Over here barnaby2341 opined that Police are an affront to our civil liberties and protectors of the massive inequalities in our society.

Question for debate:

Does the United States citizenry need the Police?

Well, Barnaby is technically right- I mean- pretty much all civil rights violations come from law enforcement, by definition really.

I mean, you have to be in a place like law enforcement in order to wiretap without court approval and not be arrested- correct? For instance, I could go to jail here for wiring my nieghbors house so I could look and listen in on them. The cops can do it- and they have no sanction whatsoever.

Also- murdering folks in cold blood like they did recently in New York, I would get a murder one charge, cops are simply suspended WITH pay while the "investigation " drags on.

So ya, technically, it takes an authority of some sort to routinely violate civil rights- like with the civil rights movement, and those pics of police siccing dogs on peaceful demonstrators.

That doesn't mean we need to do away with the police - we want to police the police, so to speak

Like with all goverment, there needs to be a constant check against abuse- because the power we place on these individuals is so very, very easy to abuse.

Does the United States citizenry need the Police?

Of course we need a police. Law enforcement is just as important to society as the establishment of law itself. Thinking that has no police is exactly the type of anarcho-libertarian logic that lacks reason. In order for certain freedoms to be protected, other freedoms need to be curtailed (ie murder, theft, exc...) because obviously being denied the ability to kill someone you don't like is a violation of your personal freedom. The power to enforce the law is a necessary aspect of civilized society as there is no alternative. You could not have private law enforcement because that would violate equal protection and how exactly would private police forces have any authority? It would be gangsterism at its worst.

Yes Leder- I completely agree- and, have had this debate amongst my own party right here in town- you always have some wild eyed dreamers that think that no police means more freedom. That is not true- it becomes the law of the jungle then- or warlords or something- where only the strongest makes the rules.

However- there is also great potential for the "police state" on the other extreme- the libertarian ideal, I believe, is a good balance, where we have the maximum freedom with the least amount of intervention/ - we are not there yet, obviousluy, and we have some aspects of a police state - that is what concerns me about "cop killer" laws- when the state protects the police MORE than the average citizen- we are moving to the police state side of the equation.

Order and safety ARE the single most legitimate state functions- so some kind of public safety is required, in any safe, free society.

How free can you be if you must live behind walls in order to survive? This is the big anti-gun argument on the libertarian society- if you are not free to walk the streets at night because there is gun warfare every day- are you any more free simply because you are able to own a gun?

NOT an opening for the gun debate- just a remark on how free you really are, when one right runs amok over another.

IN fact, I would say pretty much all debate regarding the state vs the individucal hangs on the notion is how free are we really, at the end of the day.

Does the United States citizenry need the Police?

Yes!

The nature of police work, however, makes it susceptible to applicants eager to wield authority.

Government agencies at all levels should carefully screen those they hire as law enforcement officers. Further, law enforcement officers should be closely monitored and carefully reviewed.

Edited to add:

Here's an iknteresting link:

http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/47/3/272

I am proud to say- my own APD has one of the toughest pre-employment screenings in the country.

Does the United States citizenry need the Police?

Definitely, YES! I live in Riverside County, California. The background investigations on police applicants are thorough and extensive together with the psychological testing before the applicant is ever hired. In fact the application process has become very stringent over the last forty years. It is much more difficult to hire on nowadays than it has ever been! The pre-employment process will never siphon out all the "bad seeds" who make it into the ranks, but many of those never make it through probation either. I certainly rest easier knowing that when I dial 911, someone answers and dispatches the cops immediately.

Regarding police and civil liberties....If anyone is free to hurt you/steal property at any time, for whatever arbitrary reason you have no freedom at all. No freedom of movement, no freedom of speech (especially anything that smacks of the arbitrary definition of "disrespect"), no liberty as we know it. We have some direct examples of what happens when the law is outgunned....just go to any large community where you never see a police car and notice the bars on the windows of every home and building. Stand on the corner for a few moments, exercising your "vast level of newfound freedom from police intervention" and see what happens.

Per police and social inequalities, the first thing that would happen, should the police force be eliminated, is a feudal style of barricade between the haves and have-nots. We see a bit of this now, they are called "gated communities". In the event of the complete breakdown of law enforcement, individuals and groups would receive compensation for the protection of small affluent communities....while the rest of the residents who cannot provide for their own defense would be out of luck. Social inequalities would be worse than ever as we would devolve into a feudal style society with those at the top living behind large walls and the rest at the mercy of thugs.

Of course that's just the beginning of the complete breakdown of society as we know it in such an event. How would the state pay for anything without tax revenue and how would they collect without law enforcement? Laws could not be enforced, ergo they would be non-obligatory and cease to exist. The value of currency rests on the ability of the government to honor that IOU, not the value of the print, paper, or computer bites...our currency and economy would collapse as well.

