Users always hate Police yet....

[snowsie1221]

So... Swim doesn't think that swim is guessing when swim says that majority of drug users hate police officers. For numerous reasons. Police are the ones enforcing the laws... they are arresting swiy for having that stash under your car seat. Yet these officers are not the ones to blame. In highschool I cannot imagine they were the kids who always did what they were told, and made straight A's... if they did wouldn't they be some doctor instead of a cop making 30 grand a year? So if swiu could travel back in time and see who all these officers were in their younger years swim thinks that there would be a different view on all this. Swim is bringing this up because there is a police officer on here that whenever he posts it seems he is attacked just because of his occupation. No matter what a poster does for a living shouldn't swiu take their advice on some level, especially that of a cop... he is giving swiu an inside view here.

[allyourbase]

speak for yourself. dont go on these idiotic tireades saying all people who use drugs hate police officers. its just not true. all users hate drug laws, that one might fly, but I have met people who put to bed even THAT assumption. police officers are american citizens, and painting them as being another social class in american society rather than what they are, normal american citizens, fuels the very type of close minded thinking that would make you come up with "all users hate police". police officers are just people, trying to do a job, a pretty hard job at that and with recent laws taking away, not just ours, but their rights as well, its important not to obfuscate their being normal folks with their own opinions - it will be far easier for police officers to follow unconstitutional, and unlawful orders from their superiors if this type of dehumanization doesnt stop on both sides of the drug arguement.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well said

[Each Hit]

he never said "all users hate police," he said he thinks that a majority of users hate police. honestly, i might agree with that. and he said instead of treating police officers as police officers, we should treat them as people and consider how they got to where they are (though i would never take the advice of a cop - conflict of interest and all). isn't that exactly the opposite of dehumanization??

[manda]

I think with police, there are good and bad, just like all of humanity.
No attention is the best attention from them, though.

[fnord]

swim hates most cops,hes sure there are some good ones he just hasent met them,swims soon to bewife when she was 17 was maced and left in a jail cell hog tied for 5 hours,her mother was raped 10 years ago by cops,swims good friend had her breest squeezed hard enuf to leave visible finger bruises(pics were takein froma registerd nurse several witness reports were written up by caseworkers at a local center for homeless youths,a suit is in the works),swim had his head smashed off a crusier only for refusing to put out a cigarette he was smoking on a SIDEWALK of all places,the cop stoped swim to ask why he was cutting thru an alleyway that would of saved him a 5 min walk,no criminal activity involved,swim had a dreadlock cut off his head while being held down by several guards in a county jail for no reason besides swim was an asshole.and most cops(not all)have power/control issues,this is part of their job they have to try to intimidate/control those they talk to.swim has no respect for anyone that makes a living of lying/deceiving others.theres been many instances where swim has been told "no your not free to go im still talking to you"when swim has had every right to walk away and go about his business,sometimes when he trys, he gets handcuffed unlawfully.swims front door has a big sticker that says"COMMUNITY WATCH AREA:trust respect and communication are essential to a healthy community,protect your friends and neighbors from uniformed gang members and other unwanted suspicious carictors.POLICE NOT WELCOME!!"once again swims sure there are honest/good cops out there he just hasent met any that havent treated him like shit.maybe if more cops acted more like human beings so many people wouldent hate them? ...sorry about the chat manda i was distracted by this!

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good underpin of the pigs' brutality

[sunyata]

Originally Posted by snowsie1221

So if swiu could travel back in time and see who all these officers were in their younger years swim thinks that there would be a different view on all this.

Why? I don't think anyone on this side of the law has ever assumed that cops are straight A students. And why should it matter who they were, it's who they are now that matters.
Does the fact that Heinrich Himmler was a pig-farmer in any way excuse him for becoming the head of Waffen SS?

I'm not saying that the police are nazi's or that I hate them, but if I did hate them(for being cops) why should their background be relevant?

And I think PO got a relatively fair treatment in this forum.

[fnord]

im pretty sure flaming someone just for being a cop would not be tolerated at all.as much as swim dosent like cops, he would give bad rep to anyone that did that for no reason,everyone should have a voice,that includes,LE.if we ever want to break the barrier in between us and them then it has to be thru intelligent peaceful communications.

[manda]

Sorry about what happened to your fiance and those others. How awful!

