What Happens When You Film Cops In Sweden

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[downzero]

That is an idiotic statement. It not only demonstrates a profound ignorance of LE, but I also suspect that you have a deep seated disrespect of what the profession represents.

Police work is not a profession. Dictionary definitions generally seem to back my basic idea of that which is a profession, but I'll just state my general working definition for this assertion.

A profession:

1. Requires a degree or coursework beyond college. This is true for most of what is consider "professions." CPAs need 150 hours to sit for the exam. Both the MD and the JD are professional doctorates. Counseling, social work, etc. all require a minimum of a master's degree to practice.

Police work clearly fails in this category. Police officers from my parents' generation often don't even have a college education. Some have never sat in a single college course. Few police departments, even today, require four year degrees. Some still hire veterans without regard to whether they have any college at all. This stands in stark contrast to the "professions" which require post-graduate work just to enter the occupation.

2. Require licensure. We are all familiar with the licenses necessary to serve as a Medical Doctor, Lawyer, Pharmacist, Accountant, Professional Engineer, etc.

No such license could ever be required of police because there isn't even a particular educational path required to become a police officer (see number 1). Without specialized knowledge, there is no way to administer any type of exam (written or practical) to decide who is deserving of a license and who is not.

3. Are self-regulating with respect to entry. Whether you become a social worker, lawyer, doctor, or accountant is not merely determined by your educational achievement. Generally speaking, if there's some reason to believe that members of your profession don't want you to become a (insert profession name here), you will be barred from becoming one.

There are a number of public policy reasons why this is not tolerated for police work.

4. Have specific and agreed upon ethical rules. In addition to being barred entry, professions can and do eliminate people who lack the necessary attributes to continue to perform the task for which the profession exists.

Perhaps this is what would be most useful about police work, but of course it will never happen. In fact, it's the most shocking to me that police still stick up for bad cops. In a profession, they'd throw that person under the bus in an instant, because it degrades the public perception of their work.

Police officers are blue collar, non-professional workers requiring minimal education and specialized training. They are not "professionals" by my understanding of the word.

This is not to say that police officers do not play an important role in our society. Farmers, much like police officers, require little formal education and very specialized training. Farmers feed the world, and without them, most of us would be dead, literally. Point being, saying that police are not professionals doesn't diminish their value to society.

It does, however, explain some of the problems with police work that professions would never tolerate, mostly because misconduct among accountants, doctors, or lawyers would greatly diminish society's perception of them and thus their income and status. Government, including police, doesn't have to worry about this because the overwhelming majority of our society couldn't afford to hire a private police force and so government has no reason to improve or perform efficiently. Because there's really no reasonable substitute for policing, people will continue to pay monopoly prices to government for it, because nobody considers seriously that a private police force would perform better due to competition.

That said, to suggest that I have a general disrespect for law enforcement is false. As I stated before, there's no reason to suggest that the man who is speeding on his motorcycle and riding recklessly shouldn't be arrested, thrown in jail, and his motorcycle impounded. Where I have a problem and draw the line is when guns are drawn and the man is assaulted in order to take him into custody and treated as a lethal treat for driving recklessly and speeding.

I find it somewhat peculiar that people think we cannot have effective law enforcement without constant threats of force and this tremendous deference to police authority that undermines the presumption of liberty. Such a thought is preposterous.

Police are on the beat to protect our freedom through crime deterrence and enforcement. If somehow we are less free with more cops on the street, we have failed as a society at the fundamental purpose of policing--protecting liberty. If the net result is less liberty for everyone (aka, police drawing guns on people who are no threat to them, people being busted for victimless crimes, etc.), we need to look seriously at why those cops are on the street at all, especially in light of the fact that we're paying for them.

I have never said we shouldn't have effective law enforcement. That said, I do not agree with "pro-active" police work and the other shady practices of modern law enforcement. This does not mean that I want to live in a lawless society of anarchy and violence. It does, however, refer to the fact that I desire to live in a society where questions of liberty vs. government authority nearly always require deference to liberty, because deference to government inevitably leads to a society like we have today, where courts and even the legislature defer to officer safety instead of our freedom. This is nonsense. Police officers are our servants. We are their master. And thank God for that!

