# The Vanishing United States of America



## Full Canvas (Feb 16, 2006)

It sure seems as if the American politicians charged with serving the people that elect them are more blatantly-than-ever assuming the citizens of the United States will serve the politicians. Trade is everything to the groups designing a western hemisphere with national borders. Forget for a moment whether you are liberal or conservative or "what, me worry?" . . . the future surely concerns you.

While catching-up on my reading, I came across this article by the controversial (but usually factually correct) author, Jerome Corsi. Would anyone care to venture an opinion? Maybe this is old news. However, this is the first detailed report I've read about the so-called North American Union.

Do any of you United States citizens residents care about the possibility of many current civil rights disappearing? Is a Mexican government-manned customs checkpoint in Kansas City an affront to your sensibilities? Is the larger picture of disappearing sovereignty a concern to you? Are you willing to cede some of your rights to have immediate access to Mexican oil and Canada's water and oil? What do you Canadians think about the possibilities?
__________________________

from a recent *Human Events Online*
*North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA*

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 30, 2006

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

____________________________

*Edited by jcusey. Last warning. Do not post entire copyrighted articles.*


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

It is much easier to read and understand things like this after learning from Patrick about the complex workings of the Babylonian Brotherhood.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

No-one wants to join with the US, since that would be like jumping into bed with a bear and expecting gentle loving, rather than the inevitable rough and brutish...[that's enough disturbing metaphors! - Ed.] If Americans are worried about losing their civil rights, they should take a look at the US Supreme Court's decision last week about police searches.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> No-one wants to join with the US, since that would be like jumping into bed with a bear and expecting gentle loving, rather than the inevitable rough and brutish...[that's enough disturbing metaphors! - Ed.] If Americans are worried about losing their civil rights, they should take a look at the US Supreme Court's decision last week about police searches.


I am of two minds about the SC ruling DD. My indecision concerns, do we have a distinction without a difference? I have a couple LEO friends and they tell me the procedure is, "knock knock, open up it is the police" and as soon as that last word is uttered, WHAM with the door ram. It is not like the officers and suspect have a measured conversation through the door first and arrive at a mutually determined outcome. So is this much ado about nothing, or as Cynthia McKinney would say, "Much ado, about a hair do"?

The funny thing though, is the biggest anti-Bush-is-killing-our-civil-rights folks do not have a problem with me being in my car, driving in perfect accordance with the rules of the road, and getting pulled over for not having a seat belt on.....as someone on a motorcycle with no helmet on whizzes by. There seems to be a disconnect.

Warmest regards


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

So I guess that means home owners and/or residents are not allowed to examine the warrant, previously issued by a court without the home owner/resident's knowledge (and possibly in secret), before submitting to the police search? Funny how to "be safe" so many are willing to live as prisoners (not that we have a choice, those decisions are made for us, on our "behalf"). I have come to detest and fear the police and our legal systems more than anything in this world; in my view they are no longer working for society or on behalf of its citizens; give a man a badge and he thinks he's infallible and "right".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> So I guess that means home owners and/or residents are not allowed to examine the warrant, previously issued by a court without the home owner/resident's knowledge (and possibly in secret), before submitting to the police search?


DD, think on this. What percentage of the population could read a warrant with a dozen cops buzzing around and have a sound enough legal understanding to say, "HEY! There's a problem here with this warrant that makes it invalid"? The best one could hope for, unless one is a graduate of lawy school or an extremely well versed lay person, is to overturn evidence found in court. Of course warrant's do need to be issued without the home owner/resident's knowledge as otherwise everyone would just move damaging evidence off premise before any warrant was executed. I could be wrong here, but I always thought the idea of a warrant was to catch people, not give them enough prior warning to cover their tracks?

I am a big anti-Big Brother guy, but I am not seeing the hub bub over this, unless I am missing something. Knock knock and the door bursts open or just the door bursts open...about the same in my mind. Possibly one of the board's attornies could shed some light on this?

Warmest regards


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Although I dislike the police, I must admit that 99.9999...% of searches are probably legal (i.e. valid warrant). But the announcement of entry might be the difference between the homeowner (1) acquiescing(sp) to the search with proper warning, or (2) putting a .44 round through the first cop through the door if they don't announce themselves.

