ptrthgr8 Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Blame your idiot politicans if you don't like what you're seeing as it pertains to policing. I think this is probably the most important thing anyone's said in this thread yet (myself included). I'm not a big fan of the "just doing our job" argument, but it's absolutely true that a lot of my gripes in this thread would be non-issues if it weren't for the politicians that were working their voodoo on everything. This even goes back to the OPs original issue - the fines aren't set by the cops. So, yes, I agree with this entirely. Very good point. Laws are made, decided on, voted on, come into being, etc., all for the betterment of society. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few [/one]". I, too, am a Star Wars fan. Geek might be a better descriptor. But the Spock quote... c'mon. If what he said is actually true, then why was the Federation fighting the Borg? (And I know its Wrath of Khan vs. TNG - I'm just using it to illustrate a point.) Why were they not happily joining the Borg collective because, as the Borg clearly implied, they were all part of the same "many" and the Federation were simply the "few." I never liked that line anyhow since it smacks of Marxist ideology. Spock was sacrificing himself and that was a noble thing to do, but it's hardly the same as generalizing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That's how you end up with a tyranny of the masses. If the police there have those vehicles, they have obviously demonstrated a need for them. I think this is a pretty naive statement. Just because the cops have X piece of equipment doesn't mean they need it. I'm sure every PD in the country would love to have a nice new matte black AFV to play with, but that doesn't mean they've justified the need for it beyond anything more than a desire to have one. The US DHS gave the Fargo PD $8MM to help fight terror (because there is sooo much terrorist activity in North Dakota) and the cops absolutely found a way to spend all of that money. And it involved buying AFVs, MGs, and other military-grade hardware. Because terrorism. And, yes, I know I can only speak from my own experiences, so perhaps the cops in Canada and Oz really do need AFVs and other surplus military gear to keep the peace. But that's simply not the case in my neck of the woods. But yet there they are. But that all goes back to what Clint was saying - the politicians are waving this "free" money around and the police are more than happy to spend it; they're definitely the enablers here.
jazzmonkey Posted November 7, 2014 Author Posted November 7, 2014 And since I've broke my silence on this.... Do I agree with you that militarization of the police in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is a spiraling-out-of-control issue? ABSOLUTELY! But does it have it's valid reasons? Unfortunately, yes also. If you don't want police "militarization" (which is a funny thought, as police are para-military to begin with), then stronger social controls have to be brought into play. You and I have talked about it before, and we're both gun lovers. Even ASIDE from what I do for work, me, as just Joe-citizen gun lover, if I had further restrictions placed on me (as we do in Canada), and it meant that there was less of a need for police militarization then, and it was tangible in the stats that it worked, I would be ALL for it. But, you don't have that on that side of the border. So, if you want Joe-citizen freedoms, you have to deal with the repercussions of that. Whether any of us like it or not, police are MANDATED by law, government's expectations, social contract, etc., etc. to meet any negative actions or force by bad guys with an EQUIVALENT OR HIGHER LEVEL OF FORCE to repel or stop the negative actions. Sometimes - that leads to a necessity of "militarization". Is policing mostly "reactive"? Unfortunately yes again. But, unless society wants to at least double their town's/state's/area's policing budgets, the penny-pinchers won't allow us to really have the amount of cops walking a beat as what's needed to be truly proactive. So, being that action is always generally quicker and more efficient than reaction (when it comes to reaction time), yes, the old adage of "when you need a cop in seconds, help is only a few minutes away" is true. So, I'm fully appreciative and understanding of home defense or whatnot to assist in that measure. But when bad guy pops into your backyard BBQ with your family, and he has one of those new pump shotguns with a 20-round capacity spitting out 00-buck or 1oz slugs at you from a few yards away, and you have your pistol with 15-rounds or so, would you not want a cop responding with an M4 / C8 / carbine / AR weapon? Sorry to have taken this off of the track a bit... But, while I've relatively bit my tongue on this, and while my time in "the life" is relatively minimal, the cliches from members of Joe-public quite frequently are exasperating. "Jack-hole cops", "attitude swinging", "I tell the cop he coulda found a REAL crime to deal with", "demanded his badge number", "I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway, but it's just a SMALL offense" or "only for a split second", "everyone else was speeding, but you're just picking on me", "I know there's no point in arguing, but I wanted to give him a piece of my mind otherwise", "I pay your taxes" etc., etc., etc. [sIDE NOTE - I absolutely LOVE this "I pay your taxes thing"; hey, I'll be glad to give you 2 cents worth of compassion and assistance then, LOL. Two-cents-worth of my time to listen to your caught-red-handed excuses. People generally pay more toward healthcare or education than any individual pays into policing - I love to see someone being rational and trying to say "I pay your taxes" when a doctor gives you a bad diagnosis, or a teacher gives your kid a failing grade.] It's frustrating. We don't create the laws. You don't