The problem is individuals who we are supposed to trust to protect and serve us doing exactly the opposite of that. It doesn't have to be a specific number or percentage to be a problem, although that's what you think. One bad cop is too many, and while I totally agree that some will slip through the cracks, the issues we've seen over the last several months is more than just that.

 

So they're harming you and making you serve them?

The problem is individuals who we are supposed to trust to protect and serve us doing exactly the opposite of that. It doesn't have to be a specific number or percentage to be a problem, although that's what you think. One bad cop is too many, and while I totally agree that some will slip through the cracks, the issues we've seen over the last several months is more than just that.

 

If you want better officers maybe you should pressure your local representative to pay them better. Just an idea. I don't think you'll come close to a figure that's enough for the kinda crap officers deal with on a regular basis.

If you want better officers maybe you should pressure your local representative to pay them better. Just an idea. I don't think you'll come close to a figure that's enough for the kinda crap officers deal with on a regular basis.

 

Disagree with the logic of more pay = better officers.

While "epidemic" is a bit much I think it's fair to say that there are plenty more than what is captured on video especially in some areas - maybe not in Boone County or Owensboro or Paducah but some neighborhoods have too many bad officers.

 

It's unfair to those that are doing their job fairly and correctly with respect to all but if you're one of the members of a community that sees it too often then you logically say it's "not just a few bad apples."

 

It's like drunk driving. We know how many have been arrested but we also know that's just the tip of the iceberg of actual drunk drivers.

 

That's a pretty sad analogy Clyde. 8/10 people in this area have a phone capable of capturing a video(rough estimate). There certainly aren't 8 officers out there patrolling to every 10 DUI offenders.

 

An officer out of line is probably 100 times more likely to be caught than a person drinking and driving.

Disagree with the logic of more pay = better officers.

 

I do too but it's always interesting to see if folks are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

 

Nobody here has asked the police to be perfect...

 

I don't think I've ever said the majority of cops are bad because I don't believe that. I agree that most officers do the job the right way. I still think there is more of an issue than you do. We just disagree on that.

 

Got this from a video. Stats are from the FBI, & bureau of justice statistics.

 

In 2012 there were 313,910,000 people in the US. That same year there were 670,439 police officers.

 

In a years time police had contact with around 53,000,000 people. That could come from traffic stops, being arrested, reporting a crime, witnessing a crime etc.

Out of the millions of contacts, the bureau of justice statistics reports that there were around 26,000 complaints against police for excessive force. That's 0.049% of all police contacts.

 

8%, or around 2,000 of those complaints were sustained. That's about 0.0039% of all police contacts.

 

Assuming that all 2000 sustained complaints were unique in that each was against a different officer, that's about .0029 % of the 670,000 police in the US. Even if you double, or triple that number...the old saying that 99% of all police are good still stands.

That's a pretty sad analogy Clyde. 8/10 people in this area have a phone capable of capturing a video(rough estimate). There certainly aren't 8 officers out there patrolling to every 10 DUI offenders.

 

An officer out of line is probably 100 times more likely to be caught than a person drinking and driving.

 

You missed the point of the analogy. My post was in response to someone asking for number/stats. My analogy was simply showing that we KNOW that whatever the stats say there are a lot more offenders out there.

If you want better officers maybe you should pressure your local representative to pay them better. Just an idea. I don't think you'll come close to a figure that's enough for the kinda crap officers deal with on a regular basis.

 

More money doesn't mean better officers. And they know the pay when they sign up.

Got this from a video. Stats are from the FBI, & bureau of justice statistics.

 

In 2012 there were 313,910,000 people in the US. That same year there were 670,439 police officers.

 

In a years time police had contact with around 53,000,000 people. That could come from traffic stops, being arrested, reporting a crime, witnessing a crime etc.

Out of the millions of contacts, the bureau of justice statistics reports that there were around 26,000 complaints against police for excessive force. That's 0.049% of all police contacts.

 

8%, or around 2,000 of those complaints were sustained. That's about 0.0039% of all police contacts.

 

Assuming that all 2000 sustained complaints were unique in that each was against a different officer, that's about .0029 % of the 670,000 police in the US. Even if you double, or triple that number...the old saying that 99% of all police are good still stands.

 

To show the problem with stats:

 

What % of people who were unhappy with how they were treated by an officer actually filed a complaint?

 

To show the problem with stats:

 

What % of people who were unhappy with how they were treated by an officer actually filed a complaint?

 

Like I said, double the number. Triple it. It's still not very high.

Disagree with the logic of more pay = better officers.

 

That's something I think would actually improve officers. I know that plenty deserve more pay than they get for what they do and what they put up with. I think my post history is pretty consistent on that despite what anyone might think. That's just simple economics to me-- pay enough and you attract the best of the best. Some who are already doing it would still be doing it, but they'd have enough applicants to weed out knuckleheads too.

That's something I think would actually improve officers. I know that plenty deserve more pay than they get for what they do and what they put up with. I think my post history is pretty consistent on that despite what anyone might think. That's just simple economics to me-- pay enough and you attract the best of the best. Some who are already doing it would still be doing it, but they'd have enough applicants to weed out knuckleheads too.

 

"Best of the best" seems to imply smarter people (on paper) like college grads. I don't think it's an intelligence issue.

"Best of the best" seems to imply smarter people (on paper) like college grads. I don't think it's an intelligence issue.

 

I don't either, at least entirely.

 

I think it's more of an "hey, if you mess up, we have applicants waiting to take your place" thing.

We all know you are anti-cop. If you want to debate any real issues in this thread fire away but don't waste my time.

 

50 feet is about what it should be.

 

And for all you naysayers that want to pile on the 50 foot rule, an officers safety far far far far far outweighs a citizens right to film.

 

Maybe we can hope for something like a National "25 and Alive" Campaign - Stay 25 Feet away from working Police Officers at all times

 

 

#1 - 50 feet is enough that you can't get audio. What good is video without audio (unless the PDs would budge some on the camera issues)?

 

#2 - What about citizen's safety? The public-at-large would be far safer if every car leaving work was stopped and searched for illegal activity. However, at the same time, that's not very convenient for the public and counter to the Constitution. Could you be more specific about what you suggest aside from a citizen being far enough outside of range to get audio (or even close-up video)? How does an officer determine 49 versus 51 feet? How would you prove that up at trial? Would a better solution not be to just not interfere with the crime scene [or yourself commit a crime]? Is the way 'disorderly conduct' is legally construed to give deference to the officer to make an arrest not liberally construed enough for you?

 

#3 - What happens to someone who doesn't have the requisite intent to be within 50 feet of an officer conducting an arrest? If someone is pulled over, does a driver need to swerve outside a 50 foot radius from them? What if an unruly sports fan is arrested at a game and someone happens to be on their phone? Should the officer be able to check and make sure they aren't filming so not to violate any laws? If not, what becomes apparent enough for an investigative detention?

 

Sorry if any of these waste your time, so just give me your analysis on whatever you wish.

On the topic of "better pay will attract better candidates".

 

A while back I read (it may have been on here; can't recall) a theory about major chain restaurants. They aren't "as good" in smaller towns because the talent pool isn't as large. Better chance to get better managers, better cooks, better service staff in places where the talent pool is exponentially larger.

 

Serious questions, then. Does this theory hold water? If so, can it be extrapolated to small-town police departments? Or is it simply ridiculous?