[fnord]

the police in the town where 2 of those things happend have had a department of justice review for some of thre actions:

this was cut/pasted to conserve room nothing was changed that should impact the document:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
As you know, the Civil Rights Division is conducting a
pattern or practice investigation of the Portland Police
Department, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
I. USE OF FORCE POLICY
• The PPD should revise its policies to clarify actions that
constitute a use of force and to ensure that deadly force is
only used in appropriate circumstances.



there is no central
section that specifically describes the types of actions that can
constitute force. In addition, the sections that discuss officer
responses fail to mention uses of force such as takedowns and the
pointing of a weapon at someone by an officer (even though
“direct[ing] and aim[ing]” a firearm is listed as a reportable
use of control elsewhere in the SOPs). Because PPD officers
should be fully informed of the actions that may constitute a use
of force, we recommend that the PPD’s use of force policy include
a provision that provides clear examples of the types of actions
that may be considered force, including physical force. These
examples should include actions such as takedowns and firearm
brandishing. In addition, we recommend that PPD’s use of force
policy identify any uses of force that are prohibited or
restricted to limited circumstances (e.g., choke holds).


blah blah blah nothing too interesting,the review was requested after the mayor continued to recieve complaint about police targeting/abuse homeless people,several incidents of abuse of nonviolent protestors,unlawfull use of force,etc sadly nothing really changed from swims point of view.

editpps sorry for going so far offtopic!

[senorsalvia]

Speaking of cops; I had an occasion just last evening to be in close proximity to a working officer.... I was sitting in a local park talking to a friend when I had a 'run in with the law'... The cop got out of an unmarked car less than 20 ft from whee I was sitting drinking a beer... Yeah, I was in the wrong... After the cop confiscated my brew, the first remark out of his mouth was "you got a reciept or sales slip for that bike??" Now, I gotta tell 'ya, I was a bit thrown by that remark.... I answered, No, I've had the bike like a year and a half and don't carry around 18months of fucking reciept with me every day... He told me to 'assume the position' and that he was gonna cuff me and take me to jail for open container violation... I tossed the key to my bike lock to my friend and told him to hold the bike as I was going to jail... I then turned to the cop and asked him if he had a reciept for that wedding ring he was wearing..... "HUH?" he said... "How about for those shoes you got on your feet?" then, I turned my back to the cop and told him to get on with the 'cuff and stuff', so I could get booked in, go to TV court, get released, and still make it to work by 5:30AM like I had been planning..... The cop looked at me funny and spoke sorta quietly.... "Yeah, guess I had no right to ask you about your bike huh"???? He shook his head and handed me a form to sign, giving me a notice to appear instead of taking me to jail..... Personally, I don't have a problem with cops per se, but I flat out refuse to be talked down to nor treated in a less than civil way by law enforcement... Sometimes I've had my head bashed in by cops, sometimes you can actually get 'em to stop for a moment and reconsider... I myself have a real problem when I am confronted by an officer that exhibits rude, condescending, or demeaning and sensless behavior and I have no hesitation in calling them on it.... What the fuck.... Those people are supposed to be 'public servants, not some fascist occupational bully force.... If a cop can't operate within the realm of civilized norms, then he or she has no fucking business wearing the uniform, and no business siphoning a pay check outta the public trough.......................... sal

Reputation Comments on this post:

Very True

[fnord]

Personally, I don't have a problem with cops per se, but I flat out refuse to be talked down to nor treated in a less than civil way by law enforcement... Sometimes I've had my head bashed in by cops, sometimes you can actually get 'em to stop for a moment and reconsider... I myself have a real problem when I am confronted by an officer that exhibits rude, condescending, or demeaning and sensless behavior and I have no hesitation in calling them on it.... What the fuck.... Those people are supposed to be 'public servants, not some fascist occupational bully force.... If a cop can't operate within the realm of civilized norms, then he or she has no fucking business wearing the uniform, and no business siphoning a pay check outta the public trough......................

this is where 99% of the non drugwar related cop haters come from,polices inability to act as civilized human beings,as to your bike this is a common tactic in swims aformentioned town.ok so it heavy item pickup time when people are allowed to throw out boxes of crap and fruniture and the city goes around and picks it up for free,swim went around and ripped useful parts out of junk computers,while doing this swim also found a car battery and a plug in car back massager swim got an idea why not combine the two!splice the cord into the battery and have a massager for his lawn chair?so hes carying the battery home when a cop stops and says the same thing:do you have proof thats not stolen?so simw lost his entire backpack full of comp junk car battery and lovely back massager..swims friend once lost a laptop while sitting in a public park,for not haveing proof it was his and being a person the city cops knew was a thief/drug users.while the laptop wasent his it was never reported stolen and the cops had no reason to belive it wasent his.how about same good storys about cops so this thread isnt so one sided?swim once saw a cop arrest a man that was beating his wife/girlfriend in public,swim once saw a cop giveing a persons car a jump start.well thats about it

[rod]

When someone is about to be robbed who do they think of 1st.

