Conference quark::mennotes

Seems to me that they get set up time after time by the news media, that they
get a hell of a lot of abuse simply for doing their job.

I say that they should get an awful lot more protection than they currently do.

regards,
//alan

    I had one come to my door in reguards to a tenant dispute of me
    entering the unit, to save the unit from damage. And the cop was
    practicing law to me. I decided not to argue over it and nodded the
    head up and down, followed with, "Yes Sir, Yes Sir". And he walked off
    then I filed my eviction the following day for property damage. 
    
    What is sad is cops have the highest divorce rate in the emplyment
    sectors. And wether they are control freeks or not, still I have seen
    them handle some men with some very vile levels of force. Case in point
    was a man name Jan, who was handing over his entire payday check to the
    ex. And so, instead of sleeping in a car, or on a park bench, or a tent
    along the mighty Merrimack River. He found a kind hearted woman who
    took him in. The sheriff stormed the house sometime in the wee house
    based upon a false charge of deliquent child support payments, and
    false to spouse abouse, they stormed the house, dragging him out by his
    heals in the snow to an awaiting car. The ex was wearing her teflon
    dress that day cause nothing stuck to her insofar as frivoluse and
    false charges in a counter suit cause she was mum, and we do not send
    mums to jail for this sort of stuff.
    
    

    
    I think that cops have a real problem, more for them than for anyone
    else, in that they are continually dealing with the lowest denominator
    of society.  This (as can customer support ;^) ) can lead to  a 
    jaded view of society and life in general.  For that I tend to have
    a bit of empathy for them.  However, cops even more so, should be
    held to the law, since they of all people should know better.  And
    a lot of cops I've dealt with could certainly take lessons in
    public relations.  They tend to solve conflict or descent by "throwing
    their weight around" when other more reasonable methods are certainly
    available.  It is just one more chip in the erosion of the publics 
    confidence in the rule of law and willingness to submit to such.

    fred();

    Boy, this is a tough one.  On the one hand idefinitely think cops get
    the short end of the stick.  Particularly when the rules of evidence
    keep getting more and more restircitve, judges keep making it harder
    and harder to actually prosecute the bad guys and the average citizen
    wants to see more crooks in jail.
    
    On the other hand, there are too many cops that should not be allowed
    to have any position of authoity since they don't work and play well
    with others.
    
    I'm going to have to think about this one for awhile.
    

    .4
    
    Gee, I wish I had a clue what that response was intended to say. 
    seemed to be a general bash directed at no one in particvular, just
    everyone.
    

  >>  On the one hand idefinitely think cops get
  >>  the short end of the stick.  Particularly when the rules of
  >>  evidence keep getting more and more restircitve, judges keep making it
  >>  harder and harder to actually prosecute the bad guys and the average
  >>  citizen wants to see more crooks in jail.
    
    	I think you spend to much time listening to the media garbage
        and believe what you are spoon fed.
    
    Mike
    
    

    We live in a very violent society where many of us would be at the
    mercy of more aggressive and violent people (at least SOME of the
    time) if not for the legal system and the police.

    The cops have to walk a fine line in our society (so that they are
    'tough enough' to get the bad guys, but 'not so tough' that they
    threaten or offend law-abiding citizens who don't want cops to be
    'TOO tough'.)

    With all the swaggering and posturing that goes on in our society,
    cops have to keep their guard up all the time.  They can be killed
    if they pull someone over for a broken tail light.  It's enough to
    make any cop seem a bit anti-social and wary at times.

    Yes, there is another note that covers firearms, but there you
    are preaching to the choir.

    One other place where Cops think that they should get special
    consideration is the right to firearms.  If someone is intent on
    doing me some real harm, by the time to police arrive, all they
    can do is scrape up what is left and file a report.  There are 
    numerous tapes of people being murdered while on the phone for 911.

    However, most police agencies will freak when it comes to citizens
    having the right to carry concealed weapons because _they_ can't
    till if a citizen is carrying or not--Never mind if the citizen
    gets spattered into a bloody pulp by some thug with a tire iron
    or a mac-10 (or some berserk cop).  Lets disarm the citizens so
    that the cops can feel safe.  Never mind that the criminals that
    the cops need to worry about are probably carrying anyway.

    There has _never_ been a case in recent history of a cop being killed
    by a citizen with a legal concealed-carry permit.

    fred();

    Nearly all the cases where people go 'postal' (and try to kill everyone
    in a restaurant or in the place where they used to work) involve guns
    that were obtained legally by people with no prior criminal record. 

    So we have some 'ticking bombs' out there in society who can (and do)
    finally let loose, leaving a lot of carnage in their wake.

    Although I was once a member of the NRA (because I most definitely
    believe that it's important to have the option of protecting oneself),
    I'm not thrilled at the prospect of living in a society where almost
    everyone is armed.

    Granted, 'ticking bombs' can happen anywhere.  Even countries that
    have strict gun laws seem to manage to allow some 'ticking bombs'
    to own weapons legally.

    Personally, I think it would help if we toned the rhetoric down 
    several notches when it comes to the subject of firearms.  It's 
    a bit disconcerting to see angry people (with tempers that seem
    way, way, WAY out of control) arguing that they'd better be allowed
    to have their guns, OR ELSE.