For a bit of a visual on what that might be like, I would suggest watching Gangs of New York, and remembering we have a lot more efficient weapons now. The police, as Mrs P. points out, are what give us our civil liberties, not the agency taking them away. Can their power be abused? Absolutely. When that is the case, it must be addressed. But to think that the police themselves take away our civil liberties is ludicrous. There are even plenty of examples around the world currently showing this to be far from the case...Iraq being a good example. You think all those people being killed by the suicide bombers are thinking 'Thank God (Allah) for our Civil Liberty!" I doubt it...I'm sure that they'd rather have an effective police force. Ditto for those in Somalia, Rowanda, etc. Lawlessness is the ultimate infringement on one's civil liberty, and lawlessness is by definition the state in which there is no group enforcing the law.

Of course. They cannot “protect” all of us, or even most of us most of the time but that can deter crime by making it more likely that they will track down criminals. They force criminals to “do their work quickly” or not at all.

They also do other very valuable things like respond to accidents, direct traffic when required, carry the sick and injured when required etc.

I don't think that there is any real debate here. Let's just keep in mind that law enforcement is a necessary evil, and that it must be severely regulated by civilian controls. We must always insist that the police play by the rules, and make sure that the consequences of their errors and misdeeds will be serious.

First thing to realize is that movies do not accurately portray anything. So Hobbes, for every Gangs of New York there is a 16 Blocks, Untouchables, or Mississippi Burning. Get a better argument, that is, if you even had one in the first place.

Let us first define civil liberties.
Civil Liberty - the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights, as of speech or assembly, without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government.

I would say they are most definitely an affront to our civil liberties. Anytime there is a protest, Who breaks it up? Who instigates the aggression? The police. Police kill people all the time and what is their punishment? They get paid and don't have to work. The cruelty!

But the real question is, how do the weak defend themselves against the powerful? Sure, we need protection, but why is that protection ineffectively proactive? Can't they be effectively reactive, like the Fire Department. Cops do not stop crimes from happening. They simply catch those that commit crimes.

VictoriaSilverwolf, my simple response to you is that you are naive. The people that enforce the law are the police, that enforcement, just like traffic laws, is arbitrary, not automatic. It's hard to believe that a close knit community like the police force is, will bring that hammer down on their friends in the same way they do a civilian. The fact of the matter is that they don't treat police the same as everyone else. When's the last time you saw a cop pleading a traffic ticket? Never. It doesn't bother you that these laws we all adhere to, do not apply to them?

My argument is based on the belief that we need more emphasis on educating our society than policing them. This is lost on many people because most Americans are stupid and live in fear. If we had an educated society they would be capable of making better decisions or finding ways to provide for themselves that did not involve crimes. I also believe that we would become open to drug use, instead of selective drug use. Alcohol and tobacco are no different than marijuana or cocaine. If abused, like anything, they lead to destruction. If used in moderation they can be enjoyable. Let me add that I do not use drugs or drink or smoke.

Most the time, the police when they kill someone, is in self-defense. Given that there are exceptions, and sadly too many at that, the law does apply to them too. If a police shoots a person or mishandles him/her with no previous instigation, yes, there are examinations and investigations into the event. Most the time the officer is put on trial, so although they are exempt from minor laws such as speeding, that is not a major problem.


I do not understand your argument here. The FD responds to a fire once called upon it. The Police does the same thing, when called to answer to a crime, they do so. Fire Department can't prevent fires, either does the Police prevent crimes.


I do not care that if a cop speeds to catch up with someone speeding, no. The Police doesn't wire tap our phones or stake us out either: that's the FBI. I'd rather have someone exempt from minor laws if it means when I call 911 someone will respond and be there.


We're taught- you commit crimes, you get punished and possibly go to jail. Everyone is educated that, and people still break the laws. Education would be beneficial but people, no matter what, would still commit crimes.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you here Victoria, most respectfully. It is slogans, phrases, concepts such as this that take root and grow into the sort of fetid swamp gas being spouted by Barnaby. Law enforcement is a necessary response to evil, but it is not itself inherently evil. Law enforcement are the antibodies of the Body Politic. There are evil people who get into Law Enforcement, just as there are evil people who get into the Fire Department, day care, classrooms, and operating rooms. And, as is the case with all those other venues, there are also good people (the majority) in Law Enforcement.


Anytime?

With that perspective, you can rest assured that convincing "most Americans" of the wisdom of your arguments will be an exercise in frustration, both for you and especially for "most Americans."

Well, since we have doctors, lawyers, judges, professors, CPAs, military officers, astronauts and clergy (by and large, all very well educated folks) all committing crimes, many of which have little or nothing to do with "providing for themselves" at a simple modest level, your argument is as flat as the ice on a skating rink.

How interesting. I very rarely have the opportunity to experience disagreement from both sides of an issue. It's a refreshing change of pace.



True enough.