Reputation Comments on this post:

the person holding the gun to thier head

[x cynic x]

The majority of police officers are brutal, inconsiderate barbarians. They are supposed to protect our citizens, not try to pin charges on them to make some stupid fucking quota. Theres no reason for trying to be an egoistic asshole and arresting kids for being young and innocent. Why not educate our youth about drugs, instead of put them under criminal charges. Swim has had some bad experiences in his past. Yes, there may be a few nice cops that can relate to using certain drugs and they may take it easy on you, but the majority of them are highly ignorant and unprincipled.

[brighteyes88]

most cops swim has met have been pretty reasonable, maybe its different in south africa, but they often let swim off for minor stuff just ask him to wash his car once or twice, with weed, and with harder stuff just takes it (haha)
and leaves him alone. seeing as swim takes most of his stuff as soon as he gets it, theres not much loss. they have better things to do. drug laws are the problem. cops just have to do their job.

[baudmax]

Originally Posted by rod

When someone is about to be robbed who do they think of 1st.

Yeah well if you've got any dope in your home or your car, it just might be the Police robbing you via civil asset forfeiture. Who ya gonna call, THEN? (the lawyer, likely, if they haven't seized your bank accounts)

The indiscriminate criminalization of inanimate objects such as drugs is counterproductive. If someone's behavior is out of control , it's fair enough to punish them and protect the community at large from such specific instances of criminal behavior (including drug-induced behavior that is a threat or nuisance to others). But to punish all alike, in an often draconian manner, for simple possession, even in usual cases where their behavior is a threat to nobody is inherently unjust. To punish someone for merely exploring their consciousness, or trying to 'gno' the divine, in peaceable, nondisruptive ways is a hostile aggression by the state against inidividuals who have otherwise caused no other infraction but to have disobeyed an essentially arbitrary rule (arbitrary, because if they are doing so without harming others, the law itself is arbitrary because it is not protecting anybody from anything, as well as discriminatroy if it punishes some alterations of consciousness, but not others, ie alcohol intoxication). To punish someone for what they might do (but haven't, didn't, don't and won't) is pre-emptive law. Punishing people for presumed imaginary crimes, that have not been committed, in fact! Historically, a legal concept that was very popular with the Nazis.

That's why a lot of people, and many users in particular, hate police. If their role was more limited to actually serving and protecting people, their effectiveness in the community would be much greater (and communities safer), as their efforts would be appreciated more as a benefit than a detriment. On the basis of the "justness" of the laws they actively enforce, so different depts of law enforcement earn different levels of respect and gratitude from the public (or, respectively, notoriety, distrust, and hostility). Say, officers and detectives who pursue justice on behalf of persons actively victimized... the investigators of crimes of murder, assault, and theft then usually have much higher respect, than narcs. There's quite often a large contrast in the integrity of persons who gravitate towards different aspects of law enforcment, in that sense, also linked to whether or not their activites are considered to be assistive to the fair ministry of order and justice in society on the one hand, or predatory on the other.

Peace and Divinity
Love is the Law

Baudeaux Machs

[x cynic x]

Originally Posted by baudmax

Yeah well if you've got any dope in your home or your car, it just might be the Police robbing you via civil asset forfeiture. Who ya gonna call, THEN? (the lawyer, likely, if they haven't seized your bank accounts)

The indiscriminate criminalization of inanimate objects such as drugs is counterproductive. If someone's behavior is out of control , it's fair enough to punish them and protect the community at large from such specific instances of criminal behavior (including drug-induced behavior that is a threat or nuisance to others). But to punish all alike, in an often draconian manner, for simple possession, even in usual cases where their behavior is a threat to nobody is inherently unjust. To punish someone for merely exploring their consciousness, or trying to 'gno' the divine, in peaceable, nondisruptive ways is a hostile aggression by the state against inidividuals who have otherwise caused no other infraction but to have disobeyed an essentially arbitrary rule (arbitrary, because if they are doing so without harming others, the law itself is arbitrary because it is not protecting anybody from anything, as well as discriminatroy if it punishes some alterations of consciousness, but not others, ie alcohol intoxication). To punish someone for what they might do (but haven't, didn't, don't and won't) is pre-emptive law. Punishing people for presumed imaginary crimes, that have not been committed, in fact! Historically, a legal concept that was very popular with the Nazis.