Anyone smashing through my door without first announcing themselves as police is gonna be met with hostility and suspicion, and if I had a gun it would probably be a "shoot first and ask questions later" situation. My family and myself are far too important (to me) to piss about with identity issues.

Anyway, how can evidence be completely eliminated in the 2 or 3 minutes it would take for the home owner/resident to identify the police and open the door voluntarily for them to search? Okay, drugs can be flushed, but what else? Could all the incriminating papers be burned? Wipe a hard drive completely? Hide the illegal weapons or bags of fertilizer?

Just being devil's advocate.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

DD, you are subtly shifting your stance. You started off with this:



Doctor Damage said:


> So I guess that means home owners and/or residents are not allowed to examine the warrant, previously issued by a court without the home owner/resident's knowledge (and possibly in secret), before submitting to the police search?


where I thought one of the points was the warrant was obtained without the dweller's knowledge to:


Doctor Damage said:


> Anyway, how can evidence be completely eliminated in the 2 or 3 minutes it would take for the home owner/resident to identify the police and open the door voluntarily for them to search?


where it seems that decorum is more the point. I think giving people 2-3 minutes to arm themselves will more likely lead to shooting than just having your door burst in. Extremely few people walk around their dwelling strapped.

I share your distrust of the police and I would certainly raise holy hell if my door was burst in and they had the wrong place! Bad things can happen to good people and we do need to safe guard society from an unchecked LEO force. I do not have the answers my friend, but I think we should carefully think about what we pick our battles over.

I am looking foward to hearing from some lawyers on this.

Warmest regards


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Doctor Damage said:


> Although I dislike the police, I must admit that 99.9999...% of searches are probably legal (i.e. valid warrant). But the announcement of entry might be the difference between the homeowner (1) acquiescing(sp) to the search with proper warning, or (2) putting a .44 round through the first cop through the door if they don't announce themselves.
> 
> Anyone smashing through my door without first announcing themselves as police is gonna be met with hostility and suspicion, and if I had a gun it would probably be a "shoot first and ask questions later" situation. My family and myself are far too important (to me) to piss about with identity issues.
> 
> ...


It's absolutely ludicrous to say "I dislike the Police" - I mean, really. I think most people would concede they're absolutely essential and the vast majority of the them are very good people doing an incredibly difficult job. Sounds similar to people who say "I don't like the military" - well, that's great if you live Utopia, but most rational people are glad they're around. A very few cops can be jackasses (like every other job) - but I like most I've ever met and I'm very grateful we have them. If your police force allows civilian ride-alongs, I suggest, if you haven't, you go on one and, hopefully, derive some sympathy for the pressures and dangers cops face. Since you, apparently, don't own a gun (based on your email above), and are thus at a disadvantage if faced with an armed criminal, I'd suggest you be a little more appreciative of the police who do bear arms and risk their lives for the protection of people like you.

Further, people always take these cases to ridiculous lengths - I doubt very much cops are going to batter down front doors without announcing who they are on every case for just the reason you mention, DD. However, in cases where there are known to be armed criminals behind the door - why give them the courtesy of "open up, it's the police." This way they can knock the door in un-announced, drop in some flash/bangs, and hopefully get some element of surprise. I'll bet you'd like the idea if you were a cop and wanted to see your wife every night when you got home. I'm guessing that contra to your assumption that cops will use the "no-announce" tactic every time, they will likely use it in risky cases where they suspect the parties inside are armed and dangerous.

The Constitution never required a polite door knock ahead of time. It was an invented constitutional requirement handed down from our great unelected/unaccountable "guardians" on the bench.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Rocker said:


> It's absolutely ludicrous to say "I dislike the Police" - I mean, really. I think most people would concede they're absolutely essential and the vast majority of the them are very good people doing an incredibly difficult job. Sounds similar to people who say "I don't like the military" - well, that's great if you live Utopia, but most rational people are glad they're around. A very few cops can be jackasses (like every other job) - but I like most I've ever met and I'm very grateful we have them. If your police force allows civilian ride-alongs, I suggest, if you haven't, you go on one and, hopefully, derive some sympathy for the pressures and dangers cops face. Since you, apparently, don't own a gun (based on your email above), and are thus at a disadvantage if faced with an armed criminal, I'd suggest you be a little more appreciative of the police who do bear arms and risk their lives for the protection of people like you..