 

[downzero]

Just because you employ one, doesn't mean you need to TRUST them.

That sure makes a lot of sense. Just because you employ a professional who is tasked with defending your liberty doesn't mean you trust them. Of course not. I'm sure you don't value your liberty that much, do you?

Please explain how any of this has any relevance whatsoever to anything we're discussing?

Because unlike police officers, professional organizations don't stick up for bad members. Bad professionals lose their ability to continue to practice and have to find another line of work.

Did you forget the purple here? Police work is not a real profession? This statement almost completely invalidates anything you could possibly hope to convey in this paragraph.

Police work is not a profession at all by any commonly accepted definitions of the word. See my previous post on this subject for some of the necessary elements of what a "profession" entails, all of which are absent from police work. There are probably many more, but these are the ones that come off the top of my head as immediately missing from policing.

Police officers are no more of a "profession" than delivering the mail or driving a semi truck. Both of those jobs require specialized training to perform the tasks at hand. Policing is in no way remarkably different from the specialized tasks required of other "technician" type jobs. As I stated in my other post, this doesn't mean they aren't important.

Well, since my wife was an accountant before our son was born who shared all of her departmental issues and I have several lawyer acquaintances who constantly bemoan their colleagues I can honestly say that both professions come by their reputations rightfully such that 95% of the accountants and lawyers cause a bad rap for the 5% that are actually dutiful whereas 5% of the police that are "Bad Cops" generate the bad rap that 95% of the police are forced to endure.

I'm glad anecdotal evidence is sufficient in your world. If 95% of lawyers and accountants were bad at their jobs, we wouldn't need any cops. The world would stop and we'd have utter anarchy because nobody would have anywhere to work without lawyers and accountants.

This part I agree with..... however not for the reasons you believe it to be true. I've seen first hand how many people will try to push police to anger just because police are held to a higher standard than average citizens usually.

That's interesting, because I just saw two police officers on TV earlier holding an unarmed man at gunpoint on the national news.

See, I think differently. I think people have been brainwashed by the media that thrives on and sensationalizes any sort of dramatic activity to believe that police should somehow be held to a HIGHER standard than the average citizen. Personally I think every man should be held accountable for his words and actions.

See my previous quote. If I held someone at gunpoint who hadn't threatened my life, I'd be in jail and charged with a felony. Police not only get away with this, they get away with it in full view of our society, even when their conduct is on the news. Holding someone at gunpoint when they present no lethal threat to you is felonious to the average joe, but part of a day's work for cops. Higher standard? I don't think so.

If you think every man should be held accountable for his words and actions, perhaps you will write letters to the police department that I saw on TV today, demanding that the two officers who held an unarmed man at gunpoint go to jail for felony assault.

However, due to today's pussification of society, this is merely grounds for a misdemeanor waste of courts time and money and would generally wind up with the Husband being prosecuted more so than the the offending culprit.

Ahh, so you'd rather live in a vigilante society. I understand.

What about the two police that were gunned down by the teenage son of a man being pulled over for his erratic driving? Why not talk about that?

Were they denied the ability to protect themselves? I'm not sure exactly why this is even relevant. Sure, cops die on the job. So do lifeguards,
construction workers, fisherman, truck drivers, and factory workers. The fact that some cops die on the job is not sufficient to suggest that we, as a society, owe constant and complete deference to their actions. They should not be held to a different standard.

So do you think that this officer who never pointed his firearm should be fired?

Absolutely not. The officer who gave chase and apprehended the speeding and reckless motorist did exactly what we expect him to do.

The officer who pointed a gun at someone for a traffic violation shouldn't just be fired, he should go to jail. It's just too bad we're brainwashed into believing that is acceptable conduct. If I pointed a gun at someone who wasn't threatening me in any way, I'd be in jail and I'd never own a gun again. There's no reason for cops to be held to a different standard.

Don't be confused, I don't think he acted correctly but it's not like he held the motorcyclist at gunpoint while he waited for backup. I think this would be a short suspension without pay and a mandatory training completion at MOST. Personally I think it's worthy of a verbal correction from his supervisor.