I will be the last to deny that the very nature of law enforcement lends itself to abuse. This is the tragedy of power. It is the reason there must always be strict limits to government. In particular, whenever government has the power to use force against human beings, that force must be regulated by outside controls to an extraordinary degree.

I have seen much documentation of abuses of power by the police. In my opinion, all levels of law enforcement in the United States require more restriction than they now have. I am somewhat familiar with the anarchist philosophy of government (not the violent thugs who call themselves "anarchists") and I have much respect for it; but I would not abandon law enforcement entirely.

Yes, cops tend to protect their own in unfair ways. Yes, smashing down the door of someone's house and pointing firearms at her while screaming, because the cops think that there might be some illegal drugs there (assuming they are even at the right house), is a grotesque abuse of power, which can lead to death. We have a very, very long way to go to correct these things. The law enforcement system will always be seriously flawed; but I would not throw it away.



I certainly do not dispute what you say here, for the most part. What I do say is that any use of force which causes harm to human beings, no matter how necessary and justified it may be, is inherently a bad thing. This has nothing to do with someone being good or bad; it has to do with the very nature of the profession. For example, only a very bad firefighter will do intentional harm; however, it is inherent in the job of even a very good police officer to sometimes do intentional harm. All I ask is that all possible, reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the minimum necessary amount of harm is done, and that its necessity be mourned rather than celebrated. I may be quibbling here, but it seems clear to me that one may justifiably celebrate saving the lives of hostages, but that one should not celebrate the shooting of the one who threatened them, no matter how evil she may be, and no matter if there was no other possible way to resolve the situation.

Yes. And No.

Yes , we need the police to provide protection when the President comes to town and when a husband and wife are thumping each other and to take information at car accidents and direct traffic when the light at a intersection goes out and to arrest drunk drivers before they kill someone and to smack some knucklehead upside the head when he's beating up his wife and kids and to figure out who raped and killed some poor hitchhiker and left her face down in a ditch and to provide a certain amount of security, sobriety and sanity to a society that at times is woefully lacking in all three.

No, we don't need the police to enforce smoking bans or confiscate guns or dumb stuff like that or to beat up and harass poor people because they've got a badge and a gun or racially profile a car with three young Black men driving along the New Jersey Turnpike or to serve as the private security force for the rich, powerful and well-connected or to bust consenting adults engaging in acts of consensual sex, drug use or gambling or act as a occupying force in urban areas or to take bribes, shoot the wrong people or be used as pawns by politicians trying to court votes.

The prison population in the US is just over 2 million people, that's less than 1% of our country's population. Check your city or state budget to see how much money is spent on catching that less than 1%. In St. Louis City, recently rated the most deadliest city in America, the budget allocates almost half of the money from the city's taxpayers goes toward police services. While it may be high in St. Louis, it also shows that it doesn't work. If the problem is crime, then the answer certainly isn't money or resources, because cops have all that. Yet crime continues to increase across the US and so do the budgets of our law enforcement agencies. They are not the answer to society's problem, haven't ever been, and never will be.

Does the United States citizenry need the Police?

I'm trying to imagine a society without police, and until human nature changes significantly, I don't see it happening.

The fact of the matter is that most people respond to authority. Very few follow the law because it's the right thing to do, as can be witnessed on any roadway in the US. Almost everyone drives 10-20 mph over the posted limit, some faster, a few slower, a few on the button. But put a squad car where it can be seen, and suddenly the halos come out, the church music comes up, the brake lights blaze and we're all darling little law-abiding citizens.

The example of Iraq shows how seriously bad we humans can be to each other. I'm not sure that even a strong police force will fix that situation. My hope is that it will, but I'm not putting any money on it. My bet is on the Iraqis looking around and saying, "Well, this sure sucks desert rats. There's got to be a better way." The police become part of the solution

Regarding the serious crimes like murder, rape, grand theft, arson and fraud, most people don't do these things simply because they are stupid moves. Those that do are somehow insane, and the existence of the police probably doesn't do much to make them hit the brakes, so to speak.

One type of criminal that the police tend to do well with is the sociopath, the type that plots out the crime. Crimes of passion or desperation are pretty impossible to curtail, as they tend to be done on the spur of the moment, often while drunk.

That the police can make big mistakes is obvious to me. You've got your drug raids against innocents, your overly brutal crowd control, your corruption and your Barney Fifes out there. But then you do have citizen oversight with video cams and phones now, so it's getting harder to be a bad cop.

Which brings up the court system, which isn't anywhere near perfect, but it's better than nothing. We also have elected officials we can hold accountable for the behavior of the police. When I think about how bad this could be, what we've got looks pretty good, even with the Patriot Act making us more paranoid of the government than we were before 9/11.

