Dallas Officer - quota system is corrupt

[jlee]

Another way of looking at the quota system is that it ensures that cops don't just slack off and spend all their time at the donut shop.

That very well may be how it originated...the problem, though, is that if you have a quota of "X" and everybody does their job well, you'll be reducing the crime level but you still have quota of "X". Ideally you want to see crime level dropping, so arrests/citations should also be less frequent. Encouraging a minimum number of arrests/citations simply lowers the threshold for them to happen, which isn't ideal.

 

[TwiceOver]

That very well may be how it originated...the problem, though, is that if you have a quota of "X" and everybody does their job well, you'll be reducing the crime level but you still have quota of "X". Ideally you want to see crime level dropping, so arrests/citations should also be less frequent. Encouraging a minimum number of arrests/citations simply lowers the threshold for them to happen, which isn't ideal.

You mean working themselves out of a job? That would mean less criminals. Less criminals mean less officers. Less officers mean less arrests. Less arrests mean less prisoners. Less prisoners mean less guards.

The two biggest unions on the face of the earth rely on each other.

Honestly I'm more of the "no victim no crime" type of person. In my state here we have "ingestion laws" where if you get pulled over for DUI and they take your blood and find cocaine, guess what... Cocaine charge! The fuck...

 

[jlee]

You mean working themselves out of a job? That would mean less criminals. Less criminals mean less officers. Less officers mean less arrests. Less arrests mean less prisoners. Less prisoners mean less guards.

The two biggest unions on the face of the earth rely on each other.

Honestly I'm more of the "no victim no crime" type of person. In my state here we have "ingestion laws" where if you get pulled over for DUI and they take your blood and find cocaine, guess what... Cocaine charge! The fuck...

Fire departments still exist in places with few fires...a police department able to focus on community relations and crime prevention instead of chasing numbers sounds pretty good to me!

 

[pauldun170]

During some good ole bathroom reading I came across this
http://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...-country-with-no-guns-6-startling-truths.html

Specifically, this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

In this model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so

 

[destrekor]

I'd like to see you arrest a combative guy without using violence. Please video.

So... someone getting combative with you during the course of arrest = shoot to kill?

How about no.

There needs to be some level headed thinking here, some way to train how to refrain from over-the-top violence, use just enough non-lethal measures to subdue the person.

The person resisting arrest, or even just arguing from inside the car, is not an immediate offender.

I've only been pulled over for speeding - those are simple discussions that present no need for me to defend any freedoms.

But if a cop dare ask me to search my vehicle? Oh hell no. I will be asking why and other questions, and I'll be demanding a warrant before I do anything else. And I'll wait. I'll call whoever I may be holding up (job, appointment, etc), and if they fight me on that, I will argue on that too.

And I'll probably end up shot or beaten to a bloody pulp.

Sorry - I draw certain lines, and I hope and expect my fellow countrymen to do the same. If you feel you are innocent and are being wrongly accused, dammit, make the cops prove your guilt or subdue you and let the courts figure it out. But you cannot count on the courts to be impartial 100% of the time, and I sure as hell don't want to waste THAT kind of time, so I'll put forth my arguments BEFORE any arrest is made, especially if said arrest is simply because I refuse to cooperate with illegal requests.

I hope this doesn't ever happen to me, but dammit, I will. I don't care if there is a reported terrorist with a nuke in their trunk - you will not demand I show you anything and everything just to prove my own damn innocence.

This whole, "I don't have anything to hide," mentality pisses me off like no other. These are the ones who will let this country turn into a police state, and give away our freedoms just to feel safe. "Oh, it helps the cops? Sure, I'll gladly help, I'm innocent, I've got nothing to hide!... Oh, you need to tear my car apart just to be sure? Sure, go right ahead!... Oh, you need to confirm I'm not hiding a terrorist in my house? Come on in, glad to help!... You need cameras that can track our faces on every intersection? Sounds like a smart idea to me!" and on and on and on. My dad gets it, gets the ideal for limitations to this bullshit, but my mom seems content to let it all happen, right along that nothing to hide notion.

This total disregard for privacy and the very freedoms that define this country is absolutely sickening. And the willingness to abuse positions of authority and arrive at the choice to use lethal options to get citizens to comply... yeah, I don't care what law it was. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Right?! Police are not judge, jury, and executioner. Use the least required means possible to subdue a target if you absolutely must arrest someone. This means not skipping steps A through Y and going straight to Z.


Is this really that difficult to understand? Why is there such an overreaction to the disgust we have as citizens of the USA, when our very freedoms are being blatantly disregarded? When we are gunned down because we dared question or resist? That's no reason to execute someone on the spot. We aren't supposed to be ruled by the Gestapo. Or, is that what we have become?

