For those who like to share

[PoppaJ]

I am a bit off topic but as the discussion turned to law enforcement I share my thoughts.

I began my public sector career in the 1970s working for a mid-sized police department in Central FL. Since that time, while I have decades of private sector experience, I worked part-time/reserve for three other police/fire/public safety entities as well as full-time for a few county and state agencies in this and other states. I speak from only my personal experience, specifically re my affiliations with law enforcement agencies.

Money and power corrupt.

“Nothing discloses real character like the use of power,” wrote Robert Green Ingersoll, reflecting on the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. “Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power.”
​

Used to be that I scoffed at those who claimed law enforcement was corrupt. One evening very late I heard a racket outside. Checking on the commotion I saw a man (allegedly breaking into cars) splayed out on the hood of my car and surrounded by no less than five officers. One officer was kneeling on the hood of my car with a gun shoved in that suspect's mouth (for allegedly breaking into cars???!!). The other officers had their guns drawn on the man as well. Alarmed, I yelled, "what are you doing, why are you shoving your gun down the guy's throat." Thankfully, the startled officer withdrew his gun from the guy's throat. He immediately looked over his shoulder and yelled back at me to mind my own "GD business" and go back inside. (BTW, the "suspect" also shouted at me, "thanks, lady, you may have just saved my life.") I did just that (went inside) but called the police department directly. I was surprised that I received the same response from the commanding officer. I no longer am surprised at the behavior of many LEOs, current and former, who seem to feel that a gun on their hip gives them rights beyond those of the rest of us.

This was a single incident but I witness this type of behavior over and over again. Take anyone who has ever felt down-trodden (can't find another job, is fat, is short, is ugly, lacks a competitive education, etc., etc., et al) and place a gun in their hands and a badge of their chests and they immediately develop swagger, a "do you know who I am/who you are dealing with?" attitude.

The standards for law enforcement officers to be certified should include some type of nationally-standardized test (criterion and construct validity-tested to ensure against disparate impact to protected classes) to determine a candidate's 1) mental health/fitness for such a job, 2) ability to handle stress and pressure AND make good decisions, and 3) uncover overt and hidden biases against other members of the HUMAN race. It shouldn't be a one-time evaluation either but repeated according to a prescribed schedule.

The officers and administrations who balk at this type of a measure perhaps know something about their colleagues that should bar them from positions of public trust.

Just exercising my Constitutionally-given right to free speech.

This is a privately owned site so your first amendment rights do not apply here. Not trying to be a smarta** it’s just a fact.

 

[mputnal]

Are you suggesting that the private owners of this site do not apply first amendment rights to all participates? I would disagree if you are. I think they are doing their very best to allow free speech.

 

[Bob Wells]

Are you suggesting that the private owners of this site do not apply first amendment rights to all participates? I would disagree if you are. I think they are doing their very best to allow free speech.

So this is a quote from one of your post.
"The rules in this forum are different for some people so maybe we should strive to be better each day and realize that our rules are a reflection of who we are"

 

[mputnal]

So this is a quote from one of your post.
"The rules in this forum are different for some people so maybe we should strive to be better each day and realize that our rules are a reflection of who we are"

Somehow you always seem to miss my points. I am sure it is my inability to express my thoughts. Yes it is very difficult to apply rules fairly but I think we are better for at least trying.

 

[PoppaJ]

Are you suggesting that the private owners of this site do not apply first amendment rights to all participates? I would disagree if you are. I think they are doing their very best to allow free speech.

If this is a question for me it’s apparent you do not comprehend the first amendment. The 1A only applies to the government restricting free speech. It is stated very clearly in the first five words.
You are the only one suggesting the owners of this site are unfair in their enforcement of the rules.

 

[Bob Wells]

Somehow you always seem to miss my points. I am sure it is my inability to express my thoughts. Yes it is very difficult to apply rules fairly but I think we are better for at least trying.

So you weren't saying rules weren't equally applied to all here? Were you saying the rules are different than what some people are accustomed too? I have never been unfairly treated here. I think I was put in jail for a day and wasn't sure what I did on this site. When I asked for clarification it was kind of a non issue. We, as a community do what we do here. There have been some asshats who have pushed the envelop in other threads where the rules might be a little more narrower/ civil. The Lounge on the other hand is not for the faint of heart or for someone who wears their heart on their sleeve. If you are easily offended or feel you are picked on or singled out it is because these folks in here can be like sharks. I like it here, it is a like a bar in the worst section of town, where you can throw s**t, "within reason" and get away with it. If it wasn't fair to all, guys like Poppy, Leader and Happy would probably be banned. I have never been around such an elceletic group and happy I get to participate.
As the saying goes
C'est La Vie

 

[mputnal]

So you weren't saying rules weren't equally applied to all here? Were you saying the rules are different than what some people are accustomed too? I have never been unfairly treated here. I think I was put in jail for a day and wasn't sure what I did on this site. When I asked for clarification it was kind of a non issue. We, as a community do what we do here. There have been some asshats who have pushed the envelop in other threads where the rules might be a little more narrower/ civil. The Lounge on the other hand is not for the faint of heart or for someone who wears their heart on their sleeve. If you are easily offended or feel you are picked on or singled out it is because these folks in here can be like sharks. I like it here, it is a like a bar in the worst section of town, where you can throw s**t, "within reason" and get away with it. If it wasn't fair to all, guys like Poppy, Leader and Happy would probably be banned. I have never been around such an elceletic group and happy I get to participate.
As the saying goes
C'est La Vie

Okay I will try to explain better. I am saying that those that are making rules have to enforce the rules evenly and fairly which is hard to do. That's it. Trust me I am aware that sometimes you get put in jail when you ain't really done nothing wrong And that is okay. All we have to do is learn something positive from the experience...

 

[mputnal]

If this is a question for me it’s apparent you do not comprehend the first amendment. The 1A only applies to the government restricting free speech. It is stated very clearly in the first five words.
You are the only one suggesting the owners of this site are unfair in their enforcement of the rules.

Nope. I am suggesting that rules are easily written or said but difficult to enforce equally and fairly.

You brought up 1A. I was talking about rules and enforcement of rules and only asked you a question about your post that referenced 1A. Please don't make communication any harder than it already is. We are on the same page most of the time. When I disagree with your post it could be because I did not understand your point OR it could be that I completely disagree and still respect your point. There is no good reason to be condescending. I may see things differently. That's all. I prefer friends not enemies but as my wife has told me before I am a warrior. I am working on it

 

[PoppaJ]

Okay I will try to explain better. I am saying that those that are making rules have to enforce the rules evenly and fairly which is hard to do. That's it. Trust me I am aware that sometimes you get put in jail when you ain't really done nothing wrong And that is okay. All we have to do is learn something positive from the experience...

I’ve been banned for breaking the rules and it was all on me, no one else.

 

[PoppaJ]

Nope. I am suggesting that rules are easily written or said but difficult to enforce equally and fairly.

You brought up 1A. I was talking about rules and enforcement of rules and only asked you a question about your post that referenced 1A. Please don't make communication any harder than it already is. We are on the same page most of the time. When I disagree with your post it could be because I did not understand your point OR it could be that I completely disagree and still respect your point. There is no good reason to be condescending. I may see things differently. That's all. I prefer friends not enemies but as my wife has told me before I am a warrior. I am working on it

We don’t always agree, but you and I are always good.