<snip> Now we get to the interesting part. Is their behaviour unreasonable because they're breaking the law by speeding, or is the law that they're breaking unreasonable?
At some point the issue is not important. "We the people" (OK, "they the
governors") passed a law. We, as citizens, are bound to obey the laws until
and unless we can change those laws. If we think the laws are unreasonable
(as many of us do), we can work to change them. But until those laws are
changed, we must obey them (or face Jaybird in his dress blues).

To me an interesting point is that Officer Jaybird works for "the people".
If we are ticked off with him, we tend to vote to reduce taxes which causes
his numbers or his salary to be reduced. So it is obviously in the interest
of officers to act in a way that makes the citizens believe that the
services that the officers are providing are necessary and are worth paying
for. In that vein, I think that the arrogance displayed by some officers
(those that prompted this thread) is counter-productive.

In addition to the example above, let me contribute this one. I was stopped
several years ago by a State Trooper in Pennsylvania. He checked my papers
and looked at my car; then told me to have a nice day. I asked him why he
stopped me, and he told me it was "routine." The next day, a Justice of the
Peace of my acquaintance told me that a car that looked like mine had been
involved in a hit and run crash. The sad thing is that once the officer
decided that I wasn't the culprit, he really could have told me why he
stopped me. I would have been pleased to know that he was doing this.
Instead I ended up with a real negative feeling about the "arrogant SOB."

I think we have the same thing here. If an officer is not on an active
call, he should drive with traffic. We should know (how is a real problem,
isn't it) that any time we see an officer (or a fire truck or an ambulance)
driving in an aggressive manner, that there's a real immediate reason for
it. And the public should be informed as well as possible (newspapers,
community newsletters, etc.) what was going on.

Paul R

jaybird wrote:
Cops work for the people, not the person. Cops only enforce the law, they don't write it and they can't change it any more than any other person can. Also, my salary will never be reduced unless it's as a punishment for something I've done, so an increase in my ticket writing does nothing for me. As far as arrogance being displayed, you're damn right that we're allowed to defend ourselves against all of this crap. The normal citizen doesn't know what goes on in a day to day shift and I don't expect them to. I would just like the courtesy that someone trusted me enough to give me a badge and a gun, they should be able to trust me to know when I can go fast and when I can't. People don't know what's going on inside that car and where that car is going. Some cops do go outside of the law when they're not supposed to; I've acknowledged that. The majority do their job the way they're supposed to.

The point is, you *may* be able to travel above the speed limit safely
(as can I) but how does it look when you do it all the time, and yet
still write speeding tickets?
In addition to the example above, let me contribute this one. I was stopped several years ago by a State Trooper in Pennsylvania. He checked my papers and looked at my car; then told me to have a nice day. I asked him why he stopped me, and he told me it was "routine." The next day, a Justice of the Peace of my acquaintance told me that a car that looked like mine had been involved in a hit and run crash. The sad thing is that once the officer decided that I wasn't the culprit, he really could have told me why he stopped me. I would have been pleased to know that he was doing this. Instead I ended up with a real negative feeling about the "arrogant SOB." That's exactly my point!!! Everyone read up on this one!!! I know that it would've given you a warm fuzzy feeling inside to know what the reason was, but as I've said before, people don't know what's going on inside that patrol car. If you trust them enough to be patroling your streets with guns and fast cars, trust them enough to know that they're doing their job.

I don't trust them with guns, and I don't trust them to be patrolling
the streets. Some of them are good people - some of them are not. IOW,
I trust the average cop about as much as the average human - not very
much. There needs to be some oversight of the police, and there doesn't
seem to be much now.

nate

<snip> I know that it would've given you a warm fuzzy feeling inside to know what the reason was, but as I've said before, people don't know what's going on inside that patrol car. If you trust them enough to be patroling your streets with guns and fast cars, trust them enough to know that they're doing their job.
<snip>


Jaybird, I think we're close, but not quite there.

No, I don't trust cops. This should not reflect on the cop. In fact, I
don't trust anybody. Actually the lack of trust is a concept that's built
into our governmental structures. We call it "Checks and Balances." This
is why, for example, we have courts. Think about it. If we trusted our
policemen, we wouldn't need courts at all. But we don't trust anyone. So we
ask the cop to come to court and to prove his allegations. We don't simply
take his word for it.

I think we can extend this to other areas. Perhaps we need something in the
fine print in the newspaper each day that says that these are yesterday's
"special" police operations:

time car officer reason

0800 123 Bird, J speeding to scene of possible kidnapping
0805 321 Jones, Q speeding to scene of reported robery

etc. etc.

Sure, most people wouldn't read it, but it would be there. And would
reassure the people that these actions are indeed necessary. It'd be
interesting when Mr. John Q. Public observes a police car speeding somewhere
and it isn't in the paper.

One more. No, Officer Bird's (sorry, I like the name <g>) can't be reduced.
But if tax receipts fall, the number of officers on the force will be
reduced. Or raises will be reduced at the next contract negotiation. It's
in the police department's interest to convince the citizens of how valuable
and worthy they are. By and large, I think they do a pretty good job of it.
But obviously there are occassional problems. I think it's in everyone's
interest to identify the trouble-makers and solve the problems.

