spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Feb 1, 2007 19:31:52 GMT -5
Shuftin,
Just some random thoughts to continue the discussion. I see that you are not satisfied with the state of American Government and the police. What would you do to change it if you had the power? What would the role of the police be in society today?
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Feb 3, 2007 1:49:54 GMT -5
Shuftin,
Was the officer polite and professional? Did he tell you why he pulled you over? Did this shameless revenue generator give you a ticket to make some money for his bosses "THE GOVERNMENT"? More likely, he was a cop doing his job. He probably saw a minor traffic violation and figured he would check you out. He saw that you were a regular joe out to get a pack of smokes and sent you on your way. I've taken some pretty dangerous people off the street that started as minor traffic violations.(A guy with a rape warrant, a felon with a loaded 9mm with an obliterated serial number to name a couple) If you see the police out there then so do the criminals. Sounds like this would make your neighborhood pretty safe.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 30, 2007 6:58:33 GMT -5
Shuftin,
Hope you are feeling better. The only orders that I obey from my superiors are LEGAL ORDERS. I would always refuse to obey illegal orders. The "I was only obeying orders" defense does not fly for police officers in America today as it did not work in post war Germany. If I arrest somebody falsely because my Sergeant tells me to do it the civil liability falls on me as well as the Sergeant. I'm not losing my house for anyone. I think that today most police officers are sufficiently educated and moral to differentiate between legal and illegal orders. I think that the police "gang" mentality is another concept that is overstated by most people today. Police work is a brotherhood. I'll support my brothers and sisters almost any way that I can. This concept does not include perjury or coverups of criminal activity.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Feb 2, 2007 12:59:36 GMT -5
Shuftin,
I think that you are over emphasizing the importance that local law enforcement places on grant money and the impact that the money received has on police operations. I admit that my perspective is somewhat limited since I don't work for a huge department. We are certainly not getting millions in Homeland Security funds like the NYPD etc. My department has an approximately 3.2 million dollar budget.(rough number I'm not in administration thankfully) I examined the grants we got last year. 50,000 was in Community Policing funds from the state. This was used in a variety of different ways. Some was used for gang enforcement(the city next to us has a terrible gang problem that leaks into our town) Some money was used for overtime to combat a rash of housebreaks we suffered. Some money was used for commercial traffic enforcement (We have a large quarry in our town and the residents were screaming about trucks speeding in their neighborhoods) More of this money was used to provide security at the local high school after a drive by shooting incident involving teenagers. Other funds were used to buy bike helmets and car seats for residents of the town with financial problems. This money was used for the benefit of the people of my community. My Chief had tremendous discretion on how this money was spent and used it wisely.
We got $15,000 in traffic enforcement money, yes the dreaded "Click it or Ticket" funds and also "You Drink, You Drive, You Lose" funds. I can assure you that the town makes no money on this program. I'll use myself as an example. I worked five 4 hour shifts. At my overtime rate this works out to be about $1000 paid by the state. The town gets a percentage of fines issued. I issued 40 written warnings (no fines, no money and perfectly acceptable by the grant criteria) 5 civil motor vehicle infranctions totalling $850. I believe the town gets half of this, so $425. I made 5 Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol arrests. This resulted in 4 convictions and one not guilty verdict. 2 of the arrests were guilty pleas and caused no court time. The other three cases that went to trial caused significant overtime due to court appearances. In the end, the department ended up losing money on this grant even with all the fines incurred by the people convicted of Operating Under the Influence. I'll admit that I made money due to my court appearances. I will equally state that I earned this money while doing my job. I didn't arrest anyone for the court time, I arrested them because they were drunk. (The not guilty had a great lawyer, he was probably the most drunk of all the people I arrested.) In the end the town lost money. The Chief takes this grant money to enhance traffic safety not pad his budget.
The final bit of grant money was $45,000 used for equipment. I believe it was from the Feds. It was used to buy a camera used in building searches and a vehicle. I don't know the criteria for the grants so I can't really comment.
