Fixing The Cop Problem

75
6029
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

That we have a Cop Problem is obvious. How to fix it, not so much.cops lead

The problem – a chunk of it, at any rate – derives from an overweening postmodern concern for the “safety” of cops to the detriment of those they (ahem) serve. Plus what’s known in the lawyer game as qualified or (worse) sovereign immunity. It means they get away with doing things that would ruin ordinary people who did exactly the same things.

It’s a crazy idea.

If, that is, you don’t want to end up with a Cop Problem.

Take any group of people and make it known that even when they do something criminal, they will be held less responsible for the doing of it – and what do you suppose is likely to happen?herocop draws gun

Bingo.

And, duh.

How about holding them – if they’re cops – more responsible?

Applying unto them a higher standard?

There is something ludicrous about the current dynamic – which (as an example) places exacting legal obligations – and repercussions – on the shoulders of ordinary citizens who possess a permit to carry a gun. If such a person so much as reveals the gun in a threatening manner it is brandishing – a felony and as serious as cancer. If an ordinary citizen fires that gun he had better be able to adduce compelling evidence that he did so under the most extreme duress, his own life in clear and present danger.

That he felt skeered won’t cut it.

Or, how about striking another person – including minor children? A parent who smacks a kid on the rump to discipline him opens himself up to child abuse prosecution. What happens when a cop body slams a minor child? It’s accepted. Or at least, tolerated.

It shouldn’t be.

Is there any sane reason why a lesser standard should be applied to cops? Who are after all trained and supposedly more able than ordinary folks to exercise judgment as well as restraint?

Does anyone, upon reflection, doubt that the chief reason (or one of them, at any rate) why we have a Cop Problem is precisely because less is demanded of cops than of ordinary folks when it comes to the exercise of judgment and restraint?

In economics, there are these things called incentives. You want more of something, you encourage it by incentivizing its manufacture and consumption. To get less, you discourage it – typically, by making whatever it is cost more.

It ought to cost cops more when they fail to exercise at least the judgment and restraint we expect of ordinary people; but most especially when they resort to violence unnecessarily or excessively.

We’d then get less unnecessary and excessive violence.

So, not just the normal criminal (and civil) consequences that an ordinary Joe would face in the event, say, of a reckless discharge of a firearm that ended up with some other person injured or dead. A more severe standard for those who enforce the laws.

For exactly that reason.cops cartoon

Cops are given the literal power of life and death over us; its exercise had better be justified beyond any shadow of a doubt. We have a Cop Problem because hardly a week (often, hardly a day) goes by without a video or some such cropping up that clearly shows unjustified exercise of this power. It is infuriating. More so, when the follow-up news story reveals – as it often does – that the offending officers were not placed in handcuffs and frog-marched to a cage, as any of us would have been given identical actions. This is social dynamite – and if an explosion is not wanted, someone had better throw water on the cordite.

Twenty years for the cop – when an ordinary citizens would get ten for the same offense. This would be a step in the right direction.

It would require amending the law, so that different (more severe) penalties would apply to those empowered by the law to use violence for other than purely defensive purposes. But sometimes, it is necessary to adjust the laws. (It is already the case that if a trained/professional fighter hits you, he opens himself to more serious consequences than a regular Joe who threw a punch would face.)

Personal liability would be another valuable reform.

If an ordinary person, as an example, drives his car in a reckless manner and ends up killing an innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, his family can sue the pants off the guilty party, leaving him destitute. But when a cop does such a thing, he may never have to pay out a dime – although the county or city he worked for ends up paying out millions. Which of course is a malaprop, since counties and cities have no monies except for such as they mulct from the ordinary people who pay the taxes that finance the operation. Thus, the affront is doubled. The person responsible is not held responsible while the people who weren’t responsible are held responsible.

More social dynamite.hut hut hut

You might as well give your teenaged son a bottle of Jack Daniels, the keys to your Corvette – and let him know you’ll buy him a new one if he wrecks it.

Some professions require the individual to be insured; contractors, for example. Why not apply the principle to cops? If they behave prudently – responsibly – they have nothing to fear. But if not… .

Which is as it ought to be.

These two measures alone, if enacted, would probably tamp down at least two-thirds of the current Cop Problem and restore a degree of sanity to the situation now sorely lacking.

Which, probably, is why it will never happen.

EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! The control freaks (Clovers) hate us. Goo-guhl blackballed us.

Will you help us? 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 or more monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)EPautoslogo

 

Share Button

75 COMMENTS

  1. Enforce Article 3, Section 3, and restore the Constitution as the law of the land, apply the guillotine to those found guilty of treason, oath violations, and other crimes–end of problem

    An American citizen, not US subject.

    • There are three types.
      1) total false flags.
      2) allowed / encouraged / manipulated to happen
      3) real events the powers that be had no control of and no knowledge of.

      1 & 2 are usually used to increase government power, get a war started, get into a war, etc and so on. 3 is usually out of the news cycle as quickly as possible and rarely capitalized on.

      #2’s are the most common. And I believe the most common sub-type is the manipulated one. Manipulated because the event is a natural or probable consequence of previous actions. The public is kept in the dark about the previous actions and made to think the event came out of nowhere.