Rocker, I understand your point and I appreciate the police and what they do. I notice that a lot of them, however, seem to be grownup versions of bullies from middle school, and have jack for brains. Not to say there aren't some smart, or very genial police who have been great members of the communities in which I've lived. Some were my coaches, and I know they always handled things reasonably, even when they pulled over friends of mine! But some of the members of the same, small town CT force were absolute goon cretins. I think much of the dislike of the police stems from the fact that a lot of them seem to wield a great deal of power without always having much upstairs or simply enjoy pushing people around. For the record, I am a card-carrying Republican, so I don't anticipate a response that will attempt to chracterize me as a pie-in-the-sky liberal. With respect to the many decent liberals who are out there.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Coolidge24 said:


> Rocker, I understand your point and I appreciate the police and what they do. I notice that a lot of them, however, seem to be grownup versions of bullies from middle school, and have jack for brains. Not to say there aren't some smart, or very genial police who have been great members of the communities in which I've lived.


Actually, the comment about IQ has been validated. There was a court case where a potential recruit was turned down due to his intelligence. He was too intelligent. I swear I am not making this up, I just do not have a source at the moment. If anyone remembers this case, please post on it.

Warmest regards


----------



## Financier (Mar 6, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> Anyone smashing through my door without first announcing themselves as police is gonna be met with hostility and suspicion, and if I had a gun it would probably be a "shoot first and ask questions later" situation. My family and myself are far too important (to me) to piss about with identity issues.
> 
> Anyway, how can evidence be completely eliminated in the 2 or 3 minutes it would take for the home owner/resident to identify the police and open the door voluntarily for them to search? Okay, drugs can be flushed, but what else? Could all the incriminating papers be burned? Wipe a hard drive completely? Hide the illegal weapons or bags of fertilizer?
> 
> Just being devil's advocate.


It seems fairly obvious to me that a knock on the door, then allowing time for the suspect to answer would INCREASE the danger to the police, not decrease. You think cops bash in the door because they enjoy being bullies? They bash the door in because they don't want to get shot while serving a warrant in a dangerous situation. My hat's off to them.

Doctor Damage, you appear to be basing your opinion on how YOU would react in this situation. Given your own admission that the vast majority of warrants are valid, one would think that those serving that warrant need to be concerned with how a dangerous criminal would react in that situation, not how you would.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Good point Financier...and everyone.

Not sure what sort of madness was running through my head today. As someone who was a mod for a couple of days (before excusing myself from the responsibility), I am embarrased at having posted such bizarre material, and a bunch of inconsistent, or at least soon-to-be inconsistent, points. Sanity has returned; funny what a good warm meal and a walk after dinner can do for one's mind.

Anyway, for the record, I may dislike and distrust the police but I sure as noodles understand how necessary they are to maintaining some sort of order in our society. Which makes me a pessimist about humanity, I guess. Or just disappointed. I'm very wary about extending powers to anyone these days. I do like the military though.

Wayfarer, I simply cannot believe your post about the IQ test. Hopefully someone comes up with the reference. Not to question you personally, just that it seems too outlandish even for these crazy modern times.

To ALL: if anyone is particularly offended by some of my earlier posts, let me know and I'll delete and/or edit them.

(I suppose I should get back to the original thread topic, which I so brazenly veered away from...yes tomorrow hopefully.)

DocD


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Found it*



Doctor Damage said:


> Wayfarer, I simply cannot believe your post about the IQ test. Hopefully someone comes up with the reference. Not to question you personally, just that it seems too outlandish even for these crazy modern times.


Found a source. The gentleman in question is Robert Jordan. Here is a link:

https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullp...=Top/Reference/Times Topics/Subjects/P/Police

Highlight quote:



> In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.