Finally, we need the police so we can have The Blues Brothers, Reno 911, Police Academy, The Shield, Barney Miller, Dirty Harry, The Closer and all the other great diversions based on true crime stories and mysteries. There are way too many to list. The genres make up a huge part of our entertainment industry.

even in an anarchist society there needs to be a police force!

whether the police are a state run organization or whether people take it into their own hands there are elements of any society that look to take advantage of those less advantaged then them, and there needs to be people to protect the average people from those willing to steal and kill at will.

the problem comes when police forces get out of control. one example that comes to mind is amadu dialo in new york where he was shot 41 times by four police officers. that means each officer emptied his firearms clip. that's ten shots per officer!

but yeah, any society needs a well trained group of people to protect society from criminals.

How adept were the bumbling monkeys in blue at "Protecting the People" in Virginia last week? Not very helpful at all; were they? I'm sure the police were called when shots were fired, but their job is not to the protect the people, but to protect the powerful in maintaining their control over society. We see this all the time. Bodies start flopping all over the place and the police always need more information. Only after everyone was massacred did we see S.W.A.T. teams running around campus. If you steal a car, they utilize their pursuit tactics. If you rob a bank, they seal off the building and set up a perimeter. If you protest the World Bank, they get out their riot gear and salt pellets. If you get assaulted, they stop for a break at the Quickie Mart because they heard they were running out of donuts with powdered sugar.

"They're there to protect us! They're there to protect us!" Tell that to the kids at Virginia Tech. Tell that to the kids at Columbine. Tell that to somebody else, because I ain't hearin' it.

good point. the massacre at viginia tech would have been less had some students been carrying a weapon, with proper training in it's use. same if columbine teachers were so trained and equiped. I'm all for people being able to DEFEND themselves.

That's not my point at all. The V. Tech massacre and Columbine were not a result of an unarmed students, they are merely examples that the police are ill-trained to protect the citizens. They are trained to protect the power structures and to break the heads of the citizens. The massacre at V. Tech could have been avoided if someone did something as simple as befriend Cho, arming members of the student body is a ridiculous idea. How about if Cho got himself a girlfriend? He was clearly an outcast of society and as such, he turned his anger on that which rejected him. If he wanted to get back at society, he should have joined the police force.

This is perfect. If they had shot Cho before he killed anyone you'd be bleating about Police Brutality. You have got to be trying to pull a fast one with this entire line of reasoning in this thread and others.

The “police” cannot protect you and never could. They are there to deter crime by their presence and to pursue criminals after a crime is committed. This to is a “deterrent”. If you want to defend yourself get a firearm. No police were assigned to the school grounds.

As for the UVA massacre this was a police screw-up AND a school issue. The police should have not assumed from the testimony of one person that thee killer had left the campus. Big mistake. They should have searched the school. And the school IMO should have had a procedure that closed the school for the day when someone is shot and the perpetrator is not in custody.

Baphmet'sAdvocate, you are making an assumption about which you know nothing about. That being the way I think. You can't assume you know how I would respond if any such situation had happened. You have to construct a scenario with more detail than "if they shot Cho." If they shot Cho, and they didn't need to, I would be crying about police brutality. You want to spout nonsense about rule of law, yet when the police break that law, you just look the other way, well in that sense you are the one that must be pulling a fast one. If they shot Cho and they had no reasonable alternative, then I wouldn't say a word. Put together a better hypothetical than two sentences of your own assumptions. It might make for a better debate. I stick to my original thesis, that the police are better equipped and trained to take our freedoms away than they are to preserve our freedoms or protect us from harm.

To Ted:
This was not a police screw-up, because you think that the police could actually help out in some significant way. They can't. That is not their role in our society. You might think it is, but it's not. Their role in our society is to collect our taxes through vehicular means, intimidate us into conformity, and ensure the power structures stay in power. All this nonsense about protect and serve, well that's just a slogan as meaningless as "Dead or Alive", "Mission Accomplished", or "Freedom is on the March."

We do, indeed, need the police. Without enforcement, laws are toothless. I, for one, take great comfort that there are folks who have the power to arrest those who might try to harm me or rob me (to say nothing of the deterrent effect that they provide).

Having said that, I am disturbed by some of the posters who use phrases like "the police give us our civil liberties". They don't. Our liberties come (at least directly) from the rule of law. The police help enforce and uphold those laws (as do the courts, civil society, education etc) but our rights are not a gift from the police. In the end, they serve only when they serve the law. If we, as a society, make poor laws, well that's another issue. They are one part of what should be a web of interlocking protections, each one also providing a check on the others. The police, the courts, the government all have the power to pervert in the name of personal gain, hence we as citizens are obligated to maintain an eye on them all.

