Marylanders - Are you fearful that police will not be able to recruit quality candidates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is to radically reduce police interactions with the public by radically reducing the number of laws on the books.

Traffic laws can be enforced by mailing tickets, and ultimately, putting a lien on the vehicle.

Drug laws should be repealed.

Individual safety is best handled by robust self-defense. Bullies don't mess with people who can kill them.

You start off strong. Duante Wright was pulled over for an air freshner. An obvious pretext.

But where you get weak is when you try to tell us that safety is only for the strong. GTFO here with that.

He should not have been shot, but to clarify I believe he also had an expired tag.

I've driven with expired tags (forgot to put the new sticker on). Nobody has ever pulled me over for it.

-white lady in the suburbs

Well, lots of white people are pulled over for expired tags, or burned out tail lights. Why are you making this racial?

What? Do you not live in reality? It is racial period. Black men pulled over have a high likelihood of dying if they are pulled over. What do you not understand about those stats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't read 120 posts in this thread but I find the hole premise of the thread hilarious because it begs the question that any police force anywhere has ever hired "quality candidates." Might the recruits get even worse? Perhaps. But they were never "quality."

What's your expertise that informs that opinion?

Reality.

To suggest that no police force anywhere hires quality candidates is a reflection of your personal negativity rather than reality.

I find it deeply depressing that you are judging my law enforcement husband. You don’t know his background, his reasons for choosing this career, his qualifications, his moral compass, his awards, his success as a training officer, or... frankly... anything at all about him. You still think he can’t possibly be “quality.” Fortunately for all of us, he doesn’t see the worst in mankind and he’ll continue doing the honorable job he’s done for many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't read 120 posts in this thread but I find the hole premise of the thread hilarious because it begs the question that any police force anywhere has ever hired "quality candidates." Might the recruits get even worse? Perhaps. But they were never "quality."

What's your expertise that informs that opinion?

Reality.

To suggest that no police force anywhere hires quality candidates is a reflection of your personal negativity rather than reality.

I find it deeply depressing that you are judging my law enforcement husband. You don’t know his background, his reasons for choosing this career, his qualifications, his moral compass, his awards, his success as a training officer, or... frankly... anything at all about him. You still think he can’t possibly be “quality.” Fortunately for all of us, he doesn’t see the worst in mankind and he’ll continue doing the honorable job he’s done for many years.

PP here. I think you meant to respond to the post prior to mine. I agree with you. I know many quality policemen, appreciate what they do, and think They have an incredibly dangerous and underappreciated job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't read 120 posts in this thread but I find the hole premise of the thread hilarious because it begs the question that any police force anywhere has ever hired "quality candidates." Might the recruits get even worse? Perhaps. But they were never "quality."

What's your expertise that informs that opinion?

Reality.

To suggest that no police force anywhere hires quality candidates is a reflection of your personal negativity rather than reality.

I find it deeply depressing that you are judging my law enforcement husband. You don’t know his background, his reasons for choosing this career, his qualifications, his moral compass, his awards, his success as a training officer, or... frankly... anything at all about him. You still think he can’t possibly be “quality.” Fortunately for all of us, he doesn’t see the worst in mankind and he’ll continue doing the honorable job he’s done for many years.

PP here. I think you meant to respond to the post prior to mine. I agree with you. I know many quality policemen, appreciate what they do, and think They have an incredibly dangerous and underappreciated job.

You’re correct. I was replying to the post before yours. Thank you for your comments. My husband handles the anti-police rhetoric better than I do. I tend to get defensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is to radically reduce police interactions with the public by radically reducing the number of laws on the books.

Traffic laws can be enforced by mailing tickets, and ultimately, putting a lien on the vehicle.

Drug laws should be repealed.

Individual safety is best handled by robust self-defense. Bullies don't mess with people who can kill them.

You start off strong. Duante Wright was pulled over for an air freshner. An obvious pretext.

