Why do you dislike law enforcement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There appears to be a contingent of posters here that dislike federal and local law enforcement. I’m wondering if people’s reasoning is similar or if there are several distinct opinions. I’ve seen several “defund” posts and even one calling for the death penalty for ICE agents. Maybe it’s only one or two posters. I’ll be interested to see your replies.

Are you an idiot?

ICE officers are wearing masks they are criminals. They are not trained; they are racist garbage.

Police officers are not bad as a whole only the Blue Line ones are the idiots. Sure lets support the guy who stole from NY 9/11 first responders fund!!!! Let's support the guy taking away your overtime!

Most people feel the opposite of you.
They like BP and ICE, but not the blue line city, state, and other federal police.
Military is still middle of the road in popularity, on par or slightly lower than the border police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TLDR, I don’t dislike law enforcement. They serve an incredibly important and difficult role and are constantly seeing and dealing with the worst of humanity. With that said, I dislike qualified immunity, the lack accountability and closing of ranks when a bad apple does something obviously wrong and the types who are pushing paper instead of building relationships with the community and walking a beat. I dislike unions that do this for the same reason. Law enforcement should be serving their community, not exploiting it for their benefit and the bad apples need to be held accountable.

Very much the bolded parts. ^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR, I don’t dislike law enforcement. They serve an incredibly important and difficult role and are constantly seeing and dealing with the worst of humanity. With that said, I dislike qualified immunity, the lack accountability and closing of ranks when a bad apple does something obviously wrong and the types who are pushing paper instead of building relationships with the community and walking a beat. I dislike unions that do this for the same reason. Law enforcement should be serving their community, not exploiting it for their benefit and the bad apples need to be held accountable.

Two honest questions:

1. Would you rescind qualified immunity for everyone, or just law enforcement?

2. How does law enforcement exploit the community for their benefit?

PP, I would rescind qualified immunity for everyone. I don’t think law enforcement should be treated any differently and especially shouldn’t be given a blanket presumption of immunity in the face of obvious wrongdoing. There should also be independent investigations and accountability rather than leaving it to the dept to police misconduct.

Police misconduct, including false arrests, illegal seizure/forfeiture of assets without due process, retaliation, and excessive use of force, not to mention too many officers working desk jobs to collect a cushy paycheck and not out actually policing and building bonds in the neighborhoods. If you want an example of one community that did reforms, look at Camden, NJ. They basically laid off the existing force and built it back up and violent crime is at multi decade lows now. It’s not perfect but looking to a model that works with the community rather than being seen as a warrior in opposition is at least a starting point. I lean in on protecting AND serving. After all, they’re supposed to be public servants too.

The only benefit to law enforcement you identified is a random police officer working a desk for an hourly wage. That’s why I asked. Thanks for answering though.

[Anonymous]

I’d love to see qualified immunity for the mayors and governors taken away, for all the covered politicians really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR, I don’t dislike law enforcement. They serve an incredibly important and difficult role and are constantly seeing and dealing with the worst of humanity. With that said, I dislike qualified immunity, the lack accountability and closing of ranks when a bad apple does something obviously wrong and the types who are pushing paper instead of building relationships with the community and walking a beat. I dislike unions that do this for the same reason. Law enforcement should be serving their community, not exploiting it for their benefit and the bad apples need to be held accountable.

Two honest questions:

1. Would you rescind qualified immunity for everyone, or just law enforcement?

2. How does law enforcement exploit the community for their benefit?

PP, I would rescind qualified immunity for everyone. I don’t think law enforcement should be treated any differently and especially shouldn’t be given a blanket presumption of immunity in the face of obvious wrongdoing. There should also be independent investigations and accountability rather than leaving it to the dept to police misconduct.

Police misconduct, including false arrests, illegal seizure/forfeiture of assets without due process, retaliation, and excessive use of force, not to mention too many officers working desk jobs to collect a cushy paycheck and not out actually policing and building bonds in the neighborhoods. If you want an example of one community that did reforms, look at Camden, NJ. They basically laid off the existing force and built it back up and violent crime is at multi decade lows now. It’s not perfect but looking to a model that works with the community rather than being seen as a warrior in opposition is at least a starting point. I lean in on protecting AND serving. After all, they’re supposed to be public servants too.

The only benefit to law enforcement you identified is a random police officer working a desk for an hourly wage. That’s why I asked. Thanks for answering though.

Illegal seizure and forfeiture of assets without due process is a big problem.

[Anonymous]

I'm against the militarization of law enforcement. There is no reason for police to have military grade vehicles, drones, and weaponry. Police are there to enforce the laws, not subdue the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR, I don’t dislike law enforcement. They serve an incredibly important and difficult role and are constantly seeing and dealing with the worst of humanity. With that said, I dislike qualified immunity, the lack accountability and closing of ranks when a bad apple does something obviously wrong and the types who are pushing paper instead of building relationships with the community and walking a beat. I dislike unions that do this for the same reason. Law enforcement should be serving their community, not exploiting it for their benefit and the bad apples need to be held accountable.

Two honest questions:

1. Would you rescind qualified immunity for everyone, or just law enforcement?

2. How does law enforcement exploit the community for their benefit?

PP, I would rescind qualified immunity for everyone. I don’t think law enforcement should be treated any differently and especially shouldn’t be given a blanket presumption of immunity in the face of obvious wrongdoing. There should also be independent investigations and accountability rather than leaving it to the dept to police misconduct.

Police misconduct, including false arrests, illegal seizure/forfeiture of assets without due process, retaliation, and excessive use of force, not to mention too many officers working desk jobs to collect a cushy paycheck and not out actually policing and building bonds in the neighborhoods. If you want an example of one community that did reforms, look at Camden, NJ. They basically laid off the existing force and built it back up and violent crime is at multi decade lows now. It’s not perfect but looking to a model that works with the community rather than being seen as a warrior in opposition is at least a starting point. I lean in on protecting AND serving. After all, they’re supposed to be public servants too.

The only benefit to law enforcement you identified is a random police officer working a desk for an hourly wage. That’s why I asked. Thanks for answering though.

Illegal seizure and forfeiture of assets without due process is a big problem.

Expand on this please. Are you suggesting this benefits police officers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm against the militarization of law enforcement. There is no reason for police to have military grade vehicles, drones, and weaponry. Police are there to enforce the laws, not subdue the population.

How does a “military grade” vehicle threaten your safety? They are bullet proof and utilized for high risk situations.

My 12 year old nephew has a drone. Millions of people have drones. It’s not like police drones carry weapons.

Why wouldn’t police have guns to protect themselves?

[Anonymous]

It always amazes me when people want to take the things that keep police safe away from them because they look scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There appears to be a contingent of posters here that dislike federal and local law enforcement. I’m wondering if people’s reasoning is similar or if there are several distinct opinions. I’ve seen several “defund” posts and even one calling for the death penalty for ICE agents. Maybe it’s only one or two posters. I’ll be interested to see your replies.

Are you an idiot?

ICE officers are wearing masks they are criminals. They are not trained; they are racist garbage.

Police officers are not bad as a whole only the Blue Line ones are the idiots. Sure lets support the guy who stole from NY 9/11 first responders fund!!!! Let's support the guy taking away your overtime!

NP.

It is you who is the idiot, PP.

ICE is doing great work; they are keeping us safe and helping secure the border. The ONLY reason they need masks is prevent idiot-weirdos like you from doxxing them and threatening their families.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR, I don’t dislike law enforcement. They serve an incredibly important and difficult role and are constantly seeing and dealing with the worst of humanity. With that said, I dislike qualified immunity, the lack accountability and closing of ranks when a bad apple does something obviously wrong and the types who are pushing paper instead of building relationships with the community and walking a beat. I dislike unions that do this for the same reason. Law enforcement should be serving their community, not exploiting it for their benefit and the bad apples need to be held accountable.

Two honest questions:

1. Would you rescind qualified immunity for everyone, or just law enforcement?

2. How does law enforcement exploit the community for their benefit?

PP, I would rescind qualified immunity for everyone. I don’t think law enforcement should be treated any differently and especially shouldn’t be given a blanket presumption of immunity in the face of obvious wrongdoing. There should also be independent investigations and accountability rather than leaving it to the dept to police misconduct.

Police misconduct, including false arrests, illegal seizure/forfeiture of assets without due process, retaliation, and excessive use of force, not to mention too many officers working desk jobs to collect a cushy paycheck and not out actually policing and building bonds in the neighborhoods. If you want an example of one community that did reforms, look at Camden, NJ. They basically laid off the existing force and built it back up and violent crime is at multi decade lows now. It’s not perfect but looking to a model that works with the community rather than being seen as a warrior in opposition is at least a starting point. I lean in on protecting AND serving. After all, they’re supposed to be public servants too.

The only benefit to law enforcement you identified is a random police officer working a desk for an hourly wage. That’s why I asked. Thanks for answering though.

Illegal seizure and forfeiture of assets without due process is a big problem.

YES. This is another big problem with police, besides the lack of accountability with their qualified immunity.

Seizure of properties like they do is basically just piracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It always amazes me when people want to take the things that keep police safe away from them because they look scary.

DP, but I'd have no problem with police having and carrying firearms. Same for 100% of the population, everyone should be able to carry whatever they want whereever they want.

The problem with many police is they don't like the public having firearms. Everytime they contact with the public in a stop or something, they get all scared and wussy and trigger happy nervous.

They "disarm" you for "their safety". What about disarming the cops for "our safety"?? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Cops should be fired and jailed on the spot for doing power trip moves like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seizure of properties like they do is basically just piracy.

What property is being seized and why? This is the second time this wacky comment has come up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seizure of properties like they do is basically just piracy.

What property is being seized and why? This is the second time this wacky comment has come up.

NP. Not sure if it's "piracy," but forfeiture laws were significantly abused in the past by LE. If you want to seize property, the burden of proof should be on the person seizing it, not the owner of the property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with many police is they don't like the public having firearms. Everytime they contact with the public in a stop or something, they get all scared and wussy and trigger happy nervous.

They "disarm" you for "their safety". What about disarming the cops for "our safety"?? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Cops should be fired and jailed on the spot for doing power trip moves like that.

Police don’t have a problem with legal firearms. They need to verify that, though. Officers are empowered to remove you from your vehicle for their safety. If you have a gun let them know and they’ll remove it, clear it, and make it safe. If you reach for it things will go differently. Most police are pro-gun. Your disarming the cops statement is irrational. I’m confused by the fired and jailed comment as well.