  2. The problem is also with the militarization of the police forces. The Pentagram’s 1033 program has given to all local departments equipment they do not normally need. Tanks, armored vehicles (MRAPS) automatic weapons, grenade launchers, flame throwers, what’s next? Apaches?
    Cops in Ferguson were decked out in more regalia than troops in Afghanistan.Why? a show of total force and power in the face of the public. This is what it’s for. Trained by izrahell to treat the rest of us as Palestinians, is it any wonder why there are now more than 1000 Americans slaughtered by these pigs?
    It is all about brute force and control in the 21st century for the NWO/ Agenda 21 that people like Billy Goats supports.
    The frightening fact that most Amurkans are either too scared or brainwashed cop suckers, you know the Amurka love it or leave it crowd of ignorant, totally indoctrinated statists who worship authoritarian power and the pigs who enforce it.
    It is going to continue to get much worse yet when the TPP passes and then Agenda 21 is forced on us all.
    You’d better have plenty of ammo and your AR close by.

  3. That’s a great idea and it deserves implementation. Your logic is spot on. Too bad we couldn’t use it on the war monger criminal neocons rampant in our govt that seem Hell bent on world destruction and dominion on what’s left. First fix the violence prone police. And then fix what makes that possible, the violence prone criminal element in our govt that needs it’s wings clipped too.

    • Or he couldn’t get out and walk like I have with people before. Some people really do get smashed and couldn’t drive a nail up their butt with both hands and a sack of hammers.

  4. The only two pronged approach that will work is two barrels from a shotgun. hate to say it but that is the only way. in this town they tried to lay off 6 cops and anyone who stood up at a meeting was pulled over. they even fixed the stats it so it look like crime went up. end result they fired 6 road dept guys who at least do a lot more then a cop

  5. The reform easiest to achieve might be to simply disarm the cops to nothing more than a nightstick except during duty hours in the very worst ‘hoods. Abolish SWAT teams completely. If a situation is beyond ordinary policing ask the Gov to callout the Guard.

  6. All very insightful comments. The idea of holding cops to a HIGHER standard is superb but contrary to the designs and tactics of their STATE employers who need large numbers of these dumbed down droids in blue doing their dirty work. If cops were really trained and dedicated pros like for example physicians (some anyway), and could be sued, discredited and ruined for even unintentional mishaps, they would be more apt to shape up. Watch out however for docs becoming dumbed down pharmaceutical pushers as the medical profession succumbs to the same fate.

    • The medical profession has already succumbed to gunvermin licensing based on approved edumacayshun. But by law I must carry insurance to be sure they get paid, whether they perform or not.

      • PtB: For f*ck sakes, that’s even true of hairdressers and “Aestheticians.”
        No end to the “need” to license people…

        For our own protection, of course.

        • Of course, Jean. I spoke specifically of doctors in response to MDcruiser.
          BTW, you realize doctors (and lawyers) don’t expect to get everything right – that’s why they’re all still ‘practicing.’

          • Yeah…. I think a good dose of, “Physician, heal thyself,” works better than a lawsuit with an ambulance chaser to maintain discipline.
            I hear all sorts of lunacy, though – from people who are upset that “mom” (whomever) died because “that bastard doctor” didn’t do everything possible!

            Good example: Doctor saw an accident victim, pulled the person out of the car, saved that person’s life. The car went up in flames a few moments later. Doctor was sued because the person he saved was paralyzed as a result of injuries. In the accident, or from the doctor? Well, broken neck suggests the accident, but the doctor had to pay up – no protection as a “good samaritan.” Had doc done nothing, there would’ve been a corpse, instead of a survivor.

            Even more egregious, Also from NJ – a chiropractor was talking with a patient. Patient complained of knee pains. Chiro checked out the leg after adjusting the spine, and made an adjustment. Patient later had an accident (I think Auto), and sued the Chiro for injuries, “as a result of treatment.” WTF? AND THIS PERSON WON!!! (So did the other.)

            Egregious misuse of the laws…
            Backed by force, mind – whereas – with my father two years back – there was an Indian “doctor” who prescribed a blood thinner because my dad had some clots in his legs.
            Side effect of drug? Massive hemorrhaging.
            Dad died from….? Series of things, but what ended it was massive hemorrhaging that collapsed his lung. He was DONE at that point, and I never got to see him or talk to him again. I hadn’t exactly been welcome anyway, and the shit life I’ve got didn’t allow much time on the phone…
            But to get those records, and prove the indian whore is guilty of malpractice? thousands of dollars to get the treatment logs. Despite the fact my mother was there asking questions, went after the doctor about the side effects AT THE TIME.

            I think Justice is best delivered by those who DO have a say in it, overall. An objective view is helpful – but we’ve allowed the system to evolve to prey on us, protect the evil and guilty, and harm the innocent.

            There’s an old story about a woman who took care of a poisonous snake…
            She found it, freezing to death, in winter. She took it home, nursed it back to health. One day, it bit her.
            As she lay dying, she asked, “Why…? After all my kindness, I saved your life, why?” “Stupid bitch! You KNEW I was a snake…”

  7. Cops will never be held accountable because government police forces are a Frankenstein monster that, once created and given the power that they have, cannot be destroyed. When you concentrate the organized use of deadly force into a few hands, there is no counteracting power to neutralize that power. Military forces represent the same thing; if the president and the congress were to announce the disbanding of the armed forces tomorrow, there would be a military coup before the words even fully left their mouths and no one else would have sufficient power to stop them.

    Also, more obviously, cops are the bodyguards for the ruling elite. That is, in fact, their real primary purpose. There is no way that the overlord class is going to alienate the people who are the only reason why their dismembered remains aren’t swinging from railroad trestles and lamp posts.

    • I agree, Lib.

      This article was in the Practical Politics department. In principle, there should be no police at all. Perhaps peace keepers. But – for now – the suggested reforms would help, I think.