That's all I could find, $110,000 out of 3.2 million. This may not be 100% accurate but I believe it's close. If my math is correct that works out to be 3.4% of the budget. While not chump change, it is certainly is not a huge percentage.
In my state, Mayors, City Councils and Boards of Selectmen(local term for Town Alderman) and elected Town meeting members have tremendous power over the Police. What is this power? The purse strings. This is how it goes in my town. The Chief recommends a budget. This must get approved by the Town Manager. It then goes to the finance committee. They either recommend or don't recommend the budget to Town Meeting. Town Meeting (an elected group of approximately 400 citizens) Town Meeting then votes to accept the budget or not. If they don't accept the budget, it gets trimmed and voted on again. Recently, we were facing the layoffs of 4 police officers. It went to a Town Referendum (a vote by the registered voters of the town). 66% of the people who voted actually voted to raise their own taxes and kept these police officers employed. I don't know about you but this sounds like democracy in action to me. A professional makes a recommendation. It goes through the layers of government. It is then voted on by the people. If we were out abusing people, I don't think they would voluntarily raise their own tax rate to prevent layoffs.
I think (and maybe I'm being naive) that the vast majority of police departments across the country are still answerable to the people. My town is no oasis. Most policing is a function of local government. Local government is made up of the people of the community. The people determine how they are treated by government by involvement in their community i.e. running for office, voting and being vocal in the press.
Police officers have a tremendous amount of oversight.(rightfully so) As a patrolman I answer to Sergeants,Lieutenants,Captains, a Chief, a Town Manager, a Board of Selectman, Town Meeting, DAs, Defense Attorneys, and Judges. We all ultimately answer to the people who have put us in the positions of trust that we occupy.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Feb 1, 2007 19:31:52 GMT -5
Shuftin,
Just some random thoughts to continue the discussion. I see that you are not satisfied with the state of American Government and the police. What would you do to change it if you had the power? What would the role of the police be in society today?
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 26, 2007 3:40:20 GMT -5
Shuftin,
I don't really get your reply. What does your military service have to do with police misconduct or government corruption? Because something in the military was classified means that it was wrong or corrupt?
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 30, 2007 6:58:33 GMT -5
Shuftin,
Hope you are feeling better. The only orders that I obey from my superiors are LEGAL ORDERS. I would always refuse to obey illegal orders. The "I was only obeying orders" defense does not fly for police officers in America today as it did not work in post war Germany. If I arrest somebody falsely because my Sergeant tells me to do it the civil liability falls on me as well as the Sergeant. I'm not losing my house for anyone. I think that today most police officers are sufficiently educated and moral to differentiate between legal and illegal orders. I think that the police "gang" mentality is another concept that is overstated by most people today. Police work is a brotherhood. I'll support my brothers and sisters almost any way that I can. This concept does not include perjury or coverups of criminal activity.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 23, 2007 19:27:18 GMT -5
I'll be happy to share the origin of spd49. S(The name of the town that I grew up in and proudly serve). I'm going to withold that to discourage the less enlightened from sending me messages at work. Pd is police department. 49 is my id number.
I see what you are saying about big government and I agree somewhat. I guess the fundamental difference between us is that I still see government at the local, state and federal level as an arm of the people and for the people. While I certainly disagree with many aspects of government on all levels, I still don't see it as a fundamentally corrupt and malevolent system.
It does seem to me that you have a fundamental misconception about the vast majority of police departments and police officers. Most departments are small agencies that are made up of members of the community. We have a stake in making the place that we work a better place to live. We are not a monolithic "Police Department" that seperate ourselves from the people we police. The vast majority of the people that I deal with are pretty good people. The good ones that I arrest made a mistake and have to answer for that mistake i.e. an arrest for operating under the influence. Other people that I arrest are dangerous criminals. These are the gang members, house breakers and drug dealers that prey on the people that I am sworn to protect. I take great pride in taking these people off the street.
