act the way you do, but insofar as it is your DUTY to serve the public in an honest manner, if you are trying to present a fraudulent level of authority over me, I have the right, and some would say the civic duty, to ask that you be shit-canned or change your attitude about your job.

the SS or DMV shouldn't have or need to project any authority they are public servants under no threat, the cops are public servants who could be faced by threat at any time, even pulling someone over for a busted tail light, (the taillights of bank robbers, drug dealers and the violently schizophrenic sometimes break to) i think there is a big difference between the two, i don't see how it is a fraudulent level of authority unless they are doing, or saying they can do things, the law wouldn't let them do.

And in the end, I don't think ANYONE should be "messed with," and EVERYONE should be given a measure of respect. This should be our default. It shouldn't take a gun and uniform and a scowl to bring it about. And if they're going to scowl, because they're looking for REAL crime happening (I think of the assassin-looking guy with a SMG in front of the white house the time that I went to it), that is just fine, but that is a VERY different role than the one police have with the public 95% of the time, where they are bringing the sternness of life-or-death criminal situations to everyday interactions with people who didn't have seatbelts on. They don't get it both ways. They don't get to pull me over for having a tail-light out, but act like I'm inconveniencing them because there's a rapist on the loose and I'm hindering their investigation.

yes it should be the default, but again most of the police interactions with people, are with angry, upset, emotional, and volatile situations, not with calm stable people who violated some rule of the road (even getting a ticket sets some otherwise normal people off). and many if not the majority of the angry, upset, emotional, and volatile situations, are with people who have been raise to hate and disrespect cops and see them as an enemy. if they don't cut you some slack and put on a mister nice guy persona, and you cant empathize with why they don't or cant, maybe you should do a ride-along some day, you might gain some insight if you see what a day in the life is like. personally i don't care if a cop is gruff or scowling, if he isn't breaking the law his demeanor is of little concern.

[Pointedstick]

I think if we want to end it, we need to not have an underclass, hopefully, by bringing them into the fold of normal society.

+1!

The question of course is how to accomplish that.  Get them off welfare?  Tried & failed.  Midnight basketball?  Tried & failed.  Housing, medical, and food assistance?  Stricter sentencing to serve as a deterrent for would-be criminals?  Anti-segregation laws?  None of these have done a thing.

Another alternative might be to allow them to live separately: anti-anti-segregation, perhaps. Let them live in their own enclaves, and let them be policed by members of their own communities. And then wash your hands. But that's too mean. We're far too advanced and progressive a society to consider something so barbaric as leaving people alone to their own devices and requiring that they own the consequences of their decisions.

[Pointedstick]

Relatedly, I love this headline:

"POLICING COMES TO A STOP IN NEW YORK, PEOPLE GET ALONG PEACEFULLY AND SOCIETY CONTINUES"

http://filmingcops.com/policing-comes-t ... continues/

We are constantly reminded by State institutions, from lecture halls to mainstream “news”? organizations, that if it weren’t for the police out there arresting everybody, society would break down immediately.

Oh there will be the motorcycle gangs with flamethrowers invading supermarkets, the wild-eyed adolescents disobeying teachers and leaving school, the religious conservatives forming new dictatorships, the horde of unwashed illegal immigrants urinating on our golf courses, the rabid murder parties and fornication spilling onto the streets, zoo animals escaping and mauling the children — the end of human civilization.

Well, there has finally been a “virtual stoppage”? of police activity in New York, and the people there are… reading blogs, working, buying groceries, watching netflix, waiting in lines, saying hi to strangers, checking facebook. Same as usual. It looks like they haven’t murdered each other yet.

Of course they haven’t.

It's almost as if the libertarians were right all along...