But where you get weak is when you try to tell us that safety is only for the strong. GTFO here with that.

He should not have been shot, but to clarify I believe he also had an expired tag.

This is simply not true. You’ve been falling for lies (or telling them). Peer-reviewed research has shown, during interactions with the police, black people have no higher chance of being killed than white people.

While black men’s total chance of being killed by police is higher, all of this is due to higher interactions. If you control for that (ie chance per interaction), the research has shown the rate of fatalities to be the same.

I've driven with expired tags (forgot to put the new sticker on). Nobody has ever pulled me over for it.

-white lady in the suburbs

Well, lots of white people are pulled over for expired tags, or burned out tail lights. Why are you making this racial?

What? Do you not live in reality? It is racial period. Black men pulled over have a high likelihood of dying if they are pulled over. What do you not understand about those stats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is to radically reduce police interactions with the public by radically reducing the number of laws on the books.

Traffic laws can be enforced by mailing tickets, and ultimately, putting a lien on the vehicle.

Drug laws should be repealed.

Individual safety is best handled by robust self-defense. Bullies don't mess with people who can kill them.

You start off strong. Duante Wright was pulled over for an air freshner. An obvious pretext.

But where you get weak is when you try to tell us that safety is only for the strong. GTFO here with that.

He should not have been shot, but to clarify I believe he also had an expired tag.

This is simply not true. You’ve been falling for lies (or telling them). Peer-reviewed research has shown, during interactions with the police, black people have no higher chance of being killed than white people.

While black men’s total chance of being killed by police is higher, all of this is due to higher interactions. If you control for that (ie chance per interaction), the research has shown the rate of fatalities to be the same.

I've driven with expired tags (forgot to put the new sticker on). Nobody has ever pulled me over for it.

-white lady in the suburbs

Well, lots of white people are pulled over for expired tags, or burned out tail lights. Why are you making this racial?

What? Do you not live in reality? It is racial period. Black men pulled over have a high likelihood of dying if they are pulled over. What do you not understand about those stats?

Please cite said statistics. Or define your definition of "high".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't read 120 posts in this thread but I find the hole premise of the thread hilarious because it begs the question that any police force anywhere has ever hired "quality candidates." Might the recruits get even worse? Perhaps. But they were never "quality."

What's your expertise that informs that opinion?

Reality.

To suggest that no police force anywhere hires quality candidates is a reflection of your personal negativity rather than reality.

I find it deeply depressing that you are judging my law enforcement husband. You don’t know his background, his reasons for choosing this career, his qualifications, his moral compass, his awards, his success as a training officer, or... frankly... anything at all about him. You still think he can’t possibly be “quality.” Fortunately for all of us, he doesn’t see the worst in mankind and he’ll continue doing the honorable job he’s done for many years.

PP here. I think you meant to respond to the post prior to mine. I agree with you. I know many quality policemen, appreciate what they do, and think They have an incredibly dangerous and underappreciated job.

You’re correct. I was replying to the post before yours. Thank you for your comments. My husband handles the anti-police rhetoric better than I do. I tend to get defensive.

PP here. I can't speak for others on this forum, but I can promise you that many (I think most) Americans recognize the challenges/dangers police officers face and very much appreciate the work that they do!! I'm an educator in a school system with a police officer in each middle and high school. The kids respect them and have very friendly interactions with them. On the occasions that a student's behavior has required intervention, I've never been aware of excessive force being used. Our middle school officer is part of our schools "family."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is to radically reduce police interactions with the public by radically reducing the number of laws on the books.

Traffic laws can be enforced by mailing tickets, and ultimately, putting a lien on the vehicle.

Drug laws should be repealed.

Individual safety is best handled by robust self-defense. Bullies don't mess with people who can kill them.

You start off strong. Duante Wright was pulled over for an air freshner. An obvious pretext.

But where you get weak is when you try to tell us that safety is only for the strong. GTFO here with that.