You just cannot make this stuff up.

Warmest regards


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Coolidge24 said:


> Rocker, I understand your point and I appreciate the police and what they do. I notice that a lot of them, however, seem to be grownup versions of bullies from middle school, and have jack for brains. Not to say there aren't some smart, or very genial police who have been great members of the communities in which I've lived. Some were my coaches, and I know they always handled things reasonably, even when they pulled over friends of mine! But some of the members of the same, small town CT force were absolute goon cretins. I think much of the dislike of the police stems from the fact that a lot of them seem to wield a great deal of power without always having much upstairs or simply enjoy pushing people around. For the record, I am a card-carrying Republican, so I don't anticipate a response that will attempt to chracterize me as a pie-in-the-sky liberal. With respect to the many decent liberals who are out there.


Coolidge24, I hear you. And, I know, to some extent, you are correct. Some police are on a bit of a power trip. They like to abuse power simply because they can. I have to say my minimal experience with police has been relatively benign. I've been pulled over three times (justly) - ticketed once. I have a brother-in-law who's in law enforcement and I've socialized with his co-workers after-hours. I've also ridden along with my brother-in-law (who's a very, very bright guy - very much up to date on all the Supreme Court decisions - I was in law school at the tie and very impressed) on many occasions. IMHO, there are two professions who see and deal with humanity at its basest level: cops and emergency room doctors. The amount of stress and ugly things that cops see is really heart breaking, e.g., dead, mangled bodies in car accidents, abandoned children, beatings, shootings, domestic disputes, and your day to day crime - and then there's the joy of potentially getting shot at. I just have a lot of respect for most of them. I have a very bad temper and could never do it - I would simply explode and beat the living hell out of someone. Most cops exercise an amazing amount of self-control/discipline when you think of the scum and outrages that they have to deal with day in and day out. I can't watch a hi-speed car chase on TV without my adrenalin sky-rocketing and wishing, when it was over, the cops would drag the driver out of the car and pummel him to death.......nope, I could NEVER be a cop. Most of them really are very professional and self-controlled.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Financier said:


> It seems fairly obvious to me that a knock on the door, then allowing time for the suspect to answer would INCREASE the danger to the police, not decrease. You think cops bash in the door because they enjoy being bullies? They bash the door in because they don't want to get shot while serving a warrant in a dangerous situation. My hat's off to them.


I agree with the intent, but disagree with the tactic. Shocking and scaring people is the best way to get shot. At least at my house 

In my experience, most LEOs didn't choose between brain surgery and police work. They are not, in my experience, calm, controlled professionals either. It really hit home listening to a family I know tell what that happened to them in a very nice neighborhood with armed security guards. The Police refused to let the guard house call the people and wake them up and at 4am their front door flew open. Unfortunately, a typically lazy and ignorant LEO had the wrong address on the warrant. They were basically dragged out of bed and thrown out on their front yard while they were screaming and scared for their lives. A half-hour later, "oh, we're sorry, we made a mistake, we're looking for meth lab".

The Wife sat at my kitchen table asking how she could protect herself and her children since the experience taught her that the Husband obviously couldn't/wouldn't. Putting my personal safety in the hands of LEO and their judgment is something I just will NOT do. YMMV

In my view, the Police serve a valuable function as a documentor and investigator of crime in order to file reports for insurance companies. I do not depend on them for anything more, and I am not willing to give up anything to facilitate any other action by them. If LEO could guarantee my safety, then maybe I would be willing to negotiate and compromise some of my rights away. As LEO is totally helpless to protect even themselves and their families, I'm not at all inclined. Look at a situation like NOLA-Katrina, then tell me the Police are controlled professionals worthy of safeguarding our most sacred of rights - to be safe in our own homes.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Stop the presses....*

I would hate to see this thread veer into a virulent anti-police thread.

Any reasonable person should have a healthy distrust of all government bodies imbued with the power to detain one or imprison one, but let us not fail to give the respect due the men and women that put their lives on the line to minimize the impact of crime on our lives.

Warmest regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Stop the presses...
> 
> I would hate to see this thread veer into a virulent anti-police thread.


como se huh?


