Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire 8 officers beat man to death then arrest witnesses.

That's not all we know.

We know that 8 officers should be able to detain an unarmed man without killing him.

I don't know why we hash these things over and over. It's been decided here before. All cops are jack booted thugs that thrive on killing innocent people. Any single person on the Fire could beat the azz of any cop anywhere, anytime.

It's been settled. We all now know the truth.

Just like all people from the South are incestuous child rapists. All people from Ca are liberal socialists with hidden agendas to move to other states and fix them. All people from the Mid West stupid alcoholics that breed their daughters like cattle.

No further discussion necessary.

I always participate hoping that a tin foil hat member may have stroke...


And it's more fun than watching tv.

Dink

Did all eight cops beat on the dead guy, or were there eight cops there while the woman was on the phone to Dispatch? Did only one guy beat on him? Did all eight take turns?

If you've ever tried to hit someone while another person is fighting with them, you understand how difficult it really is to get a good strike in.

Why was ANYBODY beating on the guy?

How were witnesses harassed? Nasty phone calls? Threats of violence?

Were the cell phones seized pursuant to a warrant or just turned over when asked for? Were they turned over through coercion or willingly?

Those are the facts I'd like to have.

Ed

And my attorney will be present. I'm getting to where I trust very few, in my old age! Cops are way farther down the list, than they were when I was a kid - 50 years ago (unfortunately).

Mark

Thats right why bother with any further discussion...

Maybe my sarcasm hid the true meaning of the post. It's not that I condone illegal and inhumane behavior by anyone. I don't. Quite the opposite in fact. I'd be first in line to string them up in the town square. Literally. What I meant was to counter the posts that, once again, bash all cops in general. It's the same dang thing as saying all gun owners are violent people that intend to use their weapons for evil.

So lighten up, Francis.....

Oh, and IF they did beat this man to death, then yeah, we don't need to bother with any further discussion.... we need rope.

I understood your sarcasm perfectly and agreed. It seems to some here at the fire that all cops are guilty until proven innocent. I thought the constitution was suppose to work the same for everyone cops included.

Nobody calls me Francis everyone calls me Psyco...

Agreed again.

Cool. Maybe I mistook your response then. I'll take me own advice then, and lighten up. Lol

No harm no foul.

I get upset sometimes when all a guy hears is how horrible cops are. I know the good work my officers do with respect for the rights and property of citizens.

I am disheartened by what seems like an increase in these incidents, but again this is not my department or my officers.

You are correct in that assessment...time will tell the truth.

The actual problem at the present is not that there are too many bad apples. The actual problem is the position and the institution, itself, as it has evolved to exist in the US. There should be no such position as a police officer as currently constituted in the US. As it's currently constituted, it cannot help but result in the frequent abuse of the rights of citizens.

The disparity of force and state-sponsored authority, as between the police and the citizenry, is too great for any other outcome to result in the context of human nature. In other words, it would be the unusual human being indeed who was not corrupted by taking a post as a police officer as that position is currently constituted. Now add to that the factor that the very existence of such a position is bound to attract a high percentage of the very sort who'd be most likely to abuse the power, and you've got yourself a very toxic witch's brew indeed for a free republic.

TRH, if you could offer an alternative that would actually work, I'd love to hear it. Seriously.

And it would require some detail. We can't just go back to a town Marshall and his authorities to call up a posse.

Nor can we police ourselves. Been done and proven it's just as corrupt a system if not worse.

I agree that the job can attract the the type of person prone to corruption. But so does a lack of law enforcement.

So what's the solution?

Interesting that you ask my opinion as to alternatives while declaring said alternatives unworkable. They are not unworkable, but would require a total reversal of our society in so many ways as likely not to be practical. Thus the answer is that we're likely doomed to continue on our current path towards total despotic tyranny and collapse, i.e., what's proven to be unworkable is the system as currently constituted.

The problem we're facing is the consequence of ignoring the sage warning of the Founding Fathers about standing professional, internally deployed, armies in the service of the state, which is what our various police forces have essentially evolved into, particularly since the advent of the so called "war on drugs," and picking up a new head of steam since the so called "war on terror." What started out as agencies designed primarily to enforce the lawful orders of the courts has evolved into that very entity so feared by the Founders.

The Founders wanted the "muscle" of police work to be found among the armed citizenry, i.e., select non-professional volunteers serving their own communities, only receiving compensation for their actual expenses, serving under officers selected from among their own ranks, having no special privileges or immunities not equally possessed by any other citizen, called into service when needed by an elected sheriff, and then returning to their various occupations by which they make a living in their respective communities.

Just like Blazing Saddles.

TRH,


My question wasn't a set up or anything. I truly would like to know what you think a viable alternative is. So forget whatever I said about whichever solution not working. Give me what you believe the best alternative is and how you would implement it.

I find it interesting that instead of answering the question as to a solution, you just restated what you think the problem is.

The Founders wanted the "muscle" of police work to be found among the armed citizenry, i.e., select non-professional volunteers serving their own communities, only receiving compensation for their actual expenses, serving under officers selected from among their own ranks, having no special privileges or immunities not equally possessed by any other citizen, called into service when needed by an elected sheriff, and then returning to their various occupations by which they make a living in their respective communities.

I get that. And it sounds amazingly similar to a militia or State Military Reserve.

The question is this. How do you implement that in a city as large as New York? Or Houston? Or Miami? etc, etc, etc...

I'm not inherently opposed to that type of system. And I would love to go back to pure Constitutional law. But how would it work?

More importantly, in keeping with the theme of the thread, how do you ensure it would prevent corruption??

In my opinion, it's worse. I get paid an hourly wage and benefits to perform a service. If I didn't get paid, wouldn't the temptation to seek "compensation" elsewhere be greater?

And in the case of those who care little about monetary compensation, but thrive off the perception of power the position gives, what's the difference in whether I make money at it or volunteer? Isn't the chance of me being morally corrupt the same if not worse since I have no paycheck or retirement to lose?

One more question. I know you said it's probably not possible in our society now, but how would we go about implementing this system if we did try?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the founding fathers were a tad short sighted when they failed to recognize the potential for how large and populated our country would become.