While not as concerned about police misconduct as some, I do agree that power and authority tend to corrupt and that, therefore, the police forces must remain accountable to civilian and legal oversight and police behavior and methodology must, as much as practical, be transparent and open (that is, I recognize the need for undercover work, wire taps, etc but believe the use of such extreme methods must be controlled and the circumstances and allowable behaviors consistently understood both before and after the fact). As others have pointed out, most police (like most butchers, bakers and candlestick makers) are good folks trying to do their jobs, but, due to their authority and power, a few corrupt or immoral (or even evil) officers can do TREMENDOUS damage, not just to individuals but to confidence in the police. Much like the courts, the police can only do their job when they are seen as beholden only to the law and not to specific personal, political, social agenda. Still, despite the need for such oversight, I don't believe police generally to be an evil (not even a necessary one).

Does the United States citizenry need the Police?
The US citizens have several Polices, and they are doing nothing to remove them, replace them or pursue alternatives to them. Whether they need the Police or not is something they (we, unfortunately cuz I am part of the citizenry) must decide. So far, they/we haven't even openly debated or considered the proposition.

I personally do not want either the present "Polices", nor any that I can imagine, because I see them as less functional, less efficient and less a part of the body politic "of the rest of us citizens" than I wish. Cops studies reveal them to be primarily a relatively isolated (ie Cop's bars) sub-society, that is on the lower range of education and intelligence, is not well versed in our Constitution, is prone to appearances of elitism, as well as actual self beliefs of elitism, and has little knowledge of the realities of the average cititzen or his life, liberties and property.

They have also a propensity towards extreme individual social isolationism, and hold themselves above the very laws they claim to uphold. They practice a form of "job security" that catches a few of the less skilled lawless, maximizes the "self advertizement" of themselves and those "successes", with a net Darwinian result of selectively creating super-crooks while weeding out the sub-crooks. They also are prone to sociopathic traits and follow-the-leader-mindlessly phenomenon, e.g. (The Ice People, Psychology Today, Martha Stout, Jan 2005, and Hare's Psychopathic Check List-revised)). These are not the people to trust or care for liberty and justice systems. I wish it were otherwise; but, I can't make the "facts I find" say otherwise!!

I know Cops do not trust us or themselves, either '"before the law", or "within their own operations", as has been shown by analyses of Cop's cases studies, and videos of Cops actions during shootouts, arrests, busts, etc., or even benign info requests from the citizenry. Their "honesty and integrity" is questionable (relative to the job functionality needs at least), as there is a plethora of documented and known, but hushed up, Cops criminality.

And finally, the courts encourage this behavior by their actions. If you have ever been "framed/abused" by a cop, you will know well that before a judge you and your story are as nothing next to that of a cop. You can even be convicted without the arresting officer being present.

I don't think we "need" the present "Polices" we have nor anything like them. There may be a defensible argument (so far none has really been given for the Police, it is all quite ad hoc, or so my studies find) for Polices, but presently I prefer "citizen self policing" (The vigilants of eternal vigilance is the price of liberty types, not the Vigilantes of dime novels of old, which went a long way towards creating our "rule of law" citizenry "society". (Yes, here's nother sore point for me! Where did that term "rule of law"come from in the Const., Decln. of Indep., etc.?)

In the end we are supposedly to be judged by a jury of our peers (though of course as we well know that is in fact a fiction of our present system as it has been defined out of existence in most cases of interest). In the beginning, why not also be judged by citizens, our peers, and not let Cops be the effective lowest court/jury in the land. But even if we allow "them" as they are, who will guard these guards? So far no one does, that is not a vested stakeholder in the "legal system".

If you are truly a good Cop and I have offended you; please accept my apologies, my criticisms are not personal, but are aimed towards improving you and yours as well as us and ours.

Does the United States citizenry need the Police?

The question might as well be: does the United States citizenry need a government?

The police are the enforcement arm of the government. When the government makes a law, be it that you must pay taxes or you can't smoke in bars or you can only drive so fast or you can't kill someone, then somebody has to make sure that the law is followed. That is the job of the police. Without the police there is no government.

Take an example here in Ohio: Last November, Ohio voters passed a statewide smoking ban in bars and restaurants. Within the month, every bar had the mandatory "No Smoking" signs, including a toll free number to report offenders. Last night, after leaving a bar, my clothes were still saturated with the smell of smoke from others. Why is this? Well, to make a long story short--there is no penalty for violating the smoking ban. The referendum that passed did not include a fine. With no penalty, there is no compliance. Now imagine if they imposed a fine (let's say $1000 per infraction) but nobody enforced it. How much compliance would we have then? Maybe slightly more than now (in case somebody enforced it) but not much.

The police are simply the enforcement arm of government, just as the legislature is the law-making arm and the judiciary is the interpretation arm. Without all three functions, government does not work.

An extremely paranoid view there Barnaby! When you call 911 what happens? Do that say “can we come for your taxes” or “how can we intimidate you today” .


We need police and always will. Take a look at countries with corrupt police - like Latin America. Prefer that?