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 13, 2006)

I remember this story when it came out a few years ago. I believe the police dept. mentioned that Mr. Jordan would be "bored" and "not challenged enough" in the department.

My friend, a local cop, thought Mr. Jordan would be outcasted by fellow officers and not have much in common with them. He called Mr. Jordan a "white collar guy" trying to do a "blue collar job."



Wayfarer said:


> Found a source. The gentleman in question is Robert Jordan. Here is a link:
> 
> https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullp...=Top/Reference/Times Topics/Subjects/P/Police
> 
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Isn't the ruling basically that while it happened and might be morally wrong, IQ is not codified as a legally protected class?


----------



## Financier (Mar 6, 2006)

> agree with the intent, but disagree with the tactic. Shocking and scaring people is the best way to get shot. At least at my house


Call me crazy, but I'd say announcing to dangerous criminals that you're about to enter their home is an even better way to get shot. I'll take a few frightened homeowners in a case of extreme oversight/error/negligence over a few by-the-book cops shot dead anyday.

The rest of your post merely shows that police are human and make mistakes. Hardly groundbreaking. To apply an extreme example of poor conduct to the rest of our lives would make us wish never to have been born.

I find it noteworthy that you don't value police for their work to take dangerous criminals off the streets, in addition to simply documenting crimes for insurance companies.

Our police are far from perfect, but we are far safer with them than without them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

arbitrage said:


> I remember this story when it came out a few years ago. I believe the police dept. mentioned that Mr. Jordan would be "bored" and "not challenged enough" in the department.
> 
> My friend, a local cop, thought Mr. Jordan would be outcasted by fellow officers and not have much in common with them. He called Mr. Jordan a "white collar guy" trying to do a "blue collar job."


Wow, good rationalization for blatant discrimination based on IQ. As he was already a "rent a cop", it would seem he was more than "trying" to do a blue collar job, he was already actually performing a version of it.

As a side note, if the article is accurate, the judge ruled that the candidate had received equal treatment so therefore was not actually a victim of discrimination, i.e. all smart people were not welcome. One must wonder if <insert protected group here> were all not welcome, would that therefore not be discrimination? The law is a funny, funny thing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Financier said:


> I find it noteworthy that you don't value police for their work to take dangerous criminals off the streets, in addition to simply documenting crimes for insurance companies.
> 
> Our police are far from perfect, but we are far safer with them than without them.


I hope you won't mind me attacking your statement, but I'm curious because of your name - 'Financier'.

I find it noteworthy that someone engaged in such a practical field as finance is willing to praise an organization for intent that fails so miserably to produce results. Aren't you giving "A's for Effort"? Doesn't the reality of the crime v. police curve fly in the face of sound principles taught in the disciplines of finance and economics? You wouldn't say support fiscal policy that had such poor results and compounded that with any amount of 'errors/negligence' would you?

I'd like to see some statistics that support your thesis that I'm safer with the police than without them. There are numerous studies that show that an individual citizen's safety improves dramatically when the citizen takes responsibility for that safety vs. out-sourcing that responsibility to the police.

I'm speaking not just of armed-response, but behavior modification, prevention, detection, and evasion. The Cops are not showing results in any of these areas that are shown to have a statistical impact. FWIW, the Cops I speak with, readily admit that these are the only proven ways to increase personal safety.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

ksinc said:


> There are numerous studies that show that an individual citizen's safety improves dramatically when the citizen takes responsibility for that safety vs. out-sourcing that responsibility to the police.


It's one thing to say that, given police protection, citizens who arm themselves, engage in community watches, etc. marginally decrease crime in their area - it's quite another to say we'd be safer without police which is exactly what you imply, to wit: "I'd like to see some statistics that support your thesis that I'm safer with the police than without them." Further, I suspect that communities that engage in neighborhood watch programs or where citizens are actively involved in patrolling/monitoring their neighborhoods are going to tend to be "better" neighborhoods, in the first place, which are a lot less likely to have drive-bys, drug deals on the corner, and other types of crime. Still, I'd be interested to se citation to a study which demonstrates that citizen's safety improves "dramatically" when the citizen takes responsibility for their safety vs. "out-sourcing" that responsibility to the police because, surely no such study exists. Is there some borough, some township, some municipality or parish in the U.S. where local police have been done away with and all safety of citizenry relegated to private enforcement so we could see the benefits of not "out-sourcing that responsibility to the police?" No, not since the old west.