 

[Darwin333]

Yes, but don't confuse things like ticketing people speed and red light cameras as something wrong. The only incentive people have to not break petty laws like that is hurting the pocket book of said person.

Forcing officers to arrest people they otherwise wouldn't arrest or to look excessively hard ("hey black guy, you smell like weed, let me search you") promotes things like profiling and creates a system where corruption can be rampant.

I will agree the war on drugs has cost a lot of money, but what is the real alternative? I've argued numerous times that until (and if this is a thing, I'm certainly for it) we can test if a person is under the effects of a drug that is to be made legal AT that very moment in time, drugs can't reasonably be legal. Smoking weed will impair your driving. If you don't believe this, you've smoked yourself retarded. Since we can't detect that, we can't just pretend it's going to be fine. We regulate intoxication due to alcohol decently and have the ability to test someone's impairment to a certain degree.

We don't test people's how impaired people are when it comes to alcohol either. We test some arbitrary number that doesn't say a damn thing about how impaired that particular person is.

It would be incredibly easy to design a very cheap device that would test how impaired a person is, regardless of reason, right on the roadside. The reason why alcohol, as well as drugs, lack of sleep (which is the same or worse then being drunk) or whatever reason, impairs your driving is because it reduces your reaction time. A simple device that tests reaction time could be designed by the guys here at ATOT in a weekend and would cost very little.

 

[pauldun170]

An NYPD cop claims in a federal lawsuit that he was punished by supervisors for not stopping enough black and Hispanic teens in the subways.

Michael Birch, 44, was a transit cop in District 34 in Brooklyn when he secretly recorded a sit-down with his commanding officer and a lieutenant after he had received a poor evaluation in 2011.

Birch was reminded by Capt. Constantin Tsachas that most of the crimes in the subway system were being committed by black and Hispanic teens, while most of the cop’s stops were of women and whites.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nypd-admits-quotas-summons-article-1.2488316

 

[Elganja]

We don't test people's how impaired people are when it comes to alcohol either. We test some arbitrary number that doesn't say a damn thing about how impaired that particular person is.

It would be incredibly easy to design a very cheap device that would test how impaired a person is, regardless of reason, right on the roadside. The reason why alcohol, as well as drugs, lack of sleep (which is the same or worse then being drunk) or whatever reason, impairs your driving is because it reduces your reaction time. A simple device that tests reaction time could be designed by the guys here at ATOT in a weekend and would cost very little.

MADD is a big reason, strict DUI laws came into form.

We'll probably never see a device like you describe, however I am ALL for it

 

[Art&Science]

I'd like to see you arrest a combative guy without using violence. Please video.

Felony arrest, sure, use violence if the person is combative. Half of these arrests on the side of the road are not felony arrests, probably more than half and many, many, many of them don't result in charges at all, that's a fact. How about, don't do them? If you are going to arrest someone you stopped for speeding and now they refuse to get out of the car, that arrest doesn't need to happen. So don't do it, and you won't have to get your pants dirty. If you stopped them for a broken tail light, and they won't get out of the car (a ridiculous order) and you decide to arrest them for "disobeying" or "obstructing" and that person resists (which they should) then frankly, you deserve having to get your pants dirty. Saying that a person being arrested for something like this is an excuse to to violence is complete horseshit.

 

[jlee]

So... someone getting combative with you during the course of arrest = shoot to kill?

How about no.

There needs to be some level headed thinking here, some way to train how to refrain from over-the-top violence, use just enough non-lethal measures to subdue the person.

The person resisting arrest, or even just arguing from inside the car, is not an immediate offender.

I've only been pulled over for speeding - those are simple discussions that present no need for me to defend any freedoms.

But if a cop dare ask me to search my vehicle? Oh hell no. I will be asking why and other questions, and I'll be demanding a warrant before I do anything else. And I'll wait. I'll call whoever I may be holding up (job, appointment, etc), and if they fight me on that, I will argue on that too.

And I'll probably end up shot or beaten to a bloody pulp.

Sorry - I draw certain lines, and I hope and expect my fellow countrymen to do the same. If you feel you are innocent and are being wrongly accused, dammit, make the cops prove your guilt or subdue you and let the courts figure it out. But you cannot count on the courts to be impartial 100% of the time, and I sure as hell don't want to waste THAT kind of time, so I'll put forth my arguments BEFORE any arrest is made, especially if said arrest is simply because I refuse to cooperate with illegal requests.

I hope this doesn't ever happen to me, but dammit, I will. I don't care if there is a reported terrorist with a nuke in their trunk - you will not demand I show you anything and everything just to prove my own damn innocence.

