More officers killed. Our hearts go out to their families. But let's not constantly being diverted from a fundamental problem of policing in the US.

It seems obvious so some, but many still don’t get it, especially the cops. In short, the good cops need to do more to clean up their houses. If they don’t, then they will get tarred with the same brush as any misfits that they tolerate.

We hear, all of the time, that police officers resent being regarded with suspicion by members of the public. After all, they put their necks on the line every day. Some die in the line of duty, though law enforcement is far from the riskiest occupation in the US, and many innocent citizens die from their hands. Seldom do they address that or show up by the hundreds to THEIR funerals.

This situation with cops is both true and it is sad. The problem is that ALL of the good police officers know of or suspect that certain players in their ranks are sketchy characters, marginal players, individuals who say and do things that they would not say and do. But they give it all a pass, at least to start with, and ignore it while the folks go about their business with the public, carrying a gun and the power of life or death.

The things they still seem not totally aware of, however, it that the general public thinks that a fundamental obligation that police officers have is to keep their ranks clean—VERY clean. If there are Baby Ruths in the swimming pool, they expect the average officer to have a primary role in fishing them out of the pool, before the hotel guests find them floating by. Better yet, preventing them from being in the pool in the first place. And, to be real, before they abuse or kill a citizen.

So I can only offer some simple advice to law enforcement officers. You and your reputation are only as good as the worst cops in your ranks. That’s a fact you have to deal with in some more constructive ways. If you are happy with that reputation model, then get over your resentment about public opinion. You deserve that contempt.

Yes, it can be a mean and nasty world out there, but you signed up for it. Maybe police academy didn’t do a good job about weeding out the gung ho members of your group, or making it very clear what your obligation (duty) is to keep the ranks clean.

Police need to take some initiative that focuses on quality control within their ranks. No more covering others asses that hurt people or tolerating individuals who are likely to do so. We are waiting for more action, instead of stonewalling and whining. Get the broom. Deal with it!

Comments

gumball's picture
gumball 40 weeks 4 days ago
#1

Also, the unions protect the bad cops.

PhilfromOhio's picture
PhilfromOhio 40 weeks 4 days ago
#2

And for that matter, too many politicians glorify police, and wrap themselves around them to the detriment of good police officers. These are the only unions in American supported by the right, since it plays in to their political fear model. Take, for example, the soon to be president, who has vowed to reauthorize the militarization of police. Great idea...the solution is more and bigger guns, armored vehicles, more tactical hardware, a hard ass look, rather than better educated, better trained officers, community policing and zero tolerance for creeps in uniforms.

Legend 40 weeks 4 days ago
#3

The availability of Guns in America is insane. The guy that does the shooting at the Ft Lauderdale airport was a nut case and they give him his gun back. Got to protect his rights to have a gun while mentally impaired. Background checks are fine but if there is a gun show loophole it does no good at all. And most of these mass murders are the assailants first crime. I have proposed multiple times that a gun owner and purchaser be required to take the MMPI (you can Google it). In my opinion it is good to know if you can pass it. Plus it protects the public from the crazies.

Roland de Brabant's picture
Roland de Brabant 40 weeks 4 days ago
#4

Good cops? Are there any anymore? Also policing is almost as dangerous as accountancy. Forget the hype, try to get to the facts. In 2010 in Philadelphia six cops were killed. One had just gotten off duty and walked in on a convenience store robbery. The other five were T-boned; in Philadelphia running red lights is a venerated tradition. And one of the T-boned cops was hit by another cop.

Roland

gumball's picture
gumball 40 weeks 4 days ago
#5
Quote Legend:

The availability of Guns in America is insane. The guy that does the shooting at the Ft Lauderdale airport was a nut case and they give him his gun back. Got to protect his rights to have a gun while mentally impaired. Background checks are fine but if there is a gun show loophole it does no good at all. And most of these mass murders are the assailants first crime. I have proposed multiple times that a gun owner and purchaser be required to take the MMPI (you can Google it). In my opinion it is good to know if you can pass it. Plus it protects the public from the crazies.

If someone has evil intent gun restrictions will not stop them, see Nice. Though, I suppose we could close the truck show loophole also.

zapdam's picture
zapdam 40 weeks 4 days ago
#6

Cops killed in the line of duty, lets not be overly dramatic, "In 2013 there were 4,585 on-the-job fatalities. Of those, 828 were in the construction industry. Put another way: Nearly 1 in 5 on-the-job deaths were on construction sites." In that same year across America there were 34 cop deaths, in that same year 2013 cops shot and killed 780 citizens. The next year cops killed over 1100 Americans, in 2015 cops killed 1200 citizens, in 2016 that number was 1150 killed by cops. So far this month January 2017 , cops have killed 30 people.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/12/10-of-the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america....