New Orleans has long been known to have a wildly corrupt police force - I'm not surprised by its performance in the wake of Katrina. Fortunately, I don't live in New Orleans and an anecdotal reference hardly leads me to conclude that I'd be safer without police.

The police/deputies I have personally known have been very decent, hard-working, and brave guys. Your portrayal of their general intelligence by the false dichotomy that they couldn't "choose between brain surgery and police work" is not helpful - unless you, yourself are a brain surgeon? Regardless of what the average intelligence is, it certainly doesn't need to be "brain surgeon" level and most of the cops I've known have certainly had at least average intelligence and some have been very, very bright, indeed.

And, I'm curious - exactly how many run-ins have you had with law enforcement officers that you're so cavalier in calling them "typically lazy and ignorant?"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Rocker said:


> It's one thing to say that, given police protection, citizens who arm themselves, engage in community watches, etc. marginally decrease crime in their area - it's quite another to say we'd be safer without police which is exactly what you imply, to wit: "I'd like to see some statistics that support your thesis that I'm safer with the police than without them." Further, I suspect that communities that engage in neighborhood watch programs or where citizens are actively involved in patrolling/monitoring their neighborhoods are going to tend to be "better" neighborhoods, in the first place, which are a lot less likely to have drive-bys, drug deals on the corner, and other types of crime. Still, I'd be interested to se citation to a study which demonstrates that citizen's safety improves "dramatically" when the citizen takes responsibility for their safety vs. "out-sourcing" that responsibility to the police because, surely no such study exists. Is there some borough, some township, some municipality or parish in the U.S. where local police have been done away with and all safety of citizenry relegated to private enforcement so we could see the benefits of not "out-sourcing that responsibility to the police?" No, not since the old west.
> 
> New Orleans has long been known to have a wildly corrupt police force - I'm not surprised by its performance in the wake of Katrina. Fortunately, I don't live in New Orleans and an anecdotal reference hardly leads me to conclude that I'd be safer without police.
> 
> ...


Rocker - As a courtesy, I'm just letting you know I saw your post and not responding directly to you out of choice for a variety of reasons, not oversight/omission. Good Day

Even though I was responding to a claim "we are safer with than without" there are a few sites with statistics. What one will find the NPAP brings up is that there are no statistics kept on Police Abuses/Crimes to compare to Citizen Crime Prevention Statistics (see Kleck particularly). There is no justification that the Police prevent any crime, much less more than they perpetrate through incompetence and corruption. Citizens do prevent about 1.6 million crimes per year in armed-responses alone. This is besides system security and other prevention techniques such as behavior Mod (again see Kleck from FSU- I'm in Florida). While the Police do investigate crime (as I said before) and even apprehend crimnals, they do not punish the criminals. While I think prevention and punishment are important facets of safety, neither is actually done effectively by the police.

https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

There are about 500,000 police officers in the United States. Adjusting for three shifts per day, vacations, desk duty, etc., leaves about 75,000 police on patrol at any moment to protect 250 million Americans. That's one police officer for every 3,360 potential victims. And experience shows that's not enough.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*devils and angels*

Another datapoint:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-0620burge,1,3102277.story?coll=chi-news-hed

I've known a good many police officers, both family and friends. Not surprisingly, some are decent and professional people; others not so much. Some have acted in an outright corrupt or abusive manner; others heroically. And sometimes the angels and devils mix it up inside a single person.

Some joined the force for what we might call noble reasons (to serve and protect); others because they saw the force as a way to gain power without much formal education. Some joined, in large part, because of a need to exert their authority (think Cartman from South Park...or more nefariously Clockwork Orange).

Most are just fragile human beings struggling to do the right thing, some with histories of trauma or abuse undermining or informing their decisions, impulses, perspectives.