He should not have been shot, but to clarify I believe he also had an expired tag.

I've driven with expired tags (forgot to put the new sticker on). Nobody has ever pulled me over for it.

-white lady in the suburbs

Well, lots of white people are pulled over for expired tags, or burned out tail lights. Why are you making this racial?

What? Do you not live in reality? It is racial period. Black men pulled over have a high likelihood of dying if they are pulled over. What do you not understand about those stats?

What? I think you are the one who is not living in reality. The bolded statement is flat out false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't read 120 posts in this thread but I find the hole premise of the thread hilarious because it begs the question that any police force anywhere has ever hired "quality candidates." Might the recruits get even worse? Perhaps. But they were never "quality."

What's your expertise that informs that opinion?

Reality.

To suggest that no police force anywhere hires quality candidates is a reflection of your personal negativity rather than reality.

I find it deeply depressing that you are judging my law enforcement husband. You don’t know his background, his reasons for choosing this career, his qualifications, his moral compass, his awards, his success as a training officer, or... frankly... anything at all about him. You still think he can’t possibly be “quality.” Fortunately for all of us, he doesn’t see the worst in mankind and he’ll continue doing the honorable job he’s done for many years.

PP here. I think you meant to respond to the post prior to mine. I agree with you. I know many quality policemen, appreciate what they do, and think They have an incredibly dangerous and underappreciated job.

You’re correct. I was replying to the post before yours. Thank you for your comments. My husband handles the anti-police rhetoric better than I do. I tend to get defensive.

DP. I know it's hard to do but ignore the first poster on this message. She is definitely in the minority in terms of her opinion of law enforcement. Unfortunately, that minority has become very vocal.
The vast majority of us truly appreciate the job that police officers do and have a great deal of respect for them. It is a thankless job that requires patience and and endless supply of self-control. Most people who post here would never even qualify for the job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't read 120 posts in this thread but I find the hole premise of the thread hilarious because it begs the question that any police force anywhere has ever hired "quality candidates." Might the recruits get even worse? Perhaps. But they were never "quality."

What's your expertise that informs that opinion?

Reality.

To suggest that no police force anywhere hires quality candidates is a reflection of your personal negativity rather than reality.

I find it deeply depressing that you are judging my law enforcement husband. You don’t know his background, his reasons for choosing this career, his qualifications, his moral compass, his awards, his success as a training officer, or... frankly... anything at all about him. You still think he can’t possibly be “quality.” Fortunately for all of us, he doesn’t see the worst in mankind and he’ll continue doing the honorable job he’s done for many years.

PP here. I think you meant to respond to the post prior to mine. I agree with you. I know many quality policemen, appreciate what they do, and think They have an incredibly dangerous and underappreciated job.

You’re correct. I was replying to the post before yours. Thank you for your comments. My husband handles the anti-police rhetoric better than I do. I tend to get defensive.

DP. I know it's hard to do but ignore the first poster on this message. She is definitely in the minority in terms of her opinion of law enforcement. Unfortunately, that minority has become very vocal.
The vast majority of us truly appreciate the job that police officers do and have a great deal of respect for them. It is a thankless job that requires patience and and endless supply of self-control. Most people who post here would never even qualify for the job!

+1 For one thing, posters here won't admit it; but they're not brave enough to walk up to a car or home with a possibly armed individual(s) of unknown size and mental health and make quick decisions regarding the safety of other people and themselves.

[Anonymous]

I may be wrong but I do not think that the number or quality of police recruits in MD will change significantly.

I support police, it is a very tough job. Policing here in the US is significantly challenging since so many people have guns.

At the same time, LEBOR is clearly problematic in how it can be used to shield corrupt or unethical indidivuals from consequences of abusing their position (ex: Penhiero case). Hopefully these changes will have the intended effect of preventing misconduct by officers and making sure that officers who are convicted of fraud or misconduct can be held accountable.