      • Amen Brother Eric!!!!! Sadly I must agree with several posters that it is designed with explicit intent to be the monster it is. I notice in our little local rural community and county we have a monstrous proportion of “law enforcement” officers, but zero detectives. Lots of SWAT gear, no investigative tools or labs. Want to catch the hooligans breaking into your business? You the business owner must set up the cameras for observation, save the film, and then when you have repeatedly ID’d the “perps”, pay for law enforcement to execute the warrant. Yes, filing a criminal complaint carries an administrative fee for us mundane folks. Yet “governmental” groups and agencies suffer no such penalty. When local citizens showed up at a “city” (population less than 1000) council meeting protesting issues along these lines, they were informed their disagreement could be interpreted as a criminal act and was at the very least suspicious behavior. For the morons that say vote them out, they were appointed federally because of lack of conformance to “proper federal regulations” (Agenda 21) and are protected until the fed is satisfied. Constitutional objections were dismissed as “who knows what it means, we are not bound by it”. Yes, accepting that “free money” isn’t “free” at all. Does not bode well for a peaceful future.

      • “In principle, there should be no police at all.”

        Not just in principle. This country went about 60 years without cops, and the entire colonial period. The fact it did happen that way is proof it is a practical solution.

        I admit getting rid of cops is about as hopeless as reforming them. They are doing exactly what the ruling class wants of them. I suppose it will take a revolution and war before we are rid of this gang of thugs.

    • Not so sure, Liberranter.
      “Also, more obviously, cops are the bodyguards for the ruling elite. That is, in fact, their real primary purpose. There is no way that the overlord class is going to alienate the people who are the only reason why their dismembered remains aren’t swinging from railroad trestles and lamp posts.”

      Rather, I think, the police are a bulwark against revolution, a way to contain the masses. Storm troopers rather than bodyguards.
      After all, the Elites have their own bodyguards… We get the Socialized version, which is a dual-mode lie: They’re not there to “protect and serve” (be our bodyguards), and they ARE there to insulate the Corporate Citizen and the moneyed Elite… From we unwashed masses.

      They are front-line soldiers against us… With the Elite SS following, should we get too uppity.
      Local cop < State Police < FBI/DEA/BATFE/BLM/SS/Park Ranger/CIA/NSA/DHS <= military

      Not sure where the Elite's bodyguards fall in. Secret Service is obviously one of the alphabets, but the freelancers, I'm not sure. Probable that they'd be granted the same basic privileges, so outrank the State Popo, but not QUITE have the state sanctions on violence as Feddies.

      But they'd get the same "blind eye" to aggressively "protecting" their charge, I'd wager – a bunch of show trial, followed by acquittal, whereas PoPo would get off with a warning, if that…

    • “It is precisely for the protection of the minority
      that constitutional limitations exist.
      Majorities need no such protection.
      They can take care of themselves.”
      — Illinois Supreme Court
      (1910)

      “There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong… . In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right… .”
      — James Madison

      And now we have a political standard of protecting a minority, that of the “just us” branch of govt., the arm of force, the right makes might crowd. And for what benefit? Their own naturally. No criminals, no need for judges, prosecutors or cops. Private prisons make sure more politicians pass evermore difficult laws for the taxpayer to follow. Even the supreme court stands behind cop abuse. The president remains mute unless the victim is black. So……what ever gave you the idea blacks aren’t racist?

      • Funny – the white libs can say whatever they wish about Ben Carson, because he is a ‘conservative’ black, a creature they suppose to be as mythical as the unicorn. If a white conservative said such about O-Bomb-Ya, he would be derided as a racist.
        Mind, I’m not saying I like Carson, just that he is the victim of a double standard.

        • Yep, Carson’s a victim of being an uncle tom. Your point is valid though. Let someone with my skin color disagree with BO and the “progressives” immediately label me as racist and if BO went on “tv” everyday and spoke of YT, they’d give him a by “because he’s black”.

          Speaking of BO, hsi BC was shown globally……briefly, before it’s access was sealed. Still, many immediately made a copy and yet no speaks of it. hhhhmmmmm….Maybe it’s those various alphabet agency thugs in arms….

          • I’ve never understood the “Uncle Tom” epithet.
            Uncle Tom was a fictional black slave in a book.
            He was sold by a kind master to a nasty, work-them-until-they-drop man.
            Two other slaves fled that plantation, and the master demanded Tom tell him where they had gone. He didn’t know, and wouldn’t tell anyway. He was beaten to enforce compliance.

            Tom died from the beating. He forgave the men who beat him to death, never revealed which direction the escaped slaves had even headed, and the old owner was coming back to buy him back as well.

            So: No telling on other slaves; forgiveness of those who do evil.
            How can calling someone an Uncle Tom be an epithet, unless the name-caller hasn’t read the book?

            +++
            Caveat: Ain’t no nigger gon’ read dat white-folk prop’ganda! (I forgot…)

    • “Also, more obviously, cops are the bodyguards for the ruling elite. That is, in fact, their real primary purpose. There is no way that the overlord class is going to alienate the people who are the only reason why their dismembered remains aren’t swinging from railroad trestles and lamp posts.”

      Spot on! Something like The Baltimore riot couldn’t occur within rifle range of an armed citizen unless the citizens fear their own police.

  8. Law enforcement is the job of the citizen militia. The reason the second amendment and the tenth amendment are THE LAW is to be sure “law enforcement” by a ruling class carries an explicit and immediate check.

    I support my local police. I believe in bushwacking law enforcement. There is no contradiction.

    Without their standing army of enforcers, the Obamas and Bushes of the world are impotent to do their evil.

  9. There have been too many instances of police errors, mistakes, and misconduct that have not been properly addressed. From harassing honest citizens over minor disagreements, questionable shootings of honest citizens, to SWAT teams raiding “the wrong house”, smashing everything in sight, with no apologies to the occupants for their “mistakes”, there is something seriously amiss with law enforcement in this country.