    Rhetoric seems like one of those things that only allows the volume
    to be turned UP, though.  :|

    I don't want to turn this into a debate on gun control, but the 
    "retoric" on _both_ sides seems pretty extreme.  Not directed to
    anyone in particular, but the 2nd Ammendment _is_ part of the 
    Constitution.  I find it rather hypocritical that most of those
    I've run into who advocate gun control will freak if anyone tries
    to take away Ammmendment 1, freedom of speech.  I also find it
    frightening that all too often their "solution" to problems such as
    crime is given to be "lets take away the rights of the law-abiding
    citizens".
    
    fred();

    I believe there are other places to discuss the 2nd Amendment and RKBA. 
    This string could rathole quickly.

    
    >   Personally, I think it would help if we toned the rhetoric down
    >    several notches when it comes to the subject of firearms.  It's
    >    a bit disconcerting to see angry people (with tempers that seem
    >    way, way, WAY out of control) arguing that they'd better be allowed
    >    to have their guns, OR ELSE.
    >
    >    Rhetoric seems like one of those things that only allows the volume
    >    to be turned UP, though.  :|

    Maybe if we took away freedom of speech we wouldn't have all that
    rhetoric around stirring things up so much ;^) :^).  After all, it
    would be for the good and safety of the public ;^).

    fred();

I think we live in a fairly violent society, but frankly I think it's far
less violent overall than in the past.  I strongly suspect things were far
more violent a hundred years ago - and I'm certaint they were two hundred
years ago.  What I do see, however, is a far more paranoid society,
especially in the U.S.  Cops and citizens all seem to be scared to death of
each other.

I spent a week in Dublin, Ireland last September.  It was wonderful to see
a healthy disrespect for the law there.  Ya just gotta love it. ;-)

Of course, nobody carries a gun around there - even the police, so the
consequences of being a little uppity are far less dire.

;-)

tim

    People can always *volunteer* to tone their rhetoric down.
    
    Rhetoric only careens out of control so much of the time because
    humans make this happen.
    

|    Rhetoric only careens out of control so much of the time because
|    humans make this happen.
 
...and some of us are a bit more human than others, eh Sue? ;-)

    >I think we live in a fairly violent society, but frankly I think it's far
>less violent overall than in the past.  I strongly suspect things were far
>more violent a hundred years ago - and I'm certainty they were two hundred
>years ago.  

    Although we had more people dying of a _lot_ of stuff a hundred or
    200 years ago, I don't think firearms was one of them.  Darn I wish
    I could find the reference I saw, but there was a reference that
    more people per capita are murdered in Washington, D.C. (where they
    have gun control, btw) than in Dodge City, Ks in the 1800's or
    the mining camps of California during their heyday.  Governments, now,
    were probably slaughtering off more people than even today.

    Is amazing how much longer people live today with all that hazardous
    stuff we have around, though ;^).

    fred();

         As a matter of fact, more people are killed in Washington D.C.
    each year than were ever killed in Dodge City and Tombstone combined
    during their "wild west" days. Even at that time, the murder rates in
    large American cities far exceeded the rates for even the roughest
    western towns. But to say that things were more violent in the past is
    just plain ignorant. 

>         As a matter of fact, more people are killed in Washington D.C.
>    each year than were ever killed in Dodge City and Tombstone combined
>    during their "wild west" days. 

Is this a per capita statistic? Because if not, it's meaningless.

    re .19
    Don't know if it's the same one I saw, but the one I saw was per
    capita.  Given that the "capita" of Washington D.C. is much higher
    than both adds up to a lot of carnage.  Especially for a city that 
    has gun control.
    
    fred();

| But to say that things were more violent in the past is
|    just plain ignorant. 

Cute.  I'd also venture to say that things were more polite in
the past too.

    .7
    
    I'm not sure what prompted that diatribe, but I would say that you are
    absolutely clueless.  Particularly when you direct bilge like this at
    me.
    
    I wrote that based on numerous sources of information, not one of which
    was "media garbage".   If you have an agenda to persue, by all means do
    so, just don't include me in your attempt.
    
    BTW, I feel quite comfortable using the experience of my brother who
    was a cop for over 10 years.
    
    If you want more informatio - ask.  don't hurl around worthless, crap
    statements.
    

    .22 is correct and .7 is wrong.
    
    The Law Enforcement Alliance of America has been documenting, for
    years, the sorry state of revolving-door justice in this country,
    a condition fueled by our illustrious President's appointments of
    "friend-of-the-criminal" judges.
    
    Cf. also the editorial page of "The Wall Street Journal," 2/25/96,
    wherein is discussed the contradiction between our illustrious
    President's claim to tough-on-crime status and his recent judicial
    appointments.

	I just read thru this string, and there are more replies discussing
	Constitutional Rights and the NRA, etc., than the base note.

	I agree with one of the early responses...Cops get the short end.
	Yes, there are always some that will test the limits and abuse
	the system.  And since journalism is usually driven more by 
	sensationalism than fact, we will always hear about those few. And
	yes, I agree that they should know better since their job is to 
	enforce the law.  I assume in order to enforce, you must know and 
	understand the law.

	My views are definately more on the side of the cops than many. My 
	grandfather was a cop, killed in the line of duty in 1946.  My 
	father-in-law is a cop. I also remember when I was growing up, all 
	the cops knew our parents. If we were doing something stupid or 
	marginally wrong, we'd get a slap-up-side the head.  And that was the
	least of your worries because your father knew about it before you 
	got home and then you had to answer to him.  A cop tries that today
	and lands in court being sued.