Holding someone at gunpoint when there's no possible scenario in which you'd be justified in pulling the trigger isn't just assault, it's stupid, too. If that cop was forced to go hands-on with that guy, he would have been in for a world of surprise. That gun in his hand would have been a liability. In fact, he might have ended up dead if that happened--it's happened before.

The problem here is the difference between your definition of "excessive" and my definition of "excessive".

No, the problem is applying a different standard to police and everyone else. If I point a gun at someone who is not a lethal threat to my life, I'm going to jail for felony assault. Cops do this every day and not only get away with it; they're trained to do it.

I believe our primary differences are the fact that you appear to presume that no-one is out to harm anyone else while I believe that many people in our society today pose a threat to me or my loved ones in many different ways.

You will find no evidence of this assertion. I don't think that no-one is out to harm anyone else at all. I carry a gun every day because I recognize that there are dangerous people in the world. I just don't think that the solution is nearly endless deference to government authority. That's not a solution.

The idiot woman today who was texting and driving across 3 lanes on 465 this morning on the commute into work.

The figity weasel I saw at the Greenwood Mall this weekend who was pulling a "Cane Sword" out by 6" from the sheath and replacing it over and over as he walked down the middle of the mall.

The azzhat today in Five Guys Burgers parking lot on the northside who thought that just because he was in a BMW that it was fine for him to drive on the wrong side of the road and nearly smash headlong into me after running the stop sign.

While I share your sentiments on these people being idiots, I fail to see how we need any deference to officer safety, elimination of any 4th amendment rights, or even anything more than a cop with common sense to solve these problems. Do you think that each of these incidents was worthy of a felony stop or what?

In my opinion, all of those idiots deserve a good hard punch in the nose followed by an explanation as to why they got said punch in the nose. If the penalty for being a dumbazz in public was getting a bloody nose and maybe a black eye or two it is my opinion that our society would be much more polite and diligent in monitoring their own behaviors.

Ahh, now the truth comes out. What you really want is to impose your value of politeness on everyone. I'd rather live in a society that embraced the fact that people are individuals and might choose to be *******s.

 

[j706]

I knew when they shut the doors at Central State that we would have the likes of the above poster roaming around with us. I am so glad INGO has an ignore option. Sheezzz

 

[03mustgt]

Police work is not a profession. Dictionary definitions generally seem to back my basic idea of that which is a profession, but I'll just state my general working definition for this assertion.

A profession: FIXED

1. Requires a degree or coursework beyond college. This is true for most of what is consider "professions." CPAs need 150 hours to sit for the exam. Both the MD and the JD are professional doctorates. Counseling, social work, etc. all require a minimum of a master's degree to practice.

Every Full Time police officer in this state went through the police academy(unless they are grandfathered in) which is 15 weeks. Not to mention most dept's have FTO programs that last for 9 to 12 weeks. Most now have college.

2. Require licensure. We are all familiar with the licenses necessary to serve as a Medical Doctor, Lawyer, Pharmacist, Accountant, Professional Engineer, etc.

Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board has the power to pull certificates of officers, there are mandatory CE training hours for LEO's just like doctors etc.

3. Are self-regulating with respect to entry. Whether you become a social worker, lawyer, doctor, or accountant is not merely determined by your educational achievement. Generally speaking, if there's some reason to believe that members of your profession don't want you to become a (insert profession name here), you will be barred from becoming one.

Even after graduating the academy you can be denied employment. Police officers are generally on 1 year probation after their hire date, and they are considered at will employees.

4. Have specific and agreed upon ethical rules. In addition to being barred entry, professions can and do eliminate people who lack the necessary attributes to continue to perform the task for which the profession exists.

Every Dept has SOP's, we also have to follow state, local, federal statutes, and case law.

 

[XMil]

I know that most won't read this link, but it's worth the click. If people can re-evaluate the way they think about justice and the subsequent application of said justice, they may find it an interesting read:

http://mises.org/books/societycoercion.pdf

Thanks for link, that should be required reading for anyone allowed to breath air.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[jsgolfman]

Thanks for link, that should be required reading for anyone allowed to breath air.

Agreed.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[jsgolfman]

Which aspects in particular?