    Militarization, along with the “us vs. them” attitude, seeing the general public as the “enemy”, treating the public with suspicion, many of those that comprise the “thin blue line” do much to alienate themselves from their “bosses”, the law-abiding public.

    Police have forgotten that a little “Andy Taylor” can go a long way in soothing fears that the public has of law enforcement…

    It seems that in today’s supercharged climate of “officer safety”, innocent civilian lives have been extinguished, with tragic results.

    Part of the “problem” has to do with the elevation of “officer safety”, trumping “citizen safety”. It seems that honest citizens have been relegated to second-class “status”, being expendable whenever a “law enforcement” officer’s (perceived) “safety” is threatened.

    The hypocrisy is so blatant, that even with incontrovertible video and audio evidence, police-friendly prosecutors, along with “rubber stamp” grand juries STILL absolve rogue cops of wrongdoing.

    The public is not stupid, seeing through the double-standard that presently exists. This, in no certain terms, absolves anyone of responsibility for perpetrating unnecessary violence against “law enforcement” or the general public…

    The sad part of this whole situation is that when the SHTF, the few good cops will suffer, as those with “axes to grind” will see only the uniform and will be unable (or even unwilling) to differentiate between the “good” and the few “bad”…collateral damage at its worst.

    Non-violent changes in the whole system are sorely needed……

    • Remove the corrupt judges and this wouldn’t happen even though prosecutors are all for it but only if it gets them the all-important “conviction”. Let the convictions start by judges who don’t go hand in hand with prosecutors and the problem is solved to some extent.

      We must always remember that crowding turns animals into aggressive animals. When I was 15 seems like the population of the US was less than 150 million vs 320 million now, mostly crowded into big cities. Still, that doesn’t account for the total change in attitude. It’s the “war” crowd always ready to do harm to someone, anyone, and pick out any minority, blacks, Hispanics, Italians, Irish, southies, you name it, that sort of thing can always find a scapegoat even in the smallest town.

      A great deal of the problem goes, once again, back to that moral-less bunch of cowards, politicians, from locals to the WH.

      • I agree with you eightsouthman. Why is it that the scumbag lawyers have to pass a BAR exam which originated from another country? Why are we supposed to be intimidated of lawyers that wear black dresses to work who call themselves “judges”? And why have not the sheeple intuitively analyzed that judges are intentionally seated high enough to look down upon us as we stand before them for psychological intimidation reasons?

  10. I know that recycling is supposed to be a “good thing.” Still, it seems you have made each of these points so many times before.

    Nothing wrong with “preaching to the choir.” But try to throw in a few more new sermons. 🙂

  11. Police departments are working as designed. They don’t need fixing and can’t be fixed. We have to question why we have them in the first place and what it is they are really for and what they really do. Those answers say they are working as designed. Then we have to ask what do we want from such an institution of men? Then it really becomes clear that something entirely different is required. A pig can’t be reformed into a cow and a law enforcer can’t reformed into Andy Taylor*.

    *used as an example of idealized cop people want, which isn’t what they get or could ever get with the design.

  12. Eric – not sure what’s going on, but I just entered a post and it did not show up. Show I typed it in again – still no joy. I am logged in.

  13. The ‘simplest,’ yet most difficult solution to the problem is to abolish all police.
    Simple because it is uncomplicated. No trying to fix the ‘bad parts’ and salvage the rest.
    Difficult because very few people will accept the idea that we can survive, let alone thrive, w/o that Blue Line. They will cry that we are trying to take away their ‘saaaaaafety.’ They don’t realize how unsafe we have become. About once every 8 hours someone in the US is killed by the police.
    Unbridled vigilantism would be less dangerous than the current situation. Eliminating the whole concept of ‘crime’ and requiring action to be brought by a victim (or his representative, in the case of death) for every tort would be even better.

  14. The ‘simplest,’ yet most difficult solution to the problem is – abolish the police, all of them.
    Simple, because it is uncomplicated, not trying to ‘fix’ things or eliminate some parts and keep others.
    Difficult because very few people will see the wisdom of it. Most will cry that we want to take away their saaaaaaafety.
    But unbridled vigilantism would be preferable to the situation as it exists today.

    • Agree: I’d also say that most of the common “Joe’s” have no use for cops whatsoever. Now, if I owned a liquor store in the ghetto, I’d be saying something different. But as a rich, middle-aged, white man I (like a whole lot of other people) have no use for the cops. To contrast, with firefighters, I do have a use for them. (even though I have never had any fire at my house)

      • tom, if there were no cops I doubt anyone would consider robbing a liquor store. They don’t seem to be needed in Mexico. That guy standing out front with an M-16 and the foyer with an electric lock on the inside door seem to work fine. We have been saved by volunteer fire depts. from range fires though and I wholeheartedly support them. Of course the only uniforms they have are the ones they use to fight fires and I haven’t seen a badge yet.

        As for cops in general, don’t get me started.

        • “the foyer with an electric lock on the inside door” – now there’s an idea that should work well for banks, pawn shops, and any other place of business susceptible to robbery. Just have a foyer – doesn’t need to be large – made of bullet resistant plastic. When you enter, the outside door locks, and the inside door does not unlock until that happens. If the characters seem unsavory, just leave them in there for a while, then let them out, not in.