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/12/10-of-the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/30/law-enforcement-dea...

TomDorr's picture
TomDorr 40 weeks 4 days ago
#7

Criminals do not like being arrested. They resist arrest. To extremes. How many persons shot and killed by cops were innocent victims with no criminal records?

If you make your neighborhood a war zone, why do you expect police to be anything but warriors?

PhilfromOhio's picture
PhilfromOhio 40 weeks 4 days ago
#8

Gunball,

I always find it curious that rightys routinely dismiss incremental improvements to public law and policy by simplistically stating that....."that won't solve all of the problems." We see this with the gun problem in the US, brought to you by the gun lobby (not sportsmen), followed by health care. Now he promises more and better health for less......actually MUCH more for less. It will be f"cking AMAZING. You actually believe that BS Gunball?

I suppose that when rightys go to their doctors that they also dismiss those recommendations because they hold the view that they want only a single, simple recommendation, not some nuanced treatment regimen. Just give me a shot Doc and be done with it.

Life and society is not a simplistic, simple-minded enterprise, except in autocracies. Rejecting all ways to improve something is the most insincere form of citizenry. Rather than remodel a room or a house, let's always burn it down and start over again. This arsonist's view of life is what characterizes the right's new leader's approach to governing.

Baboons kill all the babies of their new wives. Maybe male human orangutans subscribe to that same model. Get rid of that DNA and inseminate them all with your own political pixie dust. One thing that we can be certain of is that when (not if) Trump gets impeached and removed from office that all problems will not go away. But that will be an good starting point.

TomDorr's picture
TomDorr 40 weeks 4 days ago
#9

Skepticism of law enforcement is a creation of those who don't want criminals arrested. Of all the complaints about police abuse, how many of the "victims" were law abiding innocents without police records?

I side with law, order, and the police.

If you don't, good luck with the anarchy this would produce,

TomDorr's picture
TomDorr 40 weeks 4 days ago
#10

There is no "skepticism" of police by mainstream citizens who obey tyhe law. I am "skeptical" of those who believe otherwise.

PhilfromOhio's picture
PhilfromOhio 40 weeks 4 days ago
#11

Just another screenshot from your black and white TV. Any criticism, any improvements are characterized as fomenting anarchy. They have lots of law and order in Russia where your homie is longing for. Maybe you support the new Phillipine program for reducing drug crimes by extrajudicial street executions. What is a police record anyway, and is that worthy of capital punishment without a trial?

But then maybe we should just assume that only guilty people have negative interactions with the police. Put another way, if he was innocent then why was he running away when I shot him in the back? That's anarchy, which is very different from an "alleged" crime. We don't excute people for "alleged" crimes, unless you think it would be ok to arrest you for attempted speeding.

Dianereynolds's picture
Dianereynolds 40 weeks 3 days ago
#12

I hear a lot about the "gun show loophole" of which there is no such thing. Let's look at the latest cop killing in Orlando. The individual that killed her has been arrested 20 times. I think we have a "Judge loophole" that keeps kicking these bad actors out on the street again and again.

I recognize leftie/socialists believe everyone is nice and spends their days hugging unicorns and rainbows but after the 19th arrest maybe someone should lock this son of a bitch up for a good length of time.

This is for you Legend,

Possibly three Supreme Court Justices, 14 Federal Appeals judges, 90 or so other Federal judges, awaiting President Trumps appointment and for good measure, "unpack" the DC court of Appeals that Harry Reid so carefully stuffed with liberals.

My last paragraph was solely why I voted for Donald Trump.

gumball's picture
gumball 40 weeks 3 days ago
#13
Quote PhilfromOhio:

Gunball,

I always find it curious that rightys routinely dismiss incremental improvements to public law and policy by simplistically stating that....."that won't solve all of the problems." We see this with the gun problem in the US, brought to you by the gun lobby (not sportsmen), followed by health care. Now he promises more and better health for less......actually MUCH more for less. It will be f"cking AMAZING. You actually believe that BS Gunball?

Is it an improvement though is the question? I would also point out that many leftists oppose improvements such as 3 strikes laws and stop and frisk. Though I would agree with them on stop and frisk. While it may be effective the civil liberty cost is too high.

"The gun show loophole" is one of those proposals that I think is neither effective or enforceable. It would require private sales to undergo a background check. If I was out shooting with a buddy and I handed him my rifle to try that would be a violation of the law. If I sold my hunting rifle to a friend of 20 years without doing a background check on him that would be a felony.

