Role of Police (1 Viewer)

[Enlightened_One]

The way in which certain areas in America have degenerated into zones where the police will not enter without considerable back up is something that is very possible in Australia. There have been instances of police deferring to thugs and, just before the retaliation riots, of standing down and thus allowing them to happen.
It's also a reflection of the lack of respect of police. Nowadays, and rather annoyingly agreed to by Justice Pat O'Shane, police can be insulted or abused and are powerless to do anything about it. Whilst it is not exactly the best policy I am rather reminded of something my old man told me about how if you insulted copper when he was my age you'd get knocked down. That might be a little harsh, but there needs to be some way of enabling police to not have to stand for the shit they do.

 

[transcendent]

oh, i'm all for getting rid of weapons and drugs. traffic offenses on the other hand are another thing. high police presence, no problem, just keep them 100 feet away. allow them to deter crime, great work. have them be trusted by the community, even better, that way people are more likely to turn to them. pulling me over because my dad put the L's on to partially obscure the number plate when i had no previous offense and breathtesting me AND my dad gives me the opinion that police are thugs out to get anyone they don't like. pulling my dad over because they THOUGHT he was on the phone? no, nadda, don't trust them. i've been brought up to remain suspicious of everyone's intentions, most of all authority figures and those in power. underhanded tactics like an undercover cop tailgating someone to speed up and hoping to pull them over. sorry, but police, i don't trust them. never will. then again, i only follow rules when they are convenient. people have to respect police, but police have to be held accountable for their actions.

 

[The Brucemaster]

oh, i'm all for getting rid of weapons and drugs. traffic offenses on the other hand are another thing. high police presence, no problem, just keep them 100 feet away. allow them to deter crime, great work. have them be trusted by the community, even better, that way people are more likely to turn to them

Excellent observation yet:

pulling me over because my dad put the L's on to partially obscure the number plate when i had no previous offense and breathtesting me AND my dad gives me the opinion that police are thugs out to get anyone they don't like

You first of all have to realise that obscuring your number plate is an offence for a reason -> it aids criminal behaviour. It may seem trivial and yes in most cases it is trivial but what if its bein done for a reason i.e. to prevent police from identifying the owner of a vehicle? Which brings me to my second point.
If your number plate is obscured, even partially, police are unable to run a background check thus they dont know if you have any previous offences.
As to 'getting people they don't like' i hardly think that if the police dont know you at all they can be said to not like you in the first place.

pulling my dad over because they THOUGHT he was on the phone? no, nadda, don't trust them.

I can understand what you mean here, but you have to see it from the police perspective, even if they THINK someone's driving with their phone its better for them to be safe and check then to let it go and find out later that day that the driver was killed in a motor vehicle accident.

underhanded tactics like an undercover cop tailgating someone to speed up and hoping to pull them over.

Perfectly understandable, completely agree.

sorry, but police, i don't trust them. never will. then again, i only follow rules when they are convenient. people have to respect police, but police have to be held accountable for their actions.

I fail to see how you can blame the police for enforcing the rules when you only obey the rules that are convenient to you. This kind of attitude gives me the fucken shits. If you dont respect the law itself then you cannot expect to receive respect from those who enforce it.
You then go on to say people have to respect the police at the end of a post detailing your lack of faith in and criticisms of the police force. Im quite happy for you to criticise them, thats fair enough if you've got something to support it but to then turn around and say "oh, but they have to be respected" is just bullshit.
Finally, yeah, sure, police have to be accountable but it certainly shouldnt be to the citizens who generally have no idea of the principles of law enforcement.

 

[transcendent]

I perfectly understand how the law works. I speak on behalf of those that do. But to me, just one person, no, don't like rules when they are an inconvenience. Also I only brought up the L plate thing because I've had no previous offenses and got fined when people speeding excessively or not having a licence and getting off scott free with just a warning? I hate the police for that. Also it was like they were trying to FIND more reasons to fine me with. Once they were done they went over to unbrokens with a U-turn and went completely the other way as if it snub me and say I pulled you over for fun or that I don't like you. I'm not saying all police are bad, but that's not the point. Point is they keep their distance and I wont decide to go on a killing spree when I'm 50 cause I'm definately not dying of old age.

 

[Jonathan A]

This is an excellent question. I have quite a fair bit of thoughts on policing, given my degree and research interests.

The word "Police" means civil organisation. It primarily infers a group aimed to serve the community. However, we also have in our police the "Constable". The Constable is sworn in to uphold Her Majesty's Law and Order and is empowered to use force (to the extent others don't) to achieve this. The Constable is a very old title, dating back to I think the 1600s.