          • PtB, that’s the way the banks and liquor stores in Mexico operate. They fairly jam you in at the bank, not much room to avoid those senoritas ha ha. You hear the door behind you lock and the door in front unlocks, same way going out so you can’t make a grab and dash. Everyone is well-behaved. They count your money with machines, a few times, then count it by hand at least a couple times when they count it out to you. It might not be folksy and they don’t serve hot dogs and popcorn like BOA but then you don’t have to show ID or thumbprints. Just hand them travelers checks and they exchange for the Real rate as opposed to rounding down as everyone else but banks do. I like Mexico. People are courteous there for the most part. When I’d pull into a parking lot, the ever-present, very professional attendant would open 3 spaces for my long bed ext. cab pickup and then stop everybody else from trying to exit when I did, making sure there were no accidents.

            • Only been to Mexico once, and that was so long ago I didn’t need a passport, used my Voter’s Registration as proof of citizenship. And my (then) wife worked for the hotel chain we stayed at, so they cashed a check for us. No need for bank.

      • I fully understand your point that a liquor store owner may desire police protection. It should be noticed, however, that this type of owner favors collectivizing security costs in order to keep himself from being robbed by supporting policies to rob the rest of us. He wouldn’t dare go from house to house collecting fees at gunpoint for his own security; yet our present system allows him to sleep comfortably every night because someone he voted for is doing the robbing on his behalf! He blocks that reality from his mind so that he can sleep peacefully: After all; he isn’t the one personally threatening violence to people for noncompliance! Statism cannot ever morally work because it allows people to avoid facing the realities of their choices.

        • Very true, but even highly intelligent people believe authority is descended from God.
          Leaving aside whether God exists, these people don’t understand that Chairman Mao was correct: All (political) power comes from the barrel of a gun.

          It does NOT descend from God Almighty like the Holy Spirit. It comes with a loud bang and burning smell. But these Churchians believe we live in scriptural times.
          They are WILLFULLY blind. “Greatly Misled” as Christ said a few times… Pharisees and Sadducees indeed.
          CLOVERS.

          And the disgusting thing is, when you strip the layers a tiny bit, you realize: They MUST know in their heart what they are doing and saying is evil. There’s no way to connect the teachings (whether Judaic or Christian) with their words and actions – exactly the point Christ was making in those passages. They wore the “Word of God” on their chest (in the heart), on their chin (in the mouth), and on their head (In the mind.)
          This gave them “moral authority” to tell others how to live…
          While they broke the intent of the law left right and center!

          “No labor on the sabbath” – including animals and slaves. You were supposed to kill those who broke that law.
          But is food production (cooking) not labor? (It is, actually, by Hebrew law.)

          But like the TV antenna on the Amish barn, they keep to the Law while in view of public, and do what they want when in private. All while chastizing others for not following “THE SACRED LAW” they willfully ignore when it’s inconvenient.

          E.G., the “People speed too much in our neighborhood!” clover. When the police do a speed trap, they catch…? The residents. The Pharisees and Sadducees. Worse, the Pharisees (High priests, etc) are given a pass. Judge, sorry, I didn’t realize it was you… Sorry, Sarge, I just wanted to say hi….
          Oh, Mrs. Smith, did you realize you were speeding in a school zone? 26 in a 25, I’ll be back with your ticket in half an hour. Make sure you slow down now. I know you live on this street, I’m just answering the demands of your neighbors…. I’m here to protect and serve the community, and if you don’t like it, my camera will malfunction when you assault me, and I’ll arrest whatever survives…
          You have a nice day now, and don’t forget you can mail in the $500 fine…

          This venal sort of person has ALWAYS existed. Always will exist. It’s a semi-evolved toad, not human, and should be executed for the good of humanity.
          We DO need workers.
          We will ALWAYS have “the poor” among us.
          We do NOT need to tolerate “lowest common denominator” behavior – in fact, we should oppose it regularly.
          By force, frequently.

          Do unto others as they have done unto to you.
          Or, learn to do it first: “Some men plain need killing.”
          LIEberals.
          “Progressives.”
          Politicians.
          Lawyers.
          Clovers.
          Solution?
          “Swing first and ask questions later when dealing with these Kindred, or they’ll talk you into slitting your own throat.” (Brujah regarding the Lasombra clan, from Vampire: The Masquerade. I just rather like the symmetry, given what’s been happening in our once-free society.)

    • “Unbridled vigilantism would be less dangerous than the current situation.”

      True. That is not hyperbole.

      Unbridled vigilantism would soon lead to “natural checks and balances” that would rein in excesses.

  15. There is much angst and consternation against prosecutors and grand juries who refuse to bring charges against police officers, even when incontrovertible evidence is presented. Even with incontrovertible audio and video evidence, prosecutors are loath to prosecute rogue law enforcement personnel.
    Let’s examine the reasons why it is so difficult to prosecute thug cops:
    Most prosecutors are former police officers or have extensive dealings with police departments and have ongoing relationships with police departments in their respective jurisdictions. They are friendly with the judges in their jurisdictions, as well. This, along with “absolute immunity” makes it easy for them to “cover up” police abuses and behavior. Prosecutors cannot be sued for malfeasance…it takes a judge (who prosecutors are friendly with) to bring charges on a rogue prosecutor (which almost never happens).
    In addition, prosecutors guide the actions of grand juries. Prosecutors are not required to introduce any evidence to grand juries, (can and do) easily “whitewash” the actions of rogue cops. On the other hand, prosecutors can (and often do) go after honest citizens who seek justice outside official channels…prosecutors have ultimate power and are not afraid to use it…their immunity sees to that.
    Another aspect to a grand jury’s inability to prosecute bad cops is the fear of retribution…cops drive around all day, have nothing but time, have access to various databases, and can easily get the names and addresses of grand jurors…this, in itself can be a powerful deterrent against grand jurors who “want to do the right thing” and prosecute bad cops. There are many cases of cops parking in front of grand jurors’ residences, following them around, and threaten to issue citations to them, in order to “convince” them to “make the right decision”…the “thin blue line” at its worst…
    The whole system has to change.