This whole, "I don't have anything to hide," mentality pisses me off like no other. These are the ones who will let this country turn into a police state, and give away our freedoms just to feel safe. "Oh, it helps the cops? Sure, I'll gladly help, I'm innocent, I've got nothing to hide!... Oh, you need to tear my car apart just to be sure? Sure, go right ahead!... Oh, you need to confirm I'm not hiding a terrorist in my house? Come on in, glad to help!... You need cameras that can track our faces on every intersection? Sounds like a smart idea to me!" and on and on and on. My dad gets it, gets the ideal for limitations to this bullshit, but my mom seems content to let it all happen, right along that nothing to hide notion.

This total disregard for privacy and the very freedoms that define this country is absolutely sickening. And the willingness to abuse positions of authority and arrive at the choice to use lethal options to get citizens to comply... yeah, I don't care what law it was. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Right?! Police are not judge, jury, and executioner. Use the least required means possible to subdue a target if you absolutely must arrest someone. This means not skipping steps A through Y and going straight to Z.


Is this really that difficult to understand? Why is there such an overreaction to the disgust we have as citizens of the USA, when our very freedoms are being blatantly disregarded? When we are gunned down because we dared question or resist? That's no reason to execute someone on the spot. We aren't supposed to be ruled by the Gestapo. Or, is that what we have become?

I was about to give you a line by line response, but your drivel isn't worth my time.

 

[jlee]

Felony arrest, sure, use violence if the person is combative. Half of these arrests on the side of the road are not felony arrests, probably more than half and many, many, many of them don't result in charges at all, that's a fact. How about, don't do them? If you are going to arrest someone you stopped for speeding and now they refuse to get out of the car, that arrest doesn't need to happen. So don't do it, and you won't have to get your pants dirty. If you stopped them for a broken tail light, and they won't get out of the car (a ridiculous order) and you decide to arrest them for "disobeying" or "obstructing" and that person resists (which they should) then frankly, you deserve having to get your pants dirty.

Why does the level of the offense matter? I've had my cruiser window kicked out from the inside. Misdemeanor criminal mischief. However, just talking nicely to a guy who just forcibly broke halfway out of a cruiser doesn't always work.

Saying that a person being arrested for something like this is an excuse to to violence is complete horseshit.

Jesus christ, how do you get off claiming that I said that?

I can recall three use of force incidents from my 5 year career. One was the above incident. Another, I was assaulted during an arrest. The third was a guy with a warrant who decided to sprint away by running through me. 2/3 of those were soft hand control. One was OC spray (deployed by my partner that night).

You guys who think that police work is a life of non-stop beating people really need to get some perspective.

 

[Homerboy]

"To Serve, Protect and Generate Income for the Municipality"

 

[Darwin333]

it's not the police officers fault for enforcing a law they did not create ... their job is to enforce the laws created by our elected officials

you break the law, you face the consequences... simple as that. It's a joke people complain about breaking the law, and facing consequences and want to be let off. News flash, if you don't break the law you won't have a criminal record

It is their fault when they selectively enforce laws at a far higher rate because enforcing certain laws above others is more profitable for them.

 

[Elganja]

It is their fault when they selectively enforce laws at a far higher rate because enforcing certain laws above others is more profitable for them.

irregardless... don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about... how hard is that to understand?

 

[SMOGZINN]

We don't test people's how impaired people are when it comes to alcohol either. We test some arbitrary number that doesn't say a damn thing about how impaired that particular person is.

It would be incredibly easy to design a very cheap device that would test how impaired a person is, regardless of reason, right on the roadside. The reason why alcohol, as well as drugs, lack of sleep (which is the same or worse then being drunk) or whatever reason, impairs your driving is because it reduces your reaction time. A simple device that tests reaction time could be designed by the guys here at ATOT in a weekend and would cost very little.

That is not at all true. Alcohol (and other substances) do much more than impair reaction time. It impairs judgment, it impairs special location awareness, it impairs hand-eye coordination. All of these things are necessary to drive.

Other things, like Sleep deprivation, have other ways to impact driving that would not be so easy to test, like the tendency to lose focus on one's immediate surroundings that is common with sleep deprivation.

Also, BAC is not an arbitrary number. It is literally the percentage of alcohol by volume of your blood at that time. A BAC of 0.1 (0.1% or one tenth of one percent) means that there are 0.10 g of alcohol for every dL of blood.

 

[SMOGZINN]

irregardless... don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about... how hard is that to understand?

Easy to say when you are assumed innocent. For those that can be pulled over for 'driving while black' whether or not one is breaking the law is all to often a matter of opinion.

 

[Darwin333]

MADD is a big reason, strict DUI laws came into form.