That's why a lot of people, and many users in particular, hate police. If their role was more limited to actually serving and protecting people, their effectiveness in the community would be much greater (and communities safer), as their efforts would be appreciated more as a benefit than a detriment. On the basis of the "justness" of the laws they actively enforce, so different depts of law enforcement earn different levels of respect and gratitude from the public (or, respectively, notoriety, distrust, and hostility). Say, officers and detectives who pursue justice on behalf of persons actively victimized... the investigators of crimes of murder, assault, and theft then usually have much higher respect, than narcs. There's quite often a large contrast in the integrity of persons who gravitate towards different aspects of law enforcment, in that sense, also linked to whether or not their activites are considered to be assistive to the fair ministry of order and justice in society on the one hand, or predatory on the other.

Peace and Divinity
Love is the Law

Baudeaux Machs

Well said.

[brighteyes88]

Originally Posted by baudmax

Yeah well if you've got any dope in your home or your car, it just might be the Police robbing you via civil asset forfeiture. Who ya gonna call, THEN? (the lawyer, likely, if they haven't seized your bank accounts)

The indiscriminate criminalization of inanimate objects such as drugs is counterproductive. If someone's behavior is out of control , it's fair enough to punish them and protect the community at large from such specific instances of criminal behavior (including drug-induced behavior that is a threat or nuisance to others). But to punish all alike, in an often draconian manner, for simple possession, even in usual cases where their behavior is a threat to nobody is inherently unjust. To punish someone for merely exploring their consciousness, or trying to 'gno' the divine, in peaceable, nondisruptive ways is a hostile aggression by the state against inidividuals who have otherwise caused no other infraction but to have disobeyed an essentially arbitrary rule (arbitrary, because if they are doing so without harming others, the law itself is arbitrary because it is not protecting anybody from anything, as well as discriminatroy if it punishes some alterations of consciousness, but not others, ie alcohol intoxication). To punish someone for what they might do (but haven't, didn't, don't and won't) is pre-emptive law. Punishing people for presumed imaginary crimes, that have not been committed, in fact! Historically, a legal concept that was very popular with the Nazis.

That's why a lot of people, and many users in particular, hate police. If their role was more limited to actually serving and protecting people, their effectiveness in the community would be much greater (and communities safer), as their efforts would be appreciated more as a benefit than a detriment. On the basis of the "justness" of the laws they actively enforce, so different depts of law enforcement earn different levels of respect and gratitude from the public (or, respectively, notoriety, distrust, and hostility). Say, officers and detectives who pursue justice on behalf of persons actively victimized... the investigators of crimes of murder, assault, and theft then usually have much higher respect, than narcs. There's quite often a large contrast in the integrity of persons who gravitate towards different aspects of law enforcment, in that sense, also linked to whether or not their activites are considered to be assistive to the fair ministry of order and justice in society on the one hand, or predatory on the other.

Peace and Divinity
Love is the Law

Baudeaux Machs

agreed, however(dont get me wrong, im asking a serious question, not shooting holes in your argument), wouldnt it be almost impossible to find only the drug abusers, who are harmful to society? especially if everyone was allowed to do it? kindof like arresting only the drunks in public who are dangerous and have actually hurt someone? a policeman would have to catch such a person in the act, which is hard enough, not considering the drug abusers.


i agree with u though, and, had i a choice, we would get drug licenses, after a rigourous test to determine wether we are dangerous when out of our trees.

[LookingForHer]

I've met a few asshole cops.

I wouldn't be so angry at the policeforce as a whole, if they didn't remain silent and refuse to take on and reject the assholes.

It's like there are two kinds of cops.

1) Those who are assholes.
2) Those who just don't care but don't start shit


Well that's all very well that maybe not most of them are assholes, but it doesn't help when the rest of them don't HELP you against the assholes, now, does it? They just let you suffer instead.

It's like Martin Luther King said:

"Time…can be used destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people."

In my mind though... those "good" cops aren't really good. They are just self-interested. They don't care. They only care about themselves. But that makes them better than those who care about themselves AND are sadistic. At least purely self-interested cops lack sadism. NEITHER are good. To be good you need to have true care.

[gplant]

I actually really enjoy having police officers around. Sure some are crooked but they are there when you need them. They will also take a bullet for you if the situation arises.

there are many laws that seem unjust but hopefully in the curtain of time they will all be ironed out

Reputation Comments on this post:

They WILL NOT take bullets for people

[LookingForHer]

Originally Posted by silverstar

there are many laws that seem unjust but hopefully in the curtain of time they will all be ironed out

They were saying that for thousands of years now.

I think we can learn by now that humans do bad things on purpose, and bad laws don't get ironed out unless the bad people in power themselves get ironed out. Which means the bad people voting for them need to get ironed out.