Their role is to enforce the laws we all agree to. In the UVA case IMO they should have gone deeper into the possibilities – specifically they should have considered the possibility the guy was still on campus. If they had done that and been present in force “looking around” 2 hours later our Korean friend may not have thought he could get away with chaining the doors shut on a building and then walking around shooting people.

Follow this scenario:

Cho leaves after the first shooting, goes to significantly arm himself with more ammo, chains, etc., and heads back to the school. Police everywhere, no-can-do. Cho turns right on around, leaves campus, heads to the nearest place where there are 30+ rich people in a room (I dunno, next available college campus, Lexus dealership,... be creative) and kills everyone there.

This would be the general journalistic response:

What? The cops were still at VT looking for him?!?! Even an idiot knows a guy isn't going to hang around within a mile of his own crime scene. Bumbling monkeys in blue strike again.


My point, of course, being that I believe a massacre would have been committed that day, no matter where it needed to be. Ever notice that we're always perfect in judgment the day after an incident about what the police should have done?

More relevant to this topic is what would have happened if there were no police at all? The guy would still be shooting. He killed himself when the police showed up.

Yes, the police are going to make mistakes. Sometimes they will arrest the wrong person, use excessive violence when arresting someone, railroad someone, any of 100 other possible offenses that can and do occur from time to time. The question is whether or not the fact that the police are human beings means we should terminate their useful function to society. The answer to that is clearly no.

Exactly! I would like for someone to explain to me how not having any police at all enhances our civil liberties. Keep in mind that while giving me that explanation, your house is probably being robbed, and at any point in the conversation I may get bored or irritated and shoot you -- and there wouldn't be much to be done about either situation. Things like the VT massacre would occur far more frequently..why not, there wouldn't be anybody doing anything about it? Gangs of thugs would rule the streets, anybody and everybody would just take what they wanted by force and intimidation. You'd be scared to do anything. In short...there would be NO civil liberties.

Man, maybe we do need tougher gun laws in Texas! If I got to shoot everyone who bored or irritated me on the internet... oh how the streets would flow with blood. streets would flow with blood? DANG! That's irritating
BOOYAH
*thud*

After thinking more, I've decided we do " want and need" the old style of "peace officer", but not the new styles of "police"! And that concept of "peace offer" only seemed to exist in the far southwest, so few have it in their background as a "model" of possible alternatives!

I love this line of thinking. Give a litany of transgressions that the police committ against society, then dismiss them entirely as a "necessary evil" because of an event that has occurred twice in the last ten years. Amazing of you to allow a low probability event to alter the way an entire society should live.

Amlord, your questioning is flawed as well. Suggesting a more relevant question being 'if there were no police at all' exposes that flaw. That question doesn't address the problem. Even more relevant than that would be, "What if Cho had a girlfriend?" or "What if Cho had a clique of friends?" or "What if gunmakers weren't allowed to sell automatic weapons to our citizens?" "What if single-shot revolvers and shot guns were the only guns our citizens could possess?" These are all far more relevant to Virginia Tech, and Columbine, than what if there were no police at all.

To Hobbes,
Why do you live in such fear? Your level of paranoia would make Chicken Little seem Zen-like.

I'm not one to say I told you so, but last weeks LAPD beatdown is just another example of how the PIGS impede free speech and are indeed an affront to our civil liberties. A peaceful protest turned into a riot or a rout, depending on how you view it, only when the police showed up to "keep the peace." This is not an exception to the rule, this is the standard we should come to expect. In a democracy, our voices, the voices of the people, need to be heard. In America, we don't have a democracy, we have public beatings for expressing our opinion. Everything about America is Orwellian.

barnaby2341, I don't usually say this, but your argument lacks any and all logic or reason. Your assertion that the LAPD's actions last week is the standard rather than the exception is completely false. I won't even bother asking for some facts to back up your argument because I know there isn't any. There are numerous cases where the police have abused their power, trampled civil liberties, and inflicted harm on innocent civilians. It has happened before and it will happen again. Policeman are human just like you and me and they make mistakes. But to call law enforcement as an institution an affront to our civil liberties is just plain false. Without a police force, many of our other liberties would be forfeited... a fact that you cannot simply gloss over. Without a way to enforce the law, there would be no purpose to law itself...and that would be anarchy. In an anarchic system, your liberties would be gone so fast that the next day you will want to know why someone didn't put a stop to it.

So unless you can explain a better alternative, a system where the laws can be enforced, then I really do not see how your argument is anything more than the rantings of a radical ideologue.

I agree- to a point. Some nations hold police forces and their powers in a completely different light, and don't necessarily have higher amounts or percentages of crime (i.e. Taiwan, arguably the UK, etc... which could be a debate in themselves).

However, what I will say is that there is a need for some form of policing. Human nature dictates that some people will steal, assault, etc other people. Does that mean that in the US that the police force should be so empowered? Consider that most of our Police have less than 60 college hours, often times couldn't find other jobs, are armed, and their words are taken in court as gospel.