The Modern Police was developed through the English London Metropolitain Police Act 1829 (UK) where Sir Robert Peet (hence "Bobby") noted in his Force Instructions, that police should aim to prevent and deter rather than punish. This of course was proving not to be entirely effective as offenders were escaping police. Parliament responded with the Ways and Means Act which gave police other functions and has seen a shift into a "Force". Policing in England is very interesting. We have two Police Forces in London: London Met and City of London Police. Reason: the City of London, made up of the wealthy people at the time, did not like the idea of police and so Parliament only established a police force for its outskirts.

Crime Prevention in policing is quite a new function, although most policing is reactive. There is a great deal of literature on police being taking the "fire-brigade" response - that is rushing to crime after. Then again, there is literatue by Bittner that suggests that most policing is not law enforcement - e.g. Traffic Duties. Having said this, police would probably like to do more criminal law related duties because it is generally seen as providing them with upward mobility.

 

[The Brucemaster]

I perfectly understand how the law works. I speak on behalf of those that do. But to me, just one person, no, don't like rules when they are an inconvenience.

Yeah neither do I. I don't like a lot of things actually but I learn to deal with it.

Also I only brought up the L plate thing because I've had no previous offenses and got fined when people speeding excessively or not having a licence and getting off scott free with just a warning? I hate the police for that.

OK as a football referee with a fair bit of experience i get the exact same excuse all the time (different context obviously but same idea). So im going to tell you exactly what I and in fact most other officials will tell you: I don't give a monkeys what you think someone else did, that doesn't excuse the fact that you disobeyed the law.

Also it was like they were trying to FIND more reasons to fine me with. Once they were done they went over to unbrokens with a U-turn and went completely the other way as if it snub me and say I pulled you over for fun or that I don't like you.

So because the cops chucked a U-turn after they dealt with you that means they're out to get you. Interesting logic.

I'm not saying all police are bad, but that's not the point. Point is they keep their distance and I wont decide to go on a killing spree when I'm 50 cause I'm definately not dying of old age.

Yeah well by the time that happens ill be a homicide detective so I'll know where to come when I'm looking for suspects.

Seriously though, the lesson here is that even if you think they're wrong the cops don't care, for the most part but if you're polite and courteous with them and even nice to them then they're far more likely to treat you with a bit of respect. You are by no means the first or the last person they are going to deal with. You are most probably the 100th or even 1000th young driver they've had to deal with and nearly all of them are rude and beligerent so if you just treat them with a bit of respect then you might find them a whole lot more accommodating.

 

[Jonathan A]

oh, i'm all for getting rid of weapons and drugs. traffic offenses on the other hand are another thing. high police presence, no problem, just keep them 100 feet away. allow them to deter crime, great work. have them be trusted by the community, even better, that way people are more likely to turn to them. pulling me over because my dad put the L's on to partially obscure the number plate when i had no previous offense and breathtesting me AND my dad gives me the opinion that police are thugs out to get anyone they don't like. pulling my dad over because they THOUGHT he was on the phone? no, nadda, don't trust them. i've been brought up to remain suspicious of everyone's intentions, most of all authority figures and those in power. underhanded tactics like an undercover cop tailgating someone to speed up and hoping to pull them over. sorry, but police, i don't trust them. never will. then again, i only follow rules when they are convenient. people have to respect police, but police have to be held accountable for their actions.

Interesing thing about the L's... My father told me how to put them on properly, him being a commanding officer in the Highway Patrol. The problem I have when people criticise police is that they don't realise who really is breaking the law. It's not police. transcendent, you committed a criminal offence and like every other person, you would be liable to it. If you don't like the decision, then you should challenge it. But people never talk about it, because they don't like going to court and hearing a magistrate tell them, again, they were in the wrong.

As for the undercover cop. I am not sure how much you make up, Undercover police (as in detectives) do not deal with traffic matters. They are not trained and if you have a good lawyer, you could probably get off the matter. THe Highway Patrol are trained to deal with motor offences. And when it goes to court, the officer will generally show the court they are specialised in estimating speed and operating hi-tech equipment that was used to detect the driver - and its almost always accurate. You don't trust police because you were on the wrong side of the law. That's no reason not to like them. Perhaps thats an indication more needs to be done to remove the us-them approach to law enforcement.

 

[Jonathan A]

As for the U-turn. Double-check your road laws. Apparently the new rules do not prohibit crossing the double-white lines for a U-turn where there is no traffic (have to double-check). Besides, in this case, it was police officer in the execution of their duty to apprehend a person who broke the law and the officer has the right to do so.