The only way you are going to have fairness on Earth is to call for the day of judgement. The end of days. Until then... things will remain unfair and life will be hard.

[gplant]

I totally agree with you on that one. But I think we can agree to disagree that we'd all rather have the police than no police at all

[baudmax]

Originally Posted by brighteyes88

agreed, however(dont get me wrong, im asking a serious question, not shooting holes in your argument), wouldnt it be almost impossible to find only the drug abusers, who are harmful to society? especially if everyone was allowed to do it? kindof like arresting only the drunks in public who are dangerous and have actually hurt someone? a policeman would have to catch such a person in the act, which is hard enough, not considering the drug abusers.

i agree with u though, and, had i a choice, we would get drug licenses, after a rigourous test to determine wether we are dangerous when out of our trees.

The concept of a 'license' might not be an unreasonable compromise. I would tend to think that the resources of the police could be better focused on dealing with negative behavior, if that was what they focused on, instead of a witchhunt to try and weed out all drug users as abusers (which is an irrational assumption; That would equate to saying everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic!). If someone beats their wife, or drives intoxicated, or otherwise behaves violently, then the police would be fully justified in intervening. If the reckless individual then tries to blame "drugs" for their behavior, well then ADD an additional drug-aggravated-behavior charge (say 10 yr felony) to hold them responsible for their recklessness, in additional to the DWI, assault, whatever charge. This approach would respect the rights of adults to pursue life, liberty and happiness in the ways most suitable and sensible to them, while maximizing public order and safety by enhancing cooperation with authorities in the exposition and removal of individuals engaging in dangerous/irresponsible/disruptive behavior.

Integrating a licensed user approach in the spirit of this philosophy of drug policy, would also allow society to separate the wheat from the chaffe... responsible adult users would have their rights respected (and therefore, have no resentment against authorities), and irresponsible users would essentially be singled out for the punitive treatment their reckless behavior may warrant.

Peace and Divinity
Love is the Law

Baudeaux Machs

[sunyata]

Originally Posted by brighteyes88

agreed, however(dont get me wrong, im asking a serious question, not shooting holes in your argument), wouldnt it be almost impossible to find only the drug abusers, who are harmful to society? especially if everyone was allowed to do it? kindof like arresting only the drunks in public who are dangerous and have actually hurt someone?

There is no reason to arrest people who can't handle drugs but do them anyway. We've seen over and over that addicts don't get better by being treated as criminals. We don't arrest alcoholics, so why arrest people addicted to other drugs?
The addicts(of whatever sunstance) needs to figure out things for themselves. They will need help and support of course, but the decision to do or don't do drugs must come from themselves.

As for drug licenses; though I think it would be a good idea to educate people about various substances, giving them a certificate stating "this person knows how to handle dope" would be to set the same people up for a fall. It might make them think "well I can take Heroin, after all, I got an A+ on my heroin course". It's one thing reading about it, but quite another thing to actually do it.

[brighteyes88]

Originally Posted by sunyata

There is no reason to arrest people who can't handle drugs but do them anyway. We've seen over and over that addicts don't get better by being treated as criminals. We don't arrest alcoholics, so why arrest people addicted to other drugs?
The addicts(of whatever sunstance) needs to figure out things for themselves. They will need help and support of course, but the decision to do or don't do drugs must come from themselves.

As for drug licenses; though I think it would be a good idea to educate people about various substances, giving them a certificate stating "this person knows how to handle dope" would be to set the same people up for a fall. It might make them think "well I can take Heroin, after all, I got an A+ on my heroin course". It's one thing reading about it, but quite another thing to actually do it.

yes, this is what i was trying to get at: how would it be controlled? i mean, gun licenses dont stop ppl shooting people, so how would a controlled drug system work, with regards to the assumption that not all "licensed drug users", would actually be responsible?

and to baudmax, thanks for clearing up something that should have been obvious to me(doh), in that if police stopped looking for ALL drug users, and just the dangerous ones, they would be able to use their resources more efficiently, even though, i believe this is already in place, at a basic level, ie: police dont really bother the harmless ones(at least in swims experience, hes never been arrested for his various possesions/but this might be because hes still young, and they feel sorry for him?).

[x cynic x]

As far as I know, the general polulation believes that illegal drugs are nothing but devasting forces that, if you come in contact with them, your life will be destroyed. This is how the public is informed, so most of them just go along with it and say "Yea, I dont know about them personally, but i think its pretty safe to ASSUME drugs are evil'' This is how most of the children are raised, there parents threaten them with lies, and cops are just normal people, raised under a heap of propaganda. Its not their fault they couldnt figure out otherwise; or is it?