Knowing what I know from personal experience, I honor the efforts of the good cops to do the right thing, but I also fear the actions of those less able to contain their demons.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> So I guess that means home owners and/or residents are not allowed to examine the warrant, previously issued by a court without the home owner/resident's knowledge (and possibly in secret), before submitting to the police search? Funny how to "be safe" so many are willing to live as prisoners (not that we have a choice, those decisions are made for us, on our "behalf"). I have come to detest and fear the police and our legal systems more than anything in this world; in my view they are no longer working for society or on behalf of its citizens; give a man a badge and he thinks he's infallible and "right".


You have to understand, our leaders including the Justices on the Court are mostly trying to bring us into line with the rest of the world.

Next they're going to start enforcing gag orders that prohibit the press from writing ANYTHING about ongoing investigations and court cases.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

Coolidge24 said:


> Rocker, I understand your point and I appreciate the police and what they do. I notice that a lot of them, however, seem to be grownup versions of bullies from middle school, and have jack for brains.


Between the criminals who try to kill them, the less-criminal people who protect the criminals, the having every decision second and third guessed, the horrible politics and the upperclass dimwitts who look down on them as ignorant neanderthals, it's no surprise that almost everyone with brains and the ability to make a living in some other field does so.



> Not to say there aren't some smart, or very genial police who have been great members of the communities in which I've lived. Some were my coaches, and I know they always handled things reasonably, even when they pulled over friends of mine! But some of the members of the same, small town CT force were absolute goon cretins. I think much of the dislike of the police stems from the fact that a lot of them seem to wield a great deal of power without always having much upstairs or simply enjoy pushing people around. For the record, I am a card-carrying Republican, so I don't anticipate a response that will attempt to chracterize me as a pie-in-the-sky liberal. With respect to the many decent liberals who are out there.


Hey, I've got a few black friends.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

ksinc said:


> In my experience, most LEOs didn't choose between brain surgery and police work. They are not, in my experience, calm, controlled professionals either.


How many times have you been spit on?

How many times a day does your parentage get questioned? Howmany times are you accused of being a little too intimate with your mom?

How many work days do you get in fights with your "clients"?

Ever pulled a dead baby out of a dumpster? Or had to wrap a blanket around a woman who'd just been brutally raped?

You ever seen a kid boucned off someone's bumper because they were driving too fast and couldn't stop in time, then had some half-drunk bimbo scream at you a couple days later because you stopped her for speeding and you "should be catching real criminals"?

I've got 2 friends (well, one friend, and one former friend. 5 shots from a 10mm can do that to a friendship) who used to be police, and I know a few more socially (one used to write device drivers for networking equipment and was a reserve police officer). No, they're not building rockets in their spare time. Well, most of them. But the one friend can still talk to can quote Shakespeare, the Koran, and the (sp?) Bhagavida.



> It really hit home listening to a family I know tell what that happened to them in a very nice neighborhood with armed security guards. The Police refused to let the guard house call the people and wake them up and at 4am their front door flew open. Unfortunately, a typically lazy and ignorant LEO had the wrong address on the warrant. They were basically dragged out of bed and thrown out on their front yard while they were screaming and scared for their lives. A half-hour later, "oh, we're sorry, we made a mistake, we're looking for meth lab".


"Typically lazy"?

Would you want *your* entire work day open for public scrutiny?

Yeah, it would suck like hell to have the police kick in your door at 2 in the morning because they wanted the house across the street, or because some informant needed another fix. And yeah, the cops should be more careful, but they're working in the environment WE created. They're enforcing laws WE wanted and put in place by politicians WE voted for.

You spit on someone and call them stupid and you expect calm professional behavior on THAT pay?



> The Wife sat at my kitchen table asking how she could protect herself and her children since the experience taught her that the Husband obviously couldn't/wouldn't.


I know of two cases where police were shot during the initial stages of a no-knock raid. In one case the (black) shooter when to jail after the (white) cop who was the son of the police chief (and the one--the only one--who knew why they were raiding the (wrong) house) was killed. In the other case the shooter was exonerated even though the police officer died.