 

[wheredanton]

The Evidence Act, LEPRA and the like all require a fair degree of understanding and a fair element of professionalism to ensure that that understanding is not just rudimentary but in-depth and knowledgeble. The problem is that all these measures are targetted at reactive areas of policing such as investigative procedures, and the obtaining of evidence, hence promoting such responses by the force itself. The original role of the police was a preventative one; a role which has now been eroded to an extent. Or have the dynamics of society made this task too difficult..

I hope you don't think we should go back to the good old days when police were 'proactive' in 'preventative' work. I don't think anyone whould ever want any police force to go back to the third world status of corruption that existed during the 70s and 80s...

 

[_dhj_]

Interesing thing about the L's... My father told me how to put them on properly, him being a commanding officer in the Highway Patrol. The problem I have when people criticise police is that they don't realise who really is breaking the law. It's not police. transcendent, you committed a criminal offence and like every other person, you would be liable to it. If you don't like the decision, then you should challenge it. But people never talk about it, because they don't like going to court and hearing a magistrate tell them, again, they were in the wrong.

I think it's because people can't be bothered to go to the courts. The courts may well find police in the wrong (and they sometimes do).

 

[wheredanton]

Someone once said:
" we are a sad, uncivil and unethical society if the only reason people do not rape, pillage and murder is because there is a law against those deeds"
And how true it is...

I could talk about Emile Durkheim, but that would make me an elitist, pointy headed, intellectual, windbag that you wouldn't listen to anyways

In any case don't you think that quote is vaguely socialist?

 

[xeuyrawp]

One of my lecturers said that in the late '80s, there was some name change of Police Force to Police Service in a move away from the police being presented as coercive force. *shrugs*

 

[goldendawn]

Change of nomenclature can make it sound more like a euphemism and even more twisted, lol. Like in "A Handmaids Tale", the secret service are called something like "The Eyes of God", and the army are called "Angels".

 

[frog12986]

One of my lecturers said that in the late '80s, there was some name change of Police Force to Police Service in a move away from the police being presented as coercive force. *shrugs*

Commissioner John Avery instigated that name change. Fundamentally, he believed that policing should not be identified as a force against the community but rather a service utilised for the good of the persons within it. Moreover, he also identified that the role of police was becoming much more extensive and incorporated 'social welfare' roles which inadvertently required a broadening of the scope of the police name..

Now it is just known as the NSW Police..

 

[leetom]

The role of the police should be making full use of their discretionary powers when it comes to issuing innocent 18-year-old commuters with train fines.

Really, how in fuck am I supposed to pay a two hundred dollar fine?

 

[frog12986]

The role of the police should be making full use of their discretionary powers when it comes to issuing innocent 18-year-old commuters with train fines.

Really, how in fuck am I supposed to pay a two hundred dollar fine?

If you are issued a parking fine for parking illegally, the inspector will not make an effort to clarify the age of the driver/s when issuing the fine. The same principle applies. If the police were to use such discretionary advice in every case of fare evasion, which tends to occur in the younger age groups, then that would really remove the purpose of the law..

..I guess that fine will make the cost of the fare seem more attractive in the future...

If of course that was the reason for the fine..

 

[gerhard]

The role of the police should be making full use of their discretionary powers when it comes to issuing innocent 18-year-old commuters with train fines.

Really, how in fuck am I supposed to pay a two hundred dollar fine?

did you get this for not having your student card with you? send them a nice letter with your student card, and your fine photocopied and letter of enrolment and all that and you can hopefully get out of it.

this happened to me 27 days ago. the guy was a wanker, i showed him last years student card, my international student card, (valid til 2007), and my books and everything, but not good enough. told me i had 21 days to pay the $200 fine, and if i didnt,I would get a letter in the post giving me another 21 days. I sent a letter, never got a reply about it, but havent recieved the second notice, so hopefully they let me off...

 

[The Brucemaster]

In any case don't you think that quote is vaguely socialist?

Apart from the fact that the quote happens to be extremely sound in its comment on human nature i fail to see how it is first of all socialist and second how the fact that it is allegedly socialist has any relevance.

However, on the matter at hand, leetom you say you are an innocent 18 year old and should, therefore, be treated with discretion by the police.
Well first of all if you are being given a fine its for a reason: you've broken the law. As such you are not innocent at all.
Second, for a policeman to treat someone with discretion based on their age is called discrimination, which is in fact illegal. Your age is irrelevant unless you are a minor, which at 18 you most certainly aren't.

 

[Jonathan A]

One of my lecturers said that in the late '80s, there was some name change of Police Force to Police Service in a move away from the police being presented as coercive force. *shrugs*

As frog notes, the name was changed to Police Service. A Service means identifying with community expectation generally. However Michael Costa, when Police Minister, went back to Police Force. The official name is "NSW Police".

 

[frog12986]

Well, as of today, it has been renamed the NSW Police Force..