Is "De-policing" really working?

[1480]

While not a full scale munity, it's starting to get ugly:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/18/....ap/index.html

[Platapus]

Sounds like Superintendent Wies needs to fire a bunch of scumbag cops then.


""If I see a crime happening, I take action," said an officer who has more than 25 years on the force and spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. "But I don't go out of my way to stop someone on a hunch or if they look suspicious."

You are fired. You don't stop people because of a hunch or because they "look suspicious". You stop people because of probable cause.

"He also started talking about getting police officers in better shape and ordered those on desk duty to hit the streets."

Oh my police officers being in shape and actually getting away from their desks? What is Law Enforcement coming to???

Sounds like this is why Wies was brought in. This department sounds like it needs fixing and some new officers.

[1480]

You are fired. You don't stop people because of a hunch or because they "look suspicious". You stop people because of probable cause.

Wrong actually. Terry v Ohio provides us scumbags the reasonable suspicion doctorine where we may stop a person if we believe they have, had or about to commit a crime. Probable cause is needed to make an arrest without a warrant.

Oh my police officers being in shape and actually getting away from their desks? What is Law Enforcement coming to???

Actually there is more to this, but it has to do with violating the contract. Our lock ups need to be manned by state law, by at least one sworn member. There are 3 desk spots that are bid positions per watch per the contract. The being in shape item, on it's face is reasonable BUT, in the context it was used, patrolman do not get a paid lunch in violation of a myriad of labor laws, both state and federally. Where in the US can you sit down, order a healthy meal, and be out of the place in exactly 30 minutes. Couple this with working 4-12pm or 12-8am and then going to court or for many, a second job and the health issues start to come into play. Our schedule is 6, 8 hour days, and two days off. You see two three day weekends every six weeks.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I notice that the article mentions the police sergeants union. As such, this doesn't surprise me a bit.

I'm sure their new chief is a jerk. He sounds like the kind of person that manages with little or no regard for properly motivating his subordinates.

That being said, I think a big part of the problem here is the union. Only in a union would this kind of drop in productivity be tolerated. I would know, I'm a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. Between my union and the United Transportaion Union, it is a wonder that any freight ever gets anywhere in this country. Whenever someone pisses us off, we stage unofficial "work slowdowns" (we aren't permitted to strike under federal law)
Really, we have no reason to do this. We are pretty well paid, and we should be, because a lot of responsibility is entrusted to us. It takes years to master train-handling, and millions of dollars of equipment and peoples lives are at stake.
But everyone always wants more. And usually they get it, because the state typically sides with the unions when arbitrations are necessary.

I'm sure that the Police Sergeants Union feels the same way, but I would not support them for two reasons;
1) They are public servants*. They have a duty to perform. If they won't do it properly just because some jacka$$ is in charge, they have no business being public servants. Some jacka$$ is always in charge, especially in affairs of state.
2) If my union ruins productivity, my company suffers. In turn, we suffer because the company pays our wages. If a police union ruins productivity, people can die, or get raped, or be assaulted or robbed, or all of those. And they waste everybody else's money while they don't do their jobs.

The management is also at fault. That kind of management only exists because there is not enough competition to eliminate organizations that practice it. In state entities, it is because of the fiat powers of the state and the difficulty in removing ineffecient agencies. In private industries, it is because of the fiat powers of the state and the difficulty in removing ineffecient agencies. It is no coincidence that the private companies that cost the economy the most(ahem, banks) are also the most heavily-regulated and state-influenced. Thus, the markets these companies control are difficult for entrepeneurs and other companies to break into.

Conclusion; the real problem is the state. The state has a tendency to discourage competition because it's judgements are so powerful.

When the state makes a wrong decision it is difficult to reverse or replace it. It requires a lot of public awareness and political involvement. When people are struggling to make ends meet, those things are generally not high on their list of priorities.

Competition is the solution. It provides incentive to produce, something that the government and unions are notoriously devoid of. The state's only role in the economy should be to preserve competition, both through staying out of business affairs as much as possible, and, by popular mandate (at least 66% majority), breaking up monopolies. Well....... it should also endeavour to promote international trade via elimination of trade barriers and a policy of state non-interference, obviously.

Back to the point. unions = bad. State + unions = bad for everyone.




*I can't support that objectively. My view is influenced by my military experience.
I am still at odds with fellow servicemen who thought that they had no reason to perform their duties because they disagreed with certain state policies concerning foreign affairs.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by 1480

Wrong actually. Terry v Ohio provides us scumbags the reasonable suspicion doctorine where we may stop a person if we believe they have, had or about to commit a crime. Probable cause is needed to make an arrest without a warrant.

You did not understand what I wrote. No one is saying that the police do not have the right to stop and detain people who are ACTING suspicious. In the Terry vs Ohio case it involved three people repeatedly acting suspicious over a period of many minutes. It was a fair stop.

My comment was directed at the officer's comment about stopping people who just "look suspicious". I doubt that "looking suspicious" passes the requirement that the office "can justify a suspicion that the individual may be armed. "
http://www.essortment.com/all/terryohiostop_rorf.htm

Terry vs Ohio does not give law enforcement carte blanche for seizing and searching everyone for everything. Terry vs Ohio was intended to be an exclusion to the findings of Mapp vs Ohio whereas Law Enforcement Officers needed the right to search for weapons only as a precaution to ensure the safety of the officer.

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases...0v%20ohio.html

The issues of Terry vs Ohio and Mapp vs Ohio are still being debated in legislative arguments.

[1480]

Platapus, I guess I did misunderstand you because you said you need probable cause to stop someone and I thought I was correcting the misunderstanding. You don't have to articulate reasonable suspicion as 'anonymous' to a reporter. I'm sure a mechanic dummies up a lot of things when he is not talking shop with a fellow mechanic.

The scope of a Terry stop, is an investigatory stop, using the reasonable man doctorine. You may ask a person for their name, address other identifiers and their explanation of where they were, where were they going, and best of all, what were they doing just before you ruined their day. If things add up, have a nice day, if not, you can delve a bit further. I go home the same way I went to work and John Q has a story to tell at the bar.

Terry has further evolved into the 'plain feel' doctorine. States can legislate all they want. It's a supreme court decision about the fourth amendmant of the constitution. As things progress, so do interpretations of a document that is 200 years old.

[Platapus]

My apologies for not being clearer in my posting. I should have taken the time and added a few more keystrokes to communicate better.

In looking back at my original response, it was worded ambiguously.