Police officers are certainly not on the bottom of the totem pole. I prefer to see it that we are the first level of a system of justice that while not perfect is still pretty damn good. I may be naive, but I still feel that one person can make a difference from the bottom up. I make a difference in my little corner, you make a difference in yours and so on. I guess in the end, my point is that the police are part of the solution to the ills of society and not part of the problem. Again, thanks for the dialogue.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 26, 2007 3:40:20 GMT -5
Shuftin,
I don't really get your reply. What does your military service have to do with police misconduct or government corruption? Because something in the military was classified means that it was wrong or corrupt?
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 23, 2007 19:27:18 GMT -5
I'll be happy to share the origin of spd49. S(The name of the town that I grew up in and proudly serve). I'm going to withold that to discourage the less enlightened from sending me messages at work. Pd is police department. 49 is my id number.
I see what you are saying about big government and I agree somewhat. I guess the fundamental difference between us is that I still see government at the local, state and federal level as an arm of the people and for the people. While I certainly disagree with many aspects of government on all levels, I still don't see it as a fundamentally corrupt and malevolent system.
It does seem to me that you have a fundamental misconception about the vast majority of police departments and police officers. Most departments are small agencies that are made up of members of the community. We have a stake in making the place that we work a better place to live. We are not a monolithic "Police Department" that seperate ourselves from the people we police. The vast majority of the people that I deal with are pretty good people. The good ones that I arrest made a mistake and have to answer for that mistake i.e. an arrest for operating under the influence. Other people that I arrest are dangerous criminals. These are the gang members, house breakers and drug dealers that prey on the people that I am sworn to protect. I take great pride in taking these people off the street.
Police officers are certainly not on the bottom of the totem pole. I prefer to see it that we are the first level of a system of justice that while not perfect is still pretty damn good. I may be naive, but I still feel that one person can make a difference from the bottom up. I make a difference in my little corner, you make a difference in yours and so on. I guess in the end, my point is that the police are part of the solution to the ills of society and not part of the problem. Again, thanks for the dialogue.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 22, 2007 5:37:43 GMT -5
Sorry I haven't posted in awhile, I was tied up in court for a few days. (Guilty verdict on an Operating Under the Influence arrest and a motion to suppress on a possesion with intent to distribute cocaine-no ruling yet)
I don't know where you got the idea that police officers are minimum wage burger flippers. I work in a police department that includes graduates of the following Universities: Georgetown University, Boston University, Syracuse University,Northeastern University,Norwich University, Boston College, UMASS Amherst and many other fine schools. Out of 34 officers 9 have Masters Degrees,16 have Bachelors Degrees, and 7 have Associates Degrees. I certainly make a comfortable living that I believe I earn. We did not take this job to get rich. We took the job to make a living and to help a few people on the way.
Police officers are forced to make complex legal decisions in the blink of an eye. I think we do a pretty good job. If we make a mistake then Lawyers, Courts and Juries tell us we were wrong. That's the system of Justice in the U.S. and I think it's pretty good.
I want to share a quote with you that I have on my locker. I read this every night as I prepare for work. " It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust, sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at least knows the triumph of high achievment; and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat"-Theodore Roosevelt-President and one time Police Commissioner of New York City.
I feel that Police Officers step into the arena every day. We know high achievment when we protect the innocent by putting away a criminal, save a life with CPR, or help a kid who is going down the wrong path. This is truly a worthy cause. We fail quite a bit also. (as this site is quick and quite correct to point out) I guess I just see most cops as good men and women who are trying to make a difference. I don't see us as the armed agents of a repressive "Government". The Preamble of the Constitution states "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for The United States of America." I feel that I protect this legacy every day.
spd49
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 22, 2007 5:37:43 GMT -5
Sorry I haven't posted in awhile, I was tied up in court for a few days. (Guilty verdict on an Operating Under the Influence arrest and a motion to suppress on a possesion with intent to distribute cocaine-no ruling yet)
I don't know where you got the idea that police officers are minimum wage burger flippers. I work in a police department that includes graduates of the following Universities: Georgetown University, Boston University, Syracuse University,Northeastern University,Norwich University, Boston College, UMASS Amherst and many other fine schools. Out of 34 officers 9 have Masters Degrees,16 have Bachelors Degrees, and 7 have Associates Degrees. I certainly make a comfortable living that I believe I earn. We did not take this job to get rich. We took the job to make a living and to help a few people on the way.