    • There have been recent laws passed to stop the “picked” jury, the grand jury consisting of ex-cops, lawyers, prosecutors, etc. It met with stiff resistance but passed anyway. Now we need to address the corrupt DA’s(all of them)and the judges (all of them too). The entire problem stems from corrupt judges anyway as I just commented yesterday. Whenever any person has immunity from anything there’ll be those who use and abuse it. I wish it were benign as a kid, a bottle of Jack and a Corvette but it’s more like a psychotic kid, unlimited guns and ammo and anything he wants to do with it……and that’s still an understatement since I was a kid with a pickup and guns and ammo galore I couldn’t conceive of using that gun on people or the pickup either. I was always appalled at the way some cops acted. If ever there came a situation that could have pushed me to use a gun and a vehicle against someone it would have been one of those guys.

      I fortunately grew up with sheriff’s and even DPS who’d simply watch us do our thing and as long as it involved no property damage it was ok. We’d drink and play rowdy on the courthouse lawn with them watching. Along about 2 or 3 am when they got ready to turn in, we had to turn in too, no if’s ands or butts. If we got too wild the sheriff got our dad in on it and it was over although I can’t remember that happening, just the threat(if I have to get ____ out of bed…….)and that was the end of it. yes sir, I’m headed to the house(and he’d follow you and watch you go in the door).

      But then years later when Tricky Dick contrived the war on people, it all went to hell in a handbag immediately. I was an adult by that time, driving my own truck but it was hell on the younger crowd who got searched for nothing while I went unmolested but still raising some hell. My wife and I were known as a refuge but only if they were civil…..which they were. I might not call their dad but they knew we wouldn’t be there for them if they needed help.

      But once things got violent from the law end, then other people who had little compunction not to treat violence with violence started to become the norm. You get what you give. And now we’re to this point. I’m surprised more cops aren’t offed because of their own actions…..they should be.

  16. The “thin blue line” is just another gang with official sanction…the “good” cops that do nothing to reign in their criminal brethren are just as culpable.
    Changes need to be made…
    1. Eliminate both “qualified” and “absolute” immunity for all public officials–not just police and firefighters. Prosecutors, judges, and other court officials should have NO official immunity.
    2. Require all public officials to be “bonded”, and to purchase “malpractice insurance” at their own expense as a condition of employment. No bond or insurance=no job. Insurance companies and bonding agencies would be more diligent in weeding out those who abuse their authority.
    3. All funds disbursed to civilians as a result of misconduct must be taken from the respective agency’s pension fund–not from the taxpayers.
    4. All police “body and dash cams” must be operational at all times, with a publicly accessible website in the “cloud”. Police are not permitted to have any interaction with civilians without operational body and dash cams…Any police official that disables body or dash cams or interacts with civilians without operational equipment should face immediate termination of employment–no excuses. Equipment should be designed that cannot be shut off or disabled.
    5. Eliminate all police and firefighter “unions”. These “fraternal organizations” have been responsible for keeping many “bad cops” on the force. There is absolutely no need for public officials to have labor representation, especially when the public is the employer.
    6. Police agencies should not be permitted to investigate themselves. Investigations for misconduct should take place at the state level. Internal affairs should only be used to resolve problems between individual officers.
    7. All grand juries must be superior to the prosecutor. Withholding evidence from the grand jury by prosecutors or judges should be a felony. Grand juries and prosecutors who are investigating cases of official misconduct should be drawn from outstate jurisdictions–no more local (possibly tainted) investigations.
    8. A searcheable public database should be established for all public officials to insure that those who abuse their authority never work in public service. This could be established on a state-by-state basis.
    These changes would do much to help eliminate the abuses that take place…

    • Anarchyst,
      I have to disagree with the bolded section here:
      “The “thin blue line” is just another gang with official sanction…the “good” cops that do nothing to reign in their criminal brethren are just as culpable.

      Literally, true.
      Problem is, the honest police who turn in immoral, dishonest, abusive cops – generally don’t get to remain cops. They are harassed, attacked, forced out, etc. Some are supposedly executed….

      So, there is a DIS-incentive – exactly the problem Eric is commenting on.
      We need to re-incentivize proper behavior, likely with force. (You can sometimes trick the genie back into the bottle, but we’re not dealing with djin here; we’re dealing with rabid wolverines, who will respond most – not necessarily best – to force.)
      If we eliminate their incentives towards bad behavior, as you suggest in those 8 points, we get most of the way there; but we need to incentivize the right behavior, and positive reinforcement (helping those who do inform on the bad cops) plus negative incentives on bad behavior (murder someone in police custody, your entire family is executed by burning to death)…. I think that would go a LONG way to restoring faith in the system.
      Notice what is missing from today’s version?

      US. We are disengaged. Eloi… Country of sheep, governed by wolves. Etc.

      • Perhaps a John Browne belt with a holster and a pre-war S&W .38 revolver with one round of pre-war ammo in top shirt pocket and a supervisor who made sure it stayed there……and maybe that’s too much…

    • Also, I think I need to quibble on this one:
      “4. All police “body and dash cams” must be operational at all times, with a publicly accessible website in the “cloud”. Police are not permitted to have any interaction with civilians without operational body and dash cams…Any police official that disables body or dash cams or interacts with civilians without operational equipment should face immediate termination of employment–no excuses. Equipment should be designed that cannot be shut off or disabled.”