The only way to protect yourself against something like this is to make it damn difficult for the police to kick in your front door before you can get awake.

For her to blame her husband for not protecting her was stupid.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

petro said:


> Would you want *your* entire work day open for public scrutiny?


Again, sadly, there are some things I'm just not prepared to suffer through responding to for various reasons. That's fine. We're just different.

I think if you re-read my posts with a broader view maybe you will see that I not only understand the environmental and economic factors, but I wish to use them to solve the problem(s) not prolong them. Governments have NEVER succeeded in preventing crime in free societies. We need to get smarter and use economic principles as a tool to innovate and motivate. The Police respond to crime. And all Police crime prevention programs start with Step #1 - Only the community can prevent crime.

However, above is quoted a fair, clear-cut question I feel I can answer with an even clearer-cut answer, so 

YES, if I was going to invade someone's home and put both our lives at stake - A THOUSAND TIMES YES.

I think that is a reasonable expectation. The minimum bar. And any LEO that can't do the job RIGHT, then don't take the work/pay.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Many professions not only have their entire work day open for public scrutiny but are also held to account 24/7. I am in one such profession, such that I might even be on vacation but anything that happens causing a negative outcome, I can be rest assured my name will be on the lawsuit.

Warmest regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Many professions not only have their entire work day open for public scrutiny but are also held to account 24/7. I am in one such profession, such that I might even be on vacation but anything that happens causing a negative outcome, I can be rest assured my name will be on the lawsuit.
> 
> Warmest regards


Yep. Accountants and Auditors have it bad, but don't deal with guns or life and death. Or at least, not supposed to! LOL


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yep. Accountants and Auditors have it bad, but don't deal with guns or life and death. Or at least, not supposed to! LOL


I am neither (but would not mind having my CPA too). So add another couple of things onto the list.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Rocker said:


> ....The Constitution never required a polite door knock ahead of time. It was an invented constitutional requirement handed down from our great unelected/unaccountable "guardians" on the bench....


I think you are mistaken.
I believe the principle of "knock and announce" has its origin in several hundred years of English common law.
Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Gurdon said:


> I think you are mistaken.
> I believe the principle of "knock and announce" has its origin in several hundred years of English common law.
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Uh, How does that make it a U.S. Consitutional requirement? Where do you find it in the U.S. Consitution? The English common law also allowed for drawing and quartering - I don't see that in the Constitution, either. Go ahead look it up - prove me wrong. To the extent it was common law and adopted by the respective states, it would have been a state law requirement - not federal. It is nowhere required in the Constitution other than in the addled brains of justices bent on imposing their poliitcal/social view of America.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Uh, How does that make it a U.S. Consitutional requirement? Where do you find it in the U.S. Consitution? The English common law also allowed for drawing and quartering - I don't see that in the Constitution, either. Go ahead look it up - prove me wrong. To the extent it was common law and adopted by the respective states, it would have been a state law requirement - not federal. It is nowhere required in the Constitution other than in the addled brains of justices bent on imposing their poliitcal/social view of America.


Neither can I find where a "right" to privacy is specifically mentioned. Who said it is implicit, even though not written there? Why some addle brained justices. Go figure.

Warmest regards


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Neither can I find where a "right" to privacy is specifically mentioned. Who said it is implicit, even though not written there? Why some addle brained justices. Go figure.
> 
> Warmest regards


I've been informed that the right to privacy is located in some penumbras emanating from certain of the amendments in the Constitution - keep looking! I'm sure you'll see it.........some, apparently, have.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I've been informed that the right to privacy is located in some penumbras emanating from certain of the amendments in the Constitution - keep looking! I'm sure you'll see it.........some, apparently, have.


I think if one is into seeing penumbras, or reading tea leaves for that matter, one can see about anything one wants. The bird has flown the coop as far as Original Intent type thought and sticking to the Enumerated Powers, decades ago in my opinion. If it was not already done by the time of FDR, he killed Original Intent and States' rights for certain. Just the opinion of a lay person however, I am sure there are greater minds than mine that can actually make people believe we still live under the Constitution as intended by the Framers.

Warmest regards


----------