 

[downzero]

Every Full Time police officer in this state went through the police academy(unless they are grandfathered in) which is 15 weeks. Not to mention most dept's have FTO programs that last for 9 to 12 weeks. Most now have college.

15 weeks? Really?

Medical school is 4 years beyond college. A college degree is not mandatory to attend medical school, but it's the norm. That means 8 years.

Law school is 3 years beyond college, and the ABA requires a college degree to attend law school. That's 7 years.

It takes at least 5 years for most to earn 150 hours. Other professions require a master's degree, which is, bare minimum, two semesters beyond college (sometimes 3 or four).

15 weeks doesn't even compare. A college degree alone requires eight 15-week semesters, and even that is insufficient for entry into any profession. Surely you must be joking.

Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board has the power to pull certificates of officers, there are mandatory CE training hours for LEO's just like doctors etc.

How is this relevant? That you're required to attend continuing education as a condition of continued certification does not mean that you have a professional license to perform anything.

Even after graduating the academy you can be denied employment. Police officers are generally on 1 year probation after their hire date, and they are considered at will employees.

But there is no national board of police officers who can deny you from ever serving as a cop again for shady behavior.

Every Dept has SOP's, we also have to follow state, local, federal statutes, and case law.

Exactly. That is why no uniform ethical code governs their actions, and this alone is sufficient to say that policing is not a profession. The ethical rules of professional organizations don't differ when one crosses a political boundary from one town to the other. And all of us have to follow the law as a condition of being allowed to walk freely in society, so that's hardly evidence of anything.

There is one more that I didn't add before which is relevant as well: professions require autonomy. Professional engineers, Accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, etc., all may work alone. Their license allows them to hire help, but gives them exclusive responsibility for their actions.

Cops might be important, trained, and have to continue training to maintain their ability to be cops, but this is no different than any other technician jobs. Mechanics do the same thing. So do a lot of other jobs. That alone is not sufficient to claim that one is a "professional."

5 minutes on wikipedia could resolve this issue.

 

[Clay]

I went to a car show in Hagerstown, MD around the end of June this year.

Its no you can't film the police there, and they will let you know it in some not so friendly terms!!!!!!!

one guy at the hotel in the wee hours of the morning found that out the hard way.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

15 weeks? Really?

Medical school is 4 years beyond college. A college degree is not mandatory to attend medical school, but it's the norm. That means 8 years.

Law school is 3 years beyond college, and the ABA requires a college degree to attend law school. That's 7 years.

It takes at least 5 years for most to earn 150 hours. Other professions require a master's degree, which is, bare minimum, two semesters beyond college (sometimes 3 or four).

15 weeks doesn't even compare. A college degree alone requires eight 15-week semesters, and even that is insufficient for entry into any profession. Surely you must be joking.



How is this relevant? That you're required to attend continuing education as a condition of continued certification does not mean that you have a professional license to perform anything.



But there is no national board of police officers who can deny you from ever serving as a cop again for shady behavior.



Exactly. That is why no uniform ethical code governs their actions, and this alone is sufficient to say that policing is not a profession. The ethical rules of professional organizations don't differ when one crosses a political boundary from one town to the other. And all of us have to follow the law as a condition of being allowed to walk freely in society, so that's hardly evidence of anything.

There is one more that I didn't add before which is relevant as well: professions require autonomy. Professional engineers, Accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, etc., all may work alone. Their license allows them to hire help, but gives them exclusive responsibility for their actions.

Cops might be important, trained, and have to continue training to maintain their ability to be cops, but this is no different than any other technician jobs. Mechanics do the same thing. So do a lot of other jobs. That alone is not sufficient to claim that one is a "professional."

5 minutes on wikipedia could resolve this issue.

I bow to your superiority.

 

[jsgolfman]

The one that stands out in my mind the most, is the argument against conscription.

So do you feel that there won't be a retaliatory force without it? Do you disagree that there will be inefficiencies and disgruntled (for lack of a better term) people due to the involuntary nature of it?
I don't mean to be deliberately obtuse, just trying to understand.