Police officers are forced to make complex legal decisions in the blink of an eye. I think we do a pretty good job. If we make a mistake then Lawyers, Courts and Juries tell us we were wrong. That's the system of Justice in the U.S. and I think it's pretty good.
I want to share a quote with you that I have on my locker. I read this every night as I prepare for work. " It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust, sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at least knows the triumph of high achievment; and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat"-Theodore Roosevelt-President and one time Police Commissioner of New York City.
I feel that Police Officers step into the arena every day. We know high achievment when we protect the innocent by putting away a criminal, save a life with CPR, or help a kid who is going down the wrong path. This is truly a worthy cause. We fail quite a bit also. (as this site is quick and quite correct to point out) I guess I just see most cops as good men and women who are trying to make a difference. I don't see us as the armed agents of a repressive "Government". The Preamble of the Constitution states "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for The United States of America." I feel that I protect this legacy every day.
spd49
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 12, 2007 3:35:26 GMT -5
Shuftin,
I still don't get it. Treason is a crime that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution AND common law. The scenario that I gave you certainly fits the elements of that crime yet you say " NO INJURY, NO COURT CASE" You then quote a court case from 1670 Colonial America. You accuse the police of violating the Constitution, yet in this case it seems that your opinion would be a violation of the right of the people to try treasonous activity. I haven't had time to look at all of the cases that you cited but I will try.
ps If you are getting tired of the dialogue, just tell me and I'll stop posting. I find that debate makes me sharper and more effective in my life and job.
spd49
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 12, 2007 3:35:26 GMT -5
Shuftin,
I still don't get it. Treason is a crime that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution AND common law. The scenario that I gave you certainly fits the elements of that crime yet you say " NO INJURY, NO COURT CASE" You then quote a court case from 1670 Colonial America. You accuse the police of violating the Constitution, yet in this case it seems that your opinion would be a violation of the right of the people to try treasonous activity. I haven't had time to look at all of the cases that you cited but I will try.
ps If you are getting tired of the dialogue, just tell me and I'll stop posting. I find that debate makes me sharper and more effective in my life and job.
spd49
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 12, 2007 2:39:49 GMT -5
Critique,
Thanks for the picture. I think it captures my policing style perfectly. This would be gentle as a lamb with victims and good citizens and a prowling wolf for the criminals of the world. Don't feel like you are ganging up on me. I've been punched, kicked, spit on, cursed at and abused for 10 yrs. If I can take that, I certainly can take the "wolf in sheeps clothing" jab. I posted on this site to get some honest opinions. Keep them coming!
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 12, 2007 2:39:49 GMT -5
Critique,
Thanks for the picture. I think it captures my policing style perfectly. This would be gentle as a lamb with victims and good citizens and a prowling wolf for the criminals of the world. Don't feel like you are ganging up on me. I've been punched, kicked, spit on, cursed at and abused for 10 yrs. If I can take that, I certainly can take the "wolf in sheeps clothing" jab. I posted on this site to get some honest opinions. Keep them coming!
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 11, 2007 4:21:39 GMT -5
Shuftin,
I guess I'm having a problem understanding your concept that their must be an injury to an individual before a crime is committed. Can the "State"ever be the victim? I'll give an example.
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states- Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Treason is one of the fundamental crimes under common law and is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Here is a scenario.
I am a German American citizen of the United States during WWII living in Massachusetts. My cousin from Berlin shows up on my door step one day. He tells me that he is a Nazi spy. I feed him, clothe him and house him for a week. I do not inform the authorities he is here. He leaves my house and is immediately arrested for espionage. The FBI has been tracking him for a month. They watched him in my home. Am I guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy? All I did was take care of my dear cousin. I did not hurt or injure anyone. 2 FBI agents saw him at my dinner table and sleep in my house. Am I guilty of Treason? Who is the victim of Treason?