I have an illustration, and embarrassingly enough, I'll tell you one of my stories. Years ago at Mardi Gras, I got into it with a 'mulletized redneck' (in the truest sense of the word). We exchanged words, he took a swing at me, and here came a local sheriff. The Sheriff literally knew the redneck's name... so they knew each other somehow. He told us to move on. Never did anything about the man trying to hit me. As he walked off, the redneck threw a beer can that hit my girlfriend (and now wife). I'd been drinking and snapped. I turned back and hit him so hard that the Sheriff (now probably 1/2 way back to the squad car) heard it. I got arrested. I took a witness to court, and long story short... the Sheriff said that no one ever told him that the other guy swung first, hit me my gf with a beer can, etc. I got a disturbing the peace charge + court costs. He out and out lied. I even had a witness. The judge acted as if she could care less. WHY? The testimony of a cop.

This happens in traffic court, in dealings with the public, etc every day. We all know that there are good police out there. I even have a couple of friends who are police officers. The issue is that in the US, in MANY cities, the police run rampant over average society.

In Dallas, TX, if I have words (but haven't broken the law) with a cop, and end up getting into a fight with a cop- who goes to jail? Both of us just like we were avg citizens? Nope. Just me.

Here are my suggestions:
1. Spend more money on police salaries. Enlist the best and brightest. At least make it like the military officers corps. Get better educated, harder working cops.
2. Have far more harsh penalties and guidelines for police being "physical" with suspects. (yeah, I've been roughed up and seen more than one incident involving other folks who weren't guilty of anything...)
3. Have citizen review boards for police actions that come under scrutiny. Make it like jury selection and make it a civic duty. Let the plumber, preacher, and gas station attendant in your neighborhood decide the fate of wanton police actions.

Right now, there are some sincere problems with the fact that police decide the fate of other police. That judges don't really ever see what happens to average America, as I know that at least in Louisiana if your name (or family's name) begins with Judge ______, tickets and all other legal matters don't apply.

Right now there are some sincere issues with the fact that there are Police (I know one) that couldn't make the US Army's requirements who can work for Dallas PD.

Right now there is a real problem with the idea that a cop can pull me over this morning, throw me against the car, detain me, rough me up, and then set me free with no recourse.

lederuvdapac, you know there aren't any facts because the fact keepers are the police and government. Of course they are not going to keep statistics that represent their institutions in a barbaric manner. The police are going to show that they are the heroes of our society and the only thing standing in the way between harmony and utter chaos. Of course these are lies that only brainwashed citizens like you are going to believe. I prefer to use my eyes, ears, and judgement as opposed to letting someone tell me how I am supposed to think.

I hear this false argument all the time, "The police are human" or "There are more good cops than bad." Well if there are, let me hear a good cop story. Please tell me a time when the police did something positive.

This is my favorite statement of yoursA fact? LOL, no, sorry, that's an opinion. Yours. Not mine. Why would our liberties be forfeited? Explain how that would happen? Why are you so certain of this that you call it a fact?

You also don't understand law. Because you believe the nonsense you read in your textbooks. The way I understand the law is, if you break the law, there is a consequence. But in reality, you can break the law if you have two things, power and money. Bush has broken the law numerous times, he's not in jail. Clinton lied to a grand jury, he walks free, Lil' Kim, same crime, different outcome. Reagan broke the law with Iran-Contra, no jail time, no fine. Nixon broke the law, no jail time, no fine. Mark Foley did essentially the same thing as the pedophiles on Dateline, is he in jail? Nope. Are the schmucks on Dateline? Yes they are. The police kill people and beat people all the time, no jail time, no fine. Why is this? Because these people have power.

And finally, I would like to give you the anarchists definition of anarchy.This of course, requires a more intelligent society. I know that right now, anarchy is not possible. I am reminded of this everytime I walk into Wal-Mart. Yet, the police take tax dollars away from our schools. Consider that our teachers have a chalkboard, and maybe an overhead projector; compare that to what the cops have. Now I ask you, does your government, by its actions, seem more interested in educating you, or imprisoning you?

So is there no way to measure the level of police misconduct? No instrument by which the people can find out the abuses of power by law enforcement? What about ACLU? Or the mainstream media? Are these mediums silent on the subject of police action? Let's be serious for a little bit here.



What's the point? You are obviously convinced that the police have never done anything right. Even if they have caught bank robbers, murderers, put child molesters behind bars, and protect the citizenry from armed gunmen. Without a way to enforce the law, the law itself becomes nothing. That means we would have streets where murderers and rapists roam free...how would you rectify that without a police force?



To reiterate, without law enforcement, there is no law. That means any and all of the legal protections that i may have against others will be forfeited. People can rape, murder, and pillage with no legal consequences because there will be nobody to enforce the fact that it is wrong.