      Equipment could easily be installed (at far lower costs than the current contracts – more corruption). Car is on – dash cam is running. Turn off the car during a stop, immediate termination. Maybe a way to keep the camera running for a while afterwards – engines HAVE been known to die, after all, though the key in the ignition should ensure electrical keeps working – but that key is going extinct, as noted elsewhere.
      Read-only access should be easy in a cloud.
      Hacking that cloud should mean a life sentence… (I’d prefer an alternative, but the assumption that hacking the cloud was to alter the data there…? Seems essential. Open to ideas, though. )

      Things malfunction and die, too, though. We need to be “forgiving” of that, I.E. realistic. One malfunction a year, maybe, on supposition that most encounters are not going to be violent? If an encounter goes violent and the camera malfunctions, the burden of proof should be on the officer. Most people are NOT armed in daily activities. If two officers are present ( a wise idea anyway) and BOTH have “malfunctions”? Even if it DOESN’T become violent? Both are terminated, I.E., intent is presumed. If it DOES go violent, that presumption should keep the officers under control – they’re going to be fired, and blackballed – they won’t do more than defend themselves, I think. (Although maybe it would be, “In for a penny, in for a pound,” though the ensuing prosecution as a criminal might mitigate that attitude.)

      I think also that we need to remove the limitations on the police. Hire the best, not the most aggressive. Example, though it’s stupid: The film SWAT, with Colin Farrel and Samuel L Jackson? There was an officer Jackson’s character rejected. I didn’t like the officer (Seemed like a poof) – which was what the film maker wanted. But the officer said the right things – E.G., if things (d)evolved into violence, he’d done something wrong, he’d failed in his job.
      Note we are seeing art imitating (predicting?) life. See also a Google for the court case, where IQ was permitted to be a restriction on hiring police – too high an IQ, and they wouldn’t hire. I think that’s a problem. Reverse it, make SWAT mostly a showpiece, with the capacity to reign hellfire if needed – and the brains to see that as a last resort.

      I also think there could (should) be some “exigent circumstances” requirement. E.G., off-duty cop sees a kidnapping or assault in progress, they are allowed to intervene, no camera needed. It could apply to on-duty as well, as a known defective camera shouldn’t be an impediment to public good, restricted to the appropriate circumstances. E.G., drug interdiction doesn’t qualify, but assault, kidnapping, rape does. Traffic offenses are NOT exigent circumstances, unless the events are SO egregious they already have officers in pursuit, or officers en route, and witnessed such behaviors as a Hollywood chase scene: wrong side of the road driving in a chase, driving on the sidewalk in a chase (note the “in a chase” scenario – this is to preclude someone who makes a wrong turn, E.G., wrong way down a one-way street, from being an end-run around the intent of the law. But we’re getting into legality.)

      Need to get to work, would like to discuss further when I can. 🙂

      • …technology has advanced to the point where dashcams and bodycams no longer need to be tied to the vehicle’s electrical system and give warnings of low battery and no signal well in advance…I agree with you on exigent circumstances, but still have no trust in law enforcement…
        Regards,

    • All great ideas, but I particularly liked #2 & #3.

      Regarding #4… Police in my area shot and killed somebody. But the body cameras were not on because at night the video quality is too poor. So they say.

      • At night, they should use thermal imaging and starlight systems.

        Hell, the local science museum has a display in the entry foyer, telling you, “All these LED strings are lit – use your phone to prove it! ” You take a picture, and the “burned out” lights ARE lit – in UV and Infared wavelengths. Camera sees ’em just fine.

        Seriously, we need to deal with the bullshit.
        As Bevin said above:
        “Unbridled vigilantism would be less dangerous than the current situation.”

        True. That is not hyperbole.

        Unbridled vigilantism would soon lead to “natural checks and balances” that would rein in excesses.

        Most of us don’t want to be violent. Don’t want to injure, let alone kill, others.
        The psychopaths in power have no such compunction; we’re just the “Great Unwashed” (See Pharisees & Sadducees comment above. THEY are the annointed, we’re the idiot peasants, made poor by God as punishment for past sins, and THEY are therefore superior to us in every way.)

        But until the psychopaths pay in blood and treasure, they will continue to assume God has appointed them to be stewards of us human cattle.

        Well, they mess with the bull, we should give them the horns. Only option.

        “No single snowflake thinks it is responsible for the avalanche.”

        We’re still buried, though…

    • Dear anarchyst,

      Revealing pop culture landmark, indicating rise of militarized police and the “us vs. them” mentality.

      The New Centurions (1972)
      Written by Joseph Wambaugh, former LAPD cop turned novelist/screenwriter.

      Trivia: The title of the novel and the film referred to officers in the army of ancient Rome. The name dates from the Marian reforms of 107 BC. The “new” aspect refers to the fact that these centurions (i.e., police officers) are the modern-day equivalents of centurions who battle in an urban jungle, as distinct from the world of ancient times.

      Given that ‘Murca is the New Rome, this was unwittingly apropos, and an ominous foreshadowing of the militarized police of today.

    • Instead of going through all of that B.S. in order to save the state; a better solution is actually a real anarchistic one: Abolish forced statist rule!
      Privatize security! Imagine how you as an owner of a private security company would react to proven information that some of your employees were beating, tazing, or harassing your paying customers. You WILL very quickly lose a lot of customers and get put out of business by the genuine free market if you did not remove those employees, apologize profusely to your customers, and financially recompenses them. This is EXACTLY the opposite of what happens today in our present coercive hierarchical system! And please do not waste time trying to save the state by placing semi-private security companies under it because statism has a worldwide 100% proven track record of aggressive power expansion and forceful politically corrupting influence.