Paul R

"Paul R" <nospam@nospam.please> wrote in message
news:k%rKa.21360$0v4.1709521@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... <snip> I know that it would've given you a warm fuzzy feeling inside to know
what the reason was, but as I've said before, people don't know what's going
on inside that patrol car. If you trust them enough to be patroling your streets with guns and fast cars, trust them enough to know that they're doing their job. <snip> Jaybird, I think we're close, but not quite there.

We are getting closer, I agree.
No, I don't trust cops. This should not reflect on the cop. In fact, I don't trust anybody. Actually the lack of trust is a concept that's built into our governmental structures. We call it "Checks and Balances." This is why, for example, we have courts. Think about it. If we trusted our policemen, we wouldn't need courts at all. But we don't trust anyone. So
we ask the cop to come to court and to prove his allegations. We don't
simply take his word for it.

It's not that we don't trust cops at all; we do trust them to do the job
they're there to do. We trust them to make educated decisions at the scene
based on the information at hand. For them not to do so is a violation of
the fourth amendment. A cop can't just seize someone for no reason; there
must be probable cause. What the courts are there for is for both sides to
present the evidence that they had for that seizure and to present it to a
judge to make a ruling on the actual guilt based on that probable cause and
the defense and to assess a punishment if necessary.
I think we can extend this to other areas. Perhaps we need something in
the fine print in the newspaper each day that says that these are yesterday's "special" police operations: time car officer reason 0800 123 Bird, J speeding to scene of possible kidnapping 0805 321 Jones, Q speeding to scene of reported robery etc. etc. Sure, most people wouldn't read it, but it would be there. And would reassure the people that these actions are indeed necessary. It'd be interesting when Mr. John Q. Public observes a police car speeding
somewhere and it isn't in the paper.

Many papers do have that, mostly the smaller towns around here. There is
something called the "cop beat" section or something similar. The small
towns can do that because there's not much going on. If anywhere larger
tried to do that, there would be 50 pages worth. It is a good idea though.
One more. No, Officer Bird's (sorry, I like the name <g>) can't be
reduced. But if tax receipts fall, the number of officers on the force will be reduced. Or raises will be reduced at the next contract negotiation.
It's in the police department's interest to convince the citizens of how
valuable and worthy they are. By and large, I think they do a pretty good job of
it. But obviously there are occassional problems. I think it's in everyone's interest to identify the trouble-makers and solve the problems.

I completely agree. While most people in this news group wouldn't agree,
the bad apples usually screw themselves enough times or bad enough that the
administration will give them the boot. They don't want the bad publicity
when that guy drags their name through the mud. As far as the taxes and
such, as the population increases, the taxes and the crime and the traffic
increase enough that the need is shown through the pure workload. Those
numbers are presented to the local government and the additions are made as
necessary.

--

jaybird

I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.

---------

jaybird wrote: "Paul R" <nospam@nospam.please> wrote in message I think we can extend this to other areas. Perhaps we need something in the fine print in the newspaper each day that says that these are yesterday's "special" police operations: time car officer reason 0800 123 Bird, J speeding to scene of possible kidnapping 0805 321 Jones, Q speeding to scene of reported robery etc. etc. Sure, most people wouldn't read it, but it would be there. And would reassure the people that these actions are indeed necessary. It'd be interesting when Mr. John Q. Public observes a police car speeding somewhere and it isn't in the paper. Many papers do have that, mostly the smaller towns around here. There is something called the "cop beat" section or something similar. The small towns can do that because there's not much going on. If anywhere larger tried to do that, there would be 50 pages worth. It is a good idea though.

Put it on a web site. It's cheap, possibly even free, and simple.

Cory

Cory Dunkle wrote: jaybird wrote:"Paul R" <nospam@nospam.please> wrote in messageI think we can extend this to other areas. Perhaps we needsomething in the fine print in the newspaper each day that says thatthese are yesterday's "special" police operations:time car officer reason0800 123 Bird, J speeding to scene of possiblekidnapping 0805 321 Jones, Q speeding to scene ofreported roberyetc. etc.Sure, most people wouldn't read it, but it would be there. And wouldreassure the people that these actions are indeed necessary. It'd beinteresting when Mr. John Q. Public observes a police car speedingsomewhere and it isn't in the paper.Many papers do have that, mostly the smaller towns around here.There is something called the "cop beat" section or somethingsimilar. The small towns can do that because there's not much goingon. If anywhere larger tried to do that, there would be 50 pagesworth. It is a good idea though. Put it on a web site. It's cheap, possibly even free, and simple. Cory


Buy a police scanner if you want to see what's going on.

> Buy a police scanner if you want to see what's going on.

a) I don't think this works with the newer FM radios, does it? (Let
alone when the spread-spectrum technology arrives).

b) I don't think it's legal to have a police scanner in a car, is it?

I *do* like the website idea. Question is going to be the cost of posting
it. But if it's merely a copy of an existing report, it'd be cheap and
easy.

Question: Would newpapers do selective abstractions for the purpose of
muck-raking?

Paul R

Paul R wrote:Buy a police scanner if you want to see what's going on. a) I don't think this works with the newer FM radios, does it? (Let alone when the spread-spectrum technology arrives).

It works in NYC. But then again NYPD technology is archaic, so your
mileage may vary.
b) I don't think it's legal to have a police scanner in a car, is it?

I *think* portable scanners are ok, through a loophole in the law that
prohibits installed scanners.