The "gun lobby" has the power it has because of their ability to mobilize voters. In particular a significant number of blue collar traditionally Democratic voters. It is an issue that can turn elections.

PhilfromOhio's picture
PhilfromOhio 40 weeks 3 days ago
#14

Gunball,

The gun lobby has its power because it is able to threaten and intimidate politicians with corporate money that they promise to lynch them with. The other aspect is the incessant lies about "the revenooers are comin fer yur guns." Lies are powerful tools when they are spread wholesale. If you can't see the lies that your soon to be new president spouts on a daily basis, then you may be one of the deplorables, I am afraid. Do you find yourself using words like fantastic, amazing, terrific, and "believe me?" I suspect you do...monkey see, monkey do.

rs allen 40 weeks 2 days ago
#15

Fun fact: Gun shows are not private sales. Neither are internet sales or sales out of magazines.

Further, in a private sale both you and your dear buddy of 20 years would be remiss if ya'll didn't go the local police dept. and record the serial numbers of the weapon's transfer so IF it does show up on the street there is a record of HOW it got there.

The idea of LOANING for shooting target or hunting as a crime is a lie the NRA threw out as bait for all the gullable that shallowed it hook line and sinker. Hello hello gumbie.

Now for three strikes bullshit. What should those strikes be gumbie? Parking tickets? Speeding? Drug arrests? Convictions? Well? For what? Shop lifting? Selling pirated videos? Selling loosies on the the street? Pick pockets? Vagrancy?......what.

gumball's picture
gumball 40 weeks 2 days ago
#16
Quote PhilfromOhio:

Gunball,

The gun lobby has its power because it is able to threaten and intimidate politicians with corporate money that they promise to lynch them with. The other aspect is the incessant lies about "the revenooers are comin fer yur guns." Lies are powerful tools when they are spread wholesale. If you can't see the lies that your soon to be new president spouts on a daily basis, then you may be one of the deplorables, I am afraid. Do you find yourself using words like fantastic, amazing, terrific, and "believe me?" I suspect you do...monkey see, monkey do.

Do you know how many special interest and lobbying groups there are? In terms of money spent/donated the NRA is not that big. Their power comes from their ability to sway voters. Do you not have any blue collar traditionally Democratic friends that are against further restrictions on guns?

On one hand you are saying that we need to restrict guns and then you argue that people are stupid if they think people are trying to restrict guns.....there seems to be a disconnect here.

I did not vote for Trump. This is the first election where I actually left the presidential box unticked, neither was worthy. I was a firm never Trumper.

rs allen 40 weeks 2 days ago
#17

Then you should have voted as such gumbie. Instead you voted for.........yeah whatever.

Back to weapons; restrictions? What restrictions is my question. There are none that would stop me or probably you or anyone I know from buying almost any weapon desired. So where are all these 'restrictions' I keep hearing people bleat about?

Gumbie, you'd definitely consider me a liberal and I've been around weapons (guns) my whole life. I still have the first side arm I learned to shoot with, by todays standards that old roll block .22 wouldn't be thought any more of than a zip gun when in fact you and I both know in the wrong hands it is still deadly. Should I just sell it out there to the first person to come along and leave no record of the transaction? Should I not care where that weapon ends up?

You want a three strikes law, how about a three strikes law for people who sale fire arms that ends up on the street commiting crimes.

Dianereynolds's picture
Dianereynolds 40 weeks 2 days ago
#18
Quote rs allen:

You want a three strikes law, how about a three strikes law for people who sale fire arms that ends up on the street commiting crimes.

There is already a one strike felony law for people who sell guns illegally. We just need conservative judges to enforce them.

rs allen 40 weeks 1 day ago
#19

Come on gumbie, don't let some white nationalist play ring around the rosey games for you.

Answer my questions posed, why shouldn't any weapons transfer not come under the same federal guide lines any dealer has to now meet........such as reporting the transfer and the subsequent background check the buyer must go through?

gumball's picture
gumball 40 weeks 13 hours ago
#20
Quote rs allen:

Come on gumbie, don't let some white nationalist play ring around the rosey games for you.

Answer my questions posed, why shouldn't any weapons transfer not come under the same federal guide lines any dealer has to now meet........such as reporting the transfer and the subsequent background check the buyer must go through?

As I stated, it is neither enforceable or effective.

rs allen 40 weeks 11 hours ago
#21

And why not?

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

There's a 1 in 20 Chance of the Apocalypse. Shouldn't We Act Now?

A new study published in Science argues that we as a civilization need to move "rapidly" -- as in almost immediately -- towards a carbon emissions free future if we are to have any chance of holding off runaway global warming: