There is no way for you to write this sentence if you do not believe at least 1 of the following: 1. Police lives are more valuable than those they interact with, and/or 2. Innocent and wrongly killed people are reasonable collateral damage in the goal of making sure police officers aren’t killed.
What I keep hearing over and over and over is that just one cop is worth a hundred non-cops, but I could be wrong. Are you actually just saying that you cops are more important than us non-cops and the only reason you want to keep us alive is so we keep paying taxes to buy you more toys?
What’s the matter with you?
What have I said in this thread or anywhere on this message board, ever, that you would think that I would do anything like that?
Please either explain yourself or retract that.
(PS, what do soldiers have to do with anything in a thread about police?)
Actually, yes, it was implicated during the conversation about saving civilian lives may cost more police lives and how it would be acceptable to some on these boards.
You’re right. I meant that for someone else then screwed up the edit when I attempted to post their quote on the same post as your quote.
I retract it with apologies.
I don’t see “occupying force” as an accurate description. “Pacification force for the ownership class,” OTOH…
This is yet another example of the militarization of the police: when they use the term civilian to refer to you and me.
Civilian is a term traditionally used by the military. And only the military. But law enforcement officers think they’re “at war,” and hence think of themselves as members of the armed forces. So they refer to you and me as “civilians.” It’s all part of the “us against them” mentality.
The truth is that law enforcement officers are also civilians.
You are absolutely correct about that. I only used civilian because others did and it is a general layman term. It’s an easy, though incorrect, habit to get into.
But any non-military law enforcement is, in fact, civilian law enforcement.
This statement is accurate. And the answer for me, is yes. I am 100% ok with making the rules of using lethal force more restrictive so that fewer people die, even if that means that, in the end, more officers may end up getting killed. The goal would be to ensure that fewer innocent people, bystanders and even guilty people that don’t actually pose a threat end up dying, which would lower the net number of people that die. If you have a different goal, that is vulgar.
I just find it interesting that almost every LEO refers to me as a “civilian.”
Oh, and they love it when their department gets cool military surplus equipment like like grenade launchers and armored vehicles. Too bad us “civilians” can’t have that stuff.
You won’t hear this from elected officials or see it printed in official mission statements: The prime objective of law enforcement is to maintain order. Not just to maintain order but to maintain order so that the governmental unit they work for can continue to function (city, county, state, etc.). I know some here understand this while others are going to have a fit about it like some did when I posted it in another thread.
Whether we like it or not, when it says “to serve and protect” on the side of a squad car it isn’t talking about you.
Thanks for saying the quiet part out loud. I’ve been dubious about the “Defund the Police” slogan, but you’ve made the strongest argument for it I’ve seen so far.
Basically shows that instead of a political statement, Defund the Police is a necessity for survival.
So just screw the “law” in “law enforcement,” right? So long as you maintain order. It’s always nice when people tell the world exactly what they are about.
“Screw the law” sounds the same as not having cops make traffic stops for clear violations of the law.
Of course order maintenance is the prime objective. Why do you think the official legal title is peace officer? To maintain order and keep the peace.
PolIticians who babble about defunding the police are pulling the wool over your eyes. The police are their gendarmes. They may cut things that affect the policing of the general public, but not to elected officials. Do you really think mayors in bigger cities are going to give up their armed escorts, or Governors give up their state
Patrol or capitol police executive protection services? Unlikely.
And we’re supposed to wring our hands and cry when one of these goes down? Count me out.
The question is why isn’t “to serve and protect” the actual job of the police? Is it because the individual officers would prefer to maintain order rather than serve and protect? If so, then IMHO the answer is not to defund the police (because if we do then it falls on each of us as individuals to protect ourselves), but rather to fire the officers whose primary mentality is to maintain order, and replace them with officers whose primary mentality is to serve and protect. Would that be such a difficult thing to do?
That’s supposed to be their main objective, but it’s not an objective that they actually pursue. Instead they do things like killing as many innocents as is necessary to protect themselves, which decreases order.
Blasting away unarmed citizens is a “funny” way of going about that
It’s not law enforcement that makes oder maintenance the prime objective. Didn’t you read anything I posted?