Thanks for the dialogue. spd49
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 11, 2007 4:21:39 GMT -5
Shuftin,
I guess I'm having a problem understanding your concept that their must be an injury to an individual before a crime is committed. Can the "State"ever be the victim? I'll give an example.
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states- Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Treason is one of the fundamental crimes under common law and is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Here is a scenario.
I am a German American citizen of the United States during WWII living in Massachusetts. My cousin from Berlin shows up on my door step one day. He tells me that he is a Nazi spy. I feed him, clothe him and house him for a week. I do not inform the authorities he is here. He leaves my house and is immediately arrested for espionage. The FBI has been tracking him for a month. They watched him in my home. Am I guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy? All I did was take care of my dear cousin. I did not hurt or injure anyone. 2 FBI agents saw him at my dinner table and sleep in my house. Am I guilty of Treason? Who is the victim of Treason?
Thanks for the dialogue. spd49
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 10, 2007 6:59:42 GMT -5
Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of Massachusetts
Article V-All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and offices of government vested with authority, wether legislative, executive or judicial are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.
Article XX-The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derivied from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for
The way I see it, people choose to live in a state i.e. Massachusetts. The people came together to provide for mutual safety and prosperity. They adopted a state Constitution to further enumerate their rights, privledges and duties. They empowered the Leglislature to enact laws i.e. Chapter 90 Section 24-Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. This does not violate the principle of common right or common reason. Driving under the influence is an inherently dangerous activity that infringes on the rights of others to safely use the roadway. In the case of the drunk driver with the headlight out, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the aggrieved party. The arresting officer is your accuser as the duly authorized representative of the people. You can confront, cross examine and refute all accusations in front of a jury of your peers. (Believe me, I have been on the business end of some spirited and well executed cross examinations by skilled attorneys.) If the people wanted to repeal the Operating Under the Influence law they could petition the legislature to do so. This has not happened. You say (by some of the cases you cite) that driving (travel) is a right under the US Constitution. By driving under the influence and creating a danger on the road aren't you infringing on my right to free travel. I won't even touch your statutory rape comment. The issue is INFORMED CONSENT. A sexual relationship is a mutual agreement to engage in relations. If a child is not able to make this agreement due to lack of maturity then the child is a victim and a crime has been committed.(Rape) Can a 4 yr old consent? An 8 yr old? When is a child a victim in your mind? I hope you can explain because I was enjoying our discussion until you came out with the statutory rape comment.
spd49
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 10, 2007 6:59:42 GMT -5
Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of Massachusetts
Article V-All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and offices of government vested with authority, wether legislative, executive or judicial are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.
Article XX-The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derivied from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for
The way I see it, people choose to live in a state i.e. Massachusetts. The people came together to provide for mutual safety and prosperity. They adopted a state Constitution to further enumerate their rights, privledges and duties. They empowered the Leglislature to enact laws i.e. Chapter 90 Section 24-Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. This does not violate the principle of common right or common reason. Driving under the influence is an inherently dangerous activity that infringes on the rights of others to safely use the roadway. In the case of the drunk driver with the headlight out, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the aggrieved party. The arresting officer is your accuser as the duly authorized representative of the people. You can confront, cross examine and refute all accusations in front of a jury of your peers. (Believe me, I have been on the business end of some spirited and well executed cross examinations by skilled attorneys.) If the people wanted to repeal the Operating Under the Influence law they could petition the legislature to do so. This has not happened. You say (by some of the cases you cite) that driving (travel) is a right under the US Constitution. By driving under the influence and creating a danger on the road aren't you infringing on my right to free travel. I won't even touch your statutory rape comment. The issue is INFORMED CONSENT. A sexual relationship is a mutual agreement to engage in relations. If a child is not able to make this agreement due to lack of maturity then the child is a victim and a crime has been committed.(Rape) Can a 4 yr old consent? An 8 yr old? When is a child a victim in your mind? I hope you can explain because I was enjoying our discussion until you came out with the statutory rape comment.
spd49
|
|