like them - vote, run for council, do whatever, and get the laws changed. Yes, we police do have "officer discretion", and sometimes choose to give warnings instead, and sometimes even choose to ignore seeing extremely minor offences. But, we're humans, and sometimes have bad days. I grew up with pets. My favourite was a Siberian husky and timberwolf cross - the most well-behaved and tame dog I've ever met or seen. She, off-leash, would not walk further than about 5 feet from my side, was extremely obedient, and would, rather than snap at it, let her nose get bit by a blackfly and then yelp and cower. At the same time, I've seen her stand and act aggressively and defensively when needed and called upon by me. At the same time, I was mauled when I was in Grade 3 by a relative's dog. A cocker spaniel / collie mix (I believe it was), no less. Not a sign of aggressiveness before or after. Extremely well trained, and well treated by my Aunt and Uncle. Nothing to think it would happen prior to that event. I have no patience for whining after the fact. Can the punishment sometimes be more graver than the offence??? Hell yes. Be aware and knowledgeable before hand then. Is the offense amount higher in this case than passing a school bus? The OP states so - I'll defer to that info, as I'm not in Quebec currently, and not fully up to par with the knowledge of those fine amounts (us cops use "short form wording books" with fine amounts key-coded in there, 'cause our maths lurning ain't too good sumtimes!) Perhaps the local council / government decided to set the fines so ridiculously high as maybe they found people were flaunting the law otherwise? Maybe someone recently had a loved one attacked or bit, so they've upped the fine amount, and are going on a blitz, as that could have been ordered by local governments due to pressure from neighbourhood groups? Who knows. All this to say - if there's a leash law in place where you take your pet, obey it. As the Dalai Lama once said, "one must fully know the rules to know how to properly break them". If you intend to go off-leash, know the offence's punishment amounts BEFOREHAND, and be prepared to pay. Don't ***** and moan after. "It was only for a second" is tripe and juvenille, IMO with regards to this. Don't like it? Buy a property where your pet can run more freely, go to an off-leash dog park, don't buy a pet if you're urban-locked, obey the rules in the first place, etc. Im gonna quote my inner-Trekker here (even though I'm more of a Star Wars fan - true dat!)....Laws are made, decided on, voted on, come into being, etc., all for the betterment of society. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few [/one]". Laws, and policing concepts, are there for that. The courts on the other hand, balance that out in the other way. If you as Joe-citizen don't like it, well, maybe it was a law that was made for the betterment and happy-living of the other 999-out-of-a-thousand people in your neighbourhood/area around you. I'm going to say it again, my thread had nothing to do with the cop, not about moaning after the fact. If you take the time to read my post, the only question I asked is does the amount of the fine seem excessive compared to the infraction I comitted and others that, IMO are much worse or dangerous for others. If 269$ seem fair to you, that's fine. To me it's taking it to an extreme and makes no sense. Do I know the fee for every infractions, no. It seemed harmless and I didn't think it would harm or bother anyone. Does it make a difference if it's for 1 minute or an hour, if there's people around or if I'm alone, heck yes! Not everything is equal and calls for the same reaction or punishment. Had it been full of kids or in the street, it would be a different story. If I jaywalk at rush hour on a busy street is it different than my small one way street at night when there's no one around? Can't we not use our judgement at all? By what you're saying the answer would be no. Let's just follow the rules 100% know exactly what will be the fine we'll have to pay if we do.
shlomo Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 I, too, am a Star Wars fan. Geek might be a better descriptor. But the Spock quote... c'mon. If what he said is actually true, then why was the Federation fighting the Borg? (And I know its Wrath of Khan vs. TNG - I'm just using it to illustrate a point.) Why were they not happily joining the Borg collective because, as the Borg clearly implied, they were all part of the same "many" and the Federation were simply the "few." I never liked that line anyhow since it smacks of Marxist ideology. Spock was sacrificing himself and that was a noble thing to do, but it's hardly the same as generalizing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That's how you end up with a tyranny of the masses. Star TREK!!! 1
... Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 I, too, am a Star Wars fan. Geek might be a better descriptor. But the Spock quote... c'mon. If what he said is actually true, then why was the Federation fighting the Borg? (And I know its Wrath of Khan vs. TNG - I'm just using it to illustrate a point.) Why were they not happily joining the Borg collective because, as the Borg clearly implied, they were all part of the same "many" and the Federation were simply the "few." I never liked that line anyhow since it smacks of Marxist ideology. Spock was sacrificing himself and that was a noble thing to do, but it's hardly the same as generalizing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That's how you end up with a tyranny of the masses. Star TREK!!! Geeks... We're all a bunch of geeks 2
ptrthgr8 Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Geeks... We're all a bunch of geeks Guilty. I've had these plates on 2 cars now... Admittedly, the Stormtrooper reference was better on the white GTI... but it's mine now and will go on any car I have. Cheers, ~ Greg ~ 1
Recommended Posts