Save your gripes for the blog. Whining about power and money is not a constructive arguments towards why the police are not needed. Just as there are examples of people in power dodging the bullet, there are examples of people in power going down. So spare me.

Unless you can explain to me how the law can be enforced without a law enforcement agency, your argument is baseless.

This is illogical. You've claimed that we spend X amount of money to catch 1% of the population because 1% of our population is in jail...We're not spending money to catch those people, we're spending money to catch criminals who have not yet been incarcerated. The truth is that we don't know how many criminals there are in the United States because crimes go unsolved and unreported.

As for the question itself:
Of course we need police, as Leder put it, without law enforcement, laws are meaningless suggestions. Without law enforcement their would be chaos and anarchy which would result in a loss of civil liberties, not a gain.
Failures of the justice system/courts, not the police, Barnaby. There is zero connection to this entire rant and the topic at hand.

There is no real alternative to a police force, and as a result, no logical argument for the complete elimination of the police force in this country.

CP

Illogical? Because you misstate my reasons ConservPat. My claim is not that we spend X to catch 1%. My claim is that the police do not protect us. They control us. They fear us into giving up our freedoms with the lie that without them, society would be chaos. If you are going to make a counter-argument, be kind enough to figure out what my original argument is in the first place. The reason I bring up the budget is because it shows where the government emphasis is. Through experience, we now know that poverty and crime are directly related, and so is poverty and education. The more educated you are the more money you make. If you make more money, you don't committ crimes. The common solution would be....... increase education. Instead, our government increases police powers. Conclusion: the government isn't serious about stopping crime, it's all a lie to get our tax dollars to go where the rich and powerful can benefit most.

I have a problem with the language you use. I was not ranting in my statement. I made a list of cases where the law was broken by people with power and money to prove with empirical evidence that we are an oppressive controlling society not a democracy, not a society of laws, but a society of lies. The police are the protectors of power, an affront to our civil liberties. This is the point of the entire thread. Do not try to present me as an out-of-control nut job. I had no exclamation points or capitalized statements in the post you responded to, nor were there any calls for violence, which is what a rant is, get a dictionary if you aren't sure. I stated calmly and clearly that this so-called society of laws that you claim we are is pure hogwash.

The alternative is in how they carry out their duties. How they treat the people they are supposed to be protecting. Take the Immigration Beat Down rally for example. The Mexicans and Mexican-Americans gathered together to express a united message regarding their position on our country's immigration policy. They were acting with authority expressly given to them in the first Amendment, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, you know, the Laws of our Land. The police, the enforcers of that Law, took away their right to assemble and their speech privileges. This is what the cops do. You are going to suggest that this is an isolated incident, but it is not isolated or an anomoly. It is normal operating procedure. I would argue that the police did not even need to show up. Gathering in a crowd is not a crime, nor a cause for concern. Why couldn't they just sit back and allow people to exercise their Constitutional rights? I'll tell you why, because cops aren't here to protect us, they are their to control us.

The police do protect us and catch about 10- 15% of offenders and deter many more. And you can bet that without police the criminals would be prowling the more middle class and upscale neighborhoods of this country.

As far as education I agree with you. More education = more money and we need to do better – but as you blame the “government” realize that education spending is very “local”. Only 12% of education funding is from the Federal Government and it should be more but this is not the “cause” of crime. Many kids, esp. those from single parent homes are disruptive and violent in school (and out). They ruin it for many others.


In addition you need to realize that there is virtually no correlation between spending on schools and results.




In what way? Do you have a problem with the “laws” or the people who try to enforce them?






And what exactly did the police do? Did the demonstrators break the law? Certainly there is more to the story than that.

Barnaby, in your first sentence you say you didn't bring up money and in the last sentence you begin to explain to me why you brought up the budget...I wasn't mistating anything, here are your own words:No mistating there.
How can you possibly say that "if you make more money you don't commit crimes?" Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, etc. etc. etc. What you're saying here is just untrue.
First of all, you'd be hard pressed to get a libertarian to call anyone a "nutjob". Second of all, I'm quite familiar with the word 'rant' and it's definition, and based on what you've said about the "schmucks on Dateline" and how you detailed only the those without power being jailed as if no one with power has faced justice, I stand by calling that particular portion of your argument a rant, as it was very "extravagent", which by definition, is the key component of a rant...But if you don't want me to use the word, fine, it really isn't important. What is relevant is that you've cherry-picked examples of the powerful seemingly not paying for their crimes, my point is that that had nothing to do with our police force and everything to do with the justice system/courts.
There are few things in a debate that really bother me. The main one is when someone is arrogant enough to tell me what I'm going to say, please don't do that. I'm perfectly aware that that was not an isolated occurence. I would like to see a link detailing the protest with pictures if possible, without knowing anything about it, I cannot comment about it.
To a certain extent, yes. Again, I'm going to have to see an article/pictures of this demonstration in order for me to comment on it further.

CP