That's fine and dandy but as you've just confirmed, you're insinuating that all cops are bad people simply based solely on their job, which is unfair and untrue.
NYPD taking a vacation from arresting people?
- Thread starter Kiopa_Matt
- Start date
The argument against cops always gets turned into a race thing, when in reality it's really the government against citizens. The government just imposes insane revenue-generating laws that have nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with extracting money and maintaining power. They let their pitbulls (cops) loose carte blanche and then allow the media to throw them under the bus to save face.
The reality of the situation is that shit flows down hill. The federal and state government wants power, and gets it by extracting money from you via revenue generating laws and scare tactics.
Here's a few examples of how insane things are getting:
If You Are Doing Nothing Wrong You Have PLENTY to Fear
The reality of the situation is that shit flows down hill. The federal and state government wants power, and gets it by extracting money from you via revenue generating laws and scare tactics.
Here's a few examples of how insane things are getting:
If You Are Doing Nothing Wrong You Have PLENTY to Fear
It's really not, at least not in today's world.
Back in Andy Griffith's day, if there ever really was such a time, a good person could become a cop and only hurt the people in 1 way: Enforcing bad laws, which of course he has the choice to look the other way on sometimes.
Today, they are forced to hurt the people in many ways, because almost all laws are about revenue generation, and there is too high of a population of truly dirty cops to allow for 'good cops' to exist among them. There are textbooks full of stories, including Chris Dorner's, where a cop tries to go against his corrupt department and is either fired, jailed, or killed. THOSE are the good cops today, and they are all no longer cops.
The entire idea of the thin blue line is a dead giveaway. Find a cop that feels his department's thin blue line is Criminal, and we may have the inklings of a good cop.
Do you agree with the following definition of a good person?
For brevity, let's assume you do. That being the case, do you agree that someone who regularly engages in those activities is not a good person?
They're forcing cops to write tickets or else lose work-related benefits like sick leave and vacation time.
"A police officer interviewed by the New York Post said that cops at his precinct were dispatched to a driver checkpoint last Thursday and told that they would not be allowed to take a lunch break or return from the checkpoint until at least two summonses were issued. Said the officer, “And the majority of [new] summonses written aren’t protecting the public in any way… But now they’re realizing how much revenue the city is losing, and they’re enforcing their will upon us… To have all the manpower utilized for the sole purpose of writing summonses is a very dangerous way to utilize manpower. This is not what we’re out here for.” An announcement posted at the officer’s precinct indicated that, until officers catch up on revenue-generating activities, no additional vacation days would be approved and no sick days would be authorized without a doctor’s note."
Dangerous practice that leads to cops making stuff up just to get collars.
Slowdown Sanctions: NYPD Orders Cops to Meet Arrest, Summons Quotas Or Lose Vacation Time, Sick Leave | Ben Swann Truth In Media
"A police officer interviewed by the New York Post said that cops at his precinct were dispatched to a driver checkpoint last Thursday and told that they would not be allowed to take a lunch break or return from the checkpoint until at least two summonses were issued. Said the officer, “And the majority of [new] summonses written aren’t protecting the public in any way… But now they’re realizing how much revenue the city is losing, and they’re enforcing their will upon us… To have all the manpower utilized for the sole purpose of writing summonses is a very dangerous way to utilize manpower. This is not what we’re out here for.” An announcement posted at the officer’s precinct indicated that, until officers catch up on revenue-generating activities, no additional vacation days would be approved and no sick days would be authorized without a doctor’s note."
Dangerous practice that leads to cops making stuff up just to get collars.
Slowdown Sanctions: NYPD Orders Cops to Meet Arrest, Summons Quotas Or Lose Vacation Time, Sick Leave | Ben Swann Truth In Media
using that process and logic, one could argue that everyone on the planet is a "bad person" by their 6-degree-seperated connection to (and thus implicit support of) any corporate or government entity.
while "true", its also laughably weak as a definition that means anything at all.
it's more than you think, check out this site:
PoliceMisconduct.net | The Cato Institute's National Police Misconduct Reporting Project
BTW, would be great if someone made a mirror of this site, i wouldnt be supprised if one day it 404'd,, also a mirror of fatalencounters would be good too.
also do search for "policing for profit" "civil forfeiture"
couple examples of policing for profit;
-drugs transported mostly northbound, money transported mostly southbound.. police mostly focus on pulling over cars southbound, because they want to take the money not stop the drugs.
-police specifically tell mother to bring cash for bail for her son, she goes to all ATM's to get cash. Then police confiscate her cash because the drug dog smells traces of drugs on it (almost all money has trace of drug on it, mostly the smell of weed)
also- the cop who killed Garner, was being a dick but he was just following orders to crack down on untaxed cig sales, a result of NY's high cigarette tax (sin tax, nanny tax). Good cop or bad cop, they ALL will "just do their job" which is a problem when their job conflicts with our rights.
also- all the people/ pets who get killed in no knock raids, and no evidence found or wrong house etc.
(also, can anyone help me find this video, or the name of victim... if I remember correctly it is a marine (white, or mexican,,not black) who was shot and killed, he was cuffed and sitting down next to his car and you hear the the cop tell him to "get up" and as he starts to stand the police shoots him to death,,, anyone remember this? cant find the video or a story to get the name, burried in all the other shit, as if it never happened)
sure.
the criteria filmingcops.com uses are specifically designed so that all cops fall into that category. example: "Accepted a government paycheck to enforce the rule of corrupt politicians."
while that is a cute tactic, the same process could be used to call anyone a bad person who has ever supported (or been supported by) any organization that has any connection to corruption, anti-social practices, stripping their revenues from the pockets of 'hard-working americans', etc.
every government agency falls under that umbrella. so does every corporate entity that either engages in it directly or does any business with other companies that do.
every person who has ever been employed by a company or government agency, or has bought anything from a company, or paid a tax to support 'corrupt politicians', or has bought anything from any company which has paid a tax to support 'corrupt politicians', would then meet the "bad person" criteria. that obviously includes all of us.
and to those who'd say "policemen are different -- they are working directly for corrupt politicians by choice, they don't have to", i'd counter by saying that is 1 degree of separation from the source... "brooke the self-righteous, tree-hugging, corporation-hating, ferguson-sign-carrying liberal" (who voluntarily buys an apple laptop so she can create a website stating cops are bad via their associations/support of bad elements) is doing the same thing with maybe one more degree of separation, and thus is a fucking hypocrite and a "bad person" by her own definition.
but that's how propaganda is done... lame one-sided arguments constructed to persuade and enrage those incapable of seeing thru them.
What is it about accepting money to do immoral things has a chance of being acceptable in some circumstance to you?
Yes, all cops are going to fall into that category; this isn't because the person who designed the categories is being snarky or overreacting in some way; it's because the things that cops do now is literally just that beyond being good and decent!
Fuck all of that noise; Did the subject accept money to do immoral acts or not? It's really fucking simple when you just step back and look at who actually did the immoral acts and who didn't.
my response to jake was about why the criteria used by that website were laughably weak. i never tried to absolve cops.
i agree, the criteria for judging bad people as bad can be as simple as "stepping back and look at who actually did the immoral acts and who didn't"... so i'd advise that before you post any more propaganda links, you make sure your source is using those "really fucking simple" standards instead of "really fucking retarded" ones.
Thanks for clarifying, drave. You and I see things a little differently. I consider one's responsibility to a moral code to begin and end with his own voluntary actions.
Here's an extreme example: suppose I am mugged, and the assailant robs me of $1,000. I don't consider it my responsibility to risk life and limb to make certain the scoundrel is prevented from using that money to harm others. (This is a simplistic way to think about taxation, but I'm a simple guy.)
I'm taken aback by the charge that merely associating with a company - e.g. buying its products - makes one responsible for that organization's aggression against others. (I'm paraphrasing parts of your post, so I might be inferring something you haven't actually implied. My apologies if that's the case.)
Here again, a simple example. Suppose I buy a sandwich from Lucky's Diner. The owner then donates my $5 to his favorite politician. Am I thus responsible for that politician's actions? I'd argue no.
Likewise, regarding Brooke, "the self-righteous, tree-hugging, corporation-hating, Ferguson-sign-carrying liberal," I wouldn't consider her a bad person based solely on her purchase of an Apple laptop. I'd argue her responsibility to a moral code ends with her purchase. It doesn't extend to the actions taken by Apple's board nor to Apple's shareholders, who can presumably oust the board members.
I understand your point about degrees of separation. But I (currently) disagree with it. Having said that, I'm always looking for ways to bust my arguments, so thanks for the clarification.
to clarify, i wasn't saying all those people are bad... i'm saying the definition of what makes one bad according to that website criteria is retarded.
to use your phrasing: i was a little taken aback by the website's charge that merely accepting a paycheck from a politician who happens to be corrupt makes a policeman responsible for that politician's corruption.
i just applied that website's silly logic (guilt by association) to society at large to show the absurdity of it.
to use your phrasing: i was a little taken aback by the website's charge that merely accepting a paycheck from a politician who happens to be corrupt makes a policeman responsible for that politician's corruption.
i just applied that website's silly logic (guilt by association) to society at large to show the absurdity of it.
If writing a few traffic tickets is the worst thing someone's ever done, they'd be the best person I've ever met, by far.
Only sometimes? Sorry, by that site's criteria, they're bad people too.
Now you're catching on.
Sorry to break it to you; Sheriff Taylor was a fictional character.