      • The government is, and has been for some time, ‘privatized.’ Prisons have been privatized and scandal still occurs. Worse is that fact that these prison corporations rely on increased numbers of prisoners. The goal of every corporation is to make money……
        There is no such thing as ‘business ethics’

        • Things like that are not privatization, its big business, big government cronyism.

          People confuse true free enterprise and private business and the massive cronyism and fraud that masquerade as those. In most functions of society, government shouldn’t even be involved at all. Today it has its nose deep into things it has no business being in.

          • Americans are surrendering their public assets and undergoing “denationalization.” Which is a more honest term for what the government class pretends is the enriching process of “privatization.”

            In plain English, command and control of assets amassed from us at gunpoint since the revolution, are being handed over to foreign bodies outside the 320 million people who reside in the borders of the United States.

            Think of it as a Wealth Holocaust. Whatever remains here that can create new wealth is being willingly traded or handed over to someone elsewhere in the world in exchange for power, or locked up here in a legal and financial concentration camp where it’s every activity and transaction is closely monitored by police state guards and bureaucrats that feed and nuture the growing Leviathan State.

            We have title only to the national debt of $19 trillion and the unfunded liabilities of around $200 trillion.

            Even something as simple as the machinery and capital to make over 90% of every beer consumed in America is somebody else’s hands. (SABMiller PLC London, UK; Anheuser-Busch InBev Leuven, Belgium)
            – –

            Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 20, Number 3—Summer 2006—Pages 187–194
            http://www.ub.edu/graap/JEP.pdf

            Retrospectives:
            The Coining of “Privatization” and Germany’s National Socialist Party
            – Germa Bel

            This article hopes to deepen the workaday dialogue of economists, while perhaps also casting new light on ongoing questions.

            Tracing “Privatization” Back One Step

            The concept of privatization seemed very much in the air in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Under prodding by Margaret Thatcher, 5 percent of the shares in British Petroleum were sold in a public offering in November 1979, the first of the
            major flotations in this period.

            My goal is not to comment on the merits of privatization as a policy, but rather to investigate
            the history of the term “privatization” in economics and to shed some light on the
            context in which the word was coined.

            Although the origin of the term is often
            attributed to a 1969 book by Peter Drucker, I will show that the terminology of privatization played an earlier role in German economic policy from the 1930s through the 1950s.

            Drucker makes a negative appraisal on the managerial capabilities of the public sector: “Government is a poor manager. . . It has no choice but to be ‘bureaucratic.’”

            = Germa Bel a visiting scholar at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. His e-mail address is gbel@ub.edu.

            “Privatization” in the Analysis of Nazi Economic Policy

            In the late 1930s and the early 1940s, the economic policy and Nazi Economy in Germany was under the rule of the National Socialist Party.

            Industrialists supported Hitler’s accession to power and his economic policies: “In return for business assistance, the Nazis hastened to give evidence of their good will by restoring to private capitalism a number of monopolies held or controlled by the state”

            This policy implied a large-scale program by which “the government transferred ownership to
            private hands.” One of the main objectives for this policy was to stimulate the propensity to save, since a war economy required low levels of private consumption.

            High levels of savings were thought to depend on inequality of income, which would be increased by inequality of wealth.

            This objective was thus secured by ‘reprivatization’. . . . The practical significance of the transference of government enterprises into private hands was thus that the capitalist class
            continued to serve as a vessel for the accumulation of income.

            Profit-making and the return of property to private hands, moreover, assisted the consolidation of Nazi party power.

            The United Steel Trust is an outstanding example of ‘reprivatization.’” This may be the first use of the term “reprivatization” in the academic literature in English, at least within the domain of the social sciences…

            … The transfer of ownership to the private sector can be described by two synonymous terms: “denationalization” and “privatization.”

            Why don’t English-speaking authors who discuss the sale of a government-owned firm to the private sector use the terminology of “denationalize,” which was used in Great Britain as far back as 1921?

            British scholars usually employed the term “denationalization” when analyzing the privatization of the steel and coal in the United Kingdom in the early 1950s.

            German and U.S. scholars during the 1950s and the 1960s used versions of “privatisierung” or “privatization,” and “reprivatisierung” or “reprivatization.”

            In the literature of the 1930s and 1940s, the concept of denationalization focused largely on a literal deprivation of nationality for individuals

            Not many economic analyses used the word. “Denationalization” which may have sounded too
            much like ownership was being surrendered to foreigners, while “reprivatization” or “privatization” did not carry such an implication.

            Margaret Thatcher reached for the term “privatization” because “denationalization had a negative and unappealing connotation,” among
            other reasons.

            British scholars followed this lead and began to use “privatization” after Thatcher’s privatization policies were implemented in the 1980s.

            The primary modern argument against privatization is that it only enriches and
            entrenches business and political elites, without benefiting consumers or taxpayers.

            The discussion here suggests a rich historical irony: these modern arguments against privatization are strikingly similar to the arguments made in favor of privatization in Germany in the 1930s.

            German privatization of the 1930s was intended to benefit the wealthiest sectors and enhance the economic position and political support of the elite. Of course, this historical connection does not prove that privatization is always
            a sound or an unsound policy, only that the effects of privatization may depend considerably on the political, social and economic contexts.

            German privatization in the 1930s differed from the privatization of Volkswagen in the 1950s, and both of these situations differ from, say, the British privatizations of the 1980s, the Russian privatizations of the 1990s, or the privatizations across Latin America over the last two decades.

        • Team R fans, like team D fans, have absolutely no clue what they support actually means. They don’t understand that privatized to cronies means it will be as bad or worse.

LEAVE A REPLY