 

[turnandshoot4]

That video was funny!






































































Nevermind me. I know internet is serious business, I'm just trying to get into the classifieds.

 

[03mustgt]

15 weeks? Really?

Medical school is 4 years beyond college. A college degree is not mandatory to attend medical school, but it's the norm. That means 8 years.

Just because you go through a college, does not mean you are a professional. There are many people I went to college with who I would never consider a professional.
I agree 15 weeks is not long enough, it should be more, however there is only so much that you can learn in a classroom environment. LEO's are continuosly learning through on the job training.

Law school is 3 years beyond college, and the ABA requires a college degree to attend law school. That's 7 years.

It takes at least 5 years for most to earn 150 hours. Other professions require a master's degree, which is, bare minimum, two semesters beyond college (sometimes 3 or four).

Lets examine this a little more. It is hard to require a college degree, especially more than a bachelors when the pay for the career is so low.

15 weeks doesn't even compare. A college degree alone requires eight 15-week semesters, and even that is insufficient for entry into any profession. Surely you must be joking.

Having a piece of paper does not make you a professional, I went to college and have a BS, and the knowledge i gained has not helped me much, if at all in law enforcement.

How is this relevant? That you're required to attend continuing education as a condition of continued certification does not mean that you have a professional license to perform anything.
But there is no national board of police officers who can deny you from ever serving as a cop again for shady behavior.

Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board can pull your certificate, meaning you can no longer be a police officer in the state of Indiana. The continued education shows that there is some oversight to the profession.

Exactly. That is why no uniform ethical code governs their actions, and this alone is sufficient to say that policing is not a profession. The ethical rules of professional organizations don't differ when one crosses a political boundary from one town to the other. And all of us have to follow the law as a condition of being allowed to walk freely in society, so that's hardly evidence of anything.

There is one more that I didn't add before which is relevant as well: professions require autonomy. Professional engineers, Accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, etc., all may work alone. Their license allows them to hire help, but gives them exclusive responsibility for their actions.

Cops might be important, trained, and have to continue training to maintain their ability to be cops, but this is no different than any other technician jobs. Mechanics do the same thing. So do a lot of other jobs. That alone is not sufficient to claim that one is a "professional."

5 minutes on wikipedia could resolve this issue.

There is no uniform code of conduct for police officers. Each Dept differs, however, we do have to follow federal, local, and state laws, along with case laws. I really am not sure why I am wasting my time debating this, just feel obligated to do so.

 

[Benny]

Yeah, I'm scratching my head on that one as well.

 

[Denny347]

I think most cops despise lawyers for some of the totally stupid and asinine things they come up with. And they even do with a straight face! I am not anti lawyer. One of my best friends is a lawyer.

One of my favorite's is going to depositions. Making a defense attorney that is defending some worthless POS earn their money is a BLAST. Some of them have real short fuses.

I have made 150 or so DUI arrests over the years (not a super amount but more than most) and have been in many DUI trials. You want to see big money attorneys...DUI pays near the top. As a result, those lawyers can be quite aggressive. Same goes for the depos. Not once did it seem personal. These guys were getting paid a crap load of money to do their job. If it were me paying the bill...they better be earning it. Some of the guys curse the lawyers but I am betting that if it were their butts in a sling, they'd be calling on those same lawyers because they produce results...as they should. Both sides go after the other at trial but once it is over, we laugh and tell stories. We shake hands carry on as professionals. I am not too big to tell a lawyer "good job" if he/she won the case fair and square. Sometimes we are quick to condemn the profession. That goes for many other professions...INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT.

 

[Denny347]

Stones to do the job, huh?

I'll take your job anytime. You'll call me a "politician" or a "defense attorney" when I tell you to follow the constitution and respect people's rights, but then again, my definition of what your job ought to be is far different than your superiors.

It must take some serious stones to show up after the crime is over, rope it off, and record some facts.

I will try to keep from knocking you over as you are running from danger and I'm running into it. Or is your first instinct when you hear gunfire is to run to it rather than cower in fear...at least that is mine.

 

[BIGE7.62]

lmao his moves are all most as good as the gopher on caddy shack/as for frank n stein and mrjarrel . You two need to play nice before you get A TIME OUT