We'll probably never see a device like you describe, however I am ALL for it

The sad part is, the device would make us far MORE safe from DUI's. Currently they generally only test for one impairment. Driving while very tired has been shown to be just as dangerous and deadly as driving while drunk. Driving while on prescription drugs won't show up on a breathalyzer but can be just as impairing. A very simple and cheap (probably cheaper than current alcohol testing) would ensure that our streets are safer and the arbitrary BAC number is just complete bullshit. I know people that are to impaired to drive after a single drink despite not having a BAC level above the legal limit and others that are just the opposite. I also know people that have been pulled over for erratic driving that got off Scott free because their impairment came from the xanax they had popped and were happy to take a breathalyzer test.

You would think that the goal is to actually make our streets safer.

 

[Darwin333]

irregardless... don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about... how hard is that to understand?

Obviously a lot easier to understand then policing and imprisoning for profit is a very bad thing.

 

[Elganja]

Obviously a lot easier to understand then policing and imprisoning for profit is a very bad thing.

i don't disagree, i think we were just arguing two different points (maybe i misread)

 

[Darwin333]

That is not at all true. Alcohol (and other substances) do much more than impair reaction time. It impairs judgment, it impairs special location awareness, it impairs hand-eye coordination. All of these things are necessary to drive.

Other things, like Sleep deprivation, have other ways to impact driving that would not be so easy to test, like the tendency to lose focus on one's immediate surroundings that is common with sleep deprivation.

Also, BAC is not an arbitrary number. It is literally the percentage of alcohol by volume of your blood at that time. A BAC of 0.1 (0.1% or one tenth of one percent) means that there are 0.10 g of alcohol for every dL of blood.

Yes.... But it's very easy to test for reaction time, if your reaction time is significantly impaired then you are to impaired to be driving. Since alcohol significantly reduces reaction time, and it's easy to test this, we can then reasonably test how impaired a person is.

BAC is arbitrary because the BAC level of a person says absolutely nothing about how impaired they are, at least at the lower boundaries. Sure it's a good guess but it's a guess nonetheless.

So not only will it still catch the drunk drivers it will catch people who are impaired because of other substances. I don't see why you have an issue with this.

 

[Darwin333]

i don't disagree, i think we were just arguing two different points (maybe i misread)

We sort of are but I hate to tell you that it's virtually impossible not to break the law these days. There are so many laws on the books that not even the best judges can guarantee that they haven't broken some obscure law on any given day. I guarantee that you don't even know a quarter, probably not a tenth, of the laws that pertain to you. You DO know the ones that they enforce though and you don't break those.

There is a decent chance that having oral sex is illegal in your state. Lets go ahead and assume it is for the sake of argument, do you then avoid all oral sex or do you happily continue doing it because that law isn't enforced?

 

[Elganja]

We sort of are but I hate to tell you that it's virtually impossible not to break the law these days. There are so many laws on the books that not even the best judges can guarantee that they haven't broken some obscure law on any given day. I guarantee that you don't even know a quarter, probably not a tenth, of the laws that pertain to you. You DO know the ones that they enforce though and you don't break those.

There is a decent chance that having oral sex is illegal in your state. Lets go ahead and assume it is for the sake of argument, do you then avoid all oral sex or do you happily continue doing it because that law isn't enforced?

oh don't get me wrong... i break laws all the time, i just don't get upset if I get a ticket or whatever, because I know when I break a law there is a chance I will have to pay the consequences (and I accept that)

 

[destrekor]

I was about to give you a line by line response, but your drivel isn't worth my time.

Drivel?

Oh now I really want to see your responses. Come on now, seriously, drivel? How little do you care for the freedoms we cherished? (or once cherished, apparently).

See the post below for a way things should be.

During some good ole bathroom reading I came across this
http://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...-country-with-no-guns-6-startling-truths.html

Specifically, this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

 

[jlee]

Drivel?

Oh now I really want to see your responses. Come on now, seriously, drivel? How little do you care for the freedoms we cherished? (or once cherished, apparently).

See the post below for a way things should be.

How about you explain how you got from this:

I'd like to see you arrest a combative guy without using violence. Please video.

To this:

So... someone getting combative with you during the course of arrest = shoot to kill?

 

[destrekor]

Sorry, busy weekend. I'll respond now:

How about you explain how you got from this:


To this:

Because that's what happened to Alton Sterling.

That has happened a lot.

Why is a man getting shot when you clearly have the upper hand in the first place? So he wiggles and is resisting... why make the jump to lethal violence so quickly, as happened to both Sterling and Castile?

Some violence to subdue someone, yeah I get that - I've seen plenty of videos of that occurring, and it usually involved physical violence, not a gun. Detroit has managed to do pretty well with this. There's been some questionable beatings, but I think a questionable beating is a hell of a lot better than shoot to kill immediately.

Do you not agree?