Police for Protection?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I don't even bite on that one anymore. We have guys with everything from a high school education to masters degrees. Most lie somewhere in between.
My signature line says it all................

I don't knwo of any that require a BS/BA to go to teh academy. They might be out there, but if a guy has an associates he can get in somewhere. There are some that only require high school?

[skycop 0]

Depends,
Some require a four year degree, some reqiure a two-year or certain number of hours. Most require just a high school diploma to get in the door.` Some departments will substitute four years of military service/experience in lieu of a degree. Advancement is a different story.
You get what you pay for. Our pay has increased over the past few years. We are attracting mainly college grads.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I don't hate cops,

Nearly all of your posts in SC on police-related issues would show otherwise. Should I post the link to the thread where you referred to all cops as pigs no less than 17 times?

Quote

the corporations run the courts and government in general.

I won't disagree with you there. I think corporate america has way too much influence in the government.

Quote

Now, which departments require a 4 year degree? Please post web sites with application criteria.

http://www.arlingtonpd.org/index.asp?nextpg=recruiting/require.asp

There's one for now. I don't have a whole lot of time to look them up, but I'll put more up later if you so desire.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Now, which departments require a 4 year degree? Please post web sites with application criteria. Arizona requires a 2-year degree in justice, which is one of the easiest degrees to get - I have a BS in justice from ASU in 2002. SO to say a 2-year justice degree and think it's not low education means to me that you have zero education. I don't say that to denograte you, but that people in academia know that an associates degree in an easy area is not much. Guys like Kallend have PhD's in physics, which basically makes him a genius.... if he read the AS in Justice not being of low education he would surely laugh.

Many departments require a four year. They tend to be small cities and very large towns. They are the places with enough budget to be selective, and a small enough body requirement to be selective. Other departments require only a HS diploma or GED.

Also, while you may look on two year degrees as low education, there's a reason the majority of the population calls it "higher education" when you go to college. Yes, there are higher degrees, and yes there are programs that some people find more difficult.

"People in academia" tend to live in another world. You should know that, you're still going for your degree. Remember, in the real world, low education is highschool or less.

Besides, since when does having a piece of paper on the wall mean you'll be aable to handle difficult, fluid situations in teh best way?

I'll have the links in a little while.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't hate cops,

Nearly all of your posts in SC on police-related issues would show otherwise. Should I post the link to the thread where you referred to all cops as pigs no less than 17 times?

Quote

the corporations run the courts and government in general.

I won't disagree with you there. I think corporate america has way too much influence in the government.

Quote

Now, which departments require a 4 year degree? Please post web sites with application criteria.

http://www.arlingtonpd.org/index.asp?nextpg=recruiting/require.asp

There's one for now. I don't have a whole lot of time to look them up, but I'll put more up later if you so desire.

Look, everyone here is acting responsibly but you. Kennedy and I are being constructive, I won't enterain you blowing things. The greenies steped in and laid down the law, everyone seems to be playing ball, but you seem to want to stir it - I'm not playin'

If you wish to communicate in those terms then initiate by PMing me.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Now, which departments require a 4 year degree? Please post web sites with application criteria. Arizona requires a 2-year degree in justice, which is one of the easiest degrees to get - I have a BS in justice from ASU in 2002. SO to say a 2-year justice degree and think it's not low education means to me that you have zero education. I don't say that to denograte you, but that people in academia know that an associates degree in an easy area is not much. Guys like Kallend have PhD's in physics, which basically makes him a genius.... if he read the AS in Justice not being of low education he would surely laugh.

Many departments require a four year. They tend to be small cities and very large towns. They are the places with enough budget to be selective, and a small enough body requirement to be selective. Other departments require only a HS diploma or GED.

Also, while you may look on two year degrees as low education, there's a reason the majority of the population calls it "higher education" when you go to college. Yes, there are higher degrees, and yes there are programs that some people find more difficult.

"People in academia" tend to live in another world. You should know that, you're still going for your degree. Remember, in the real world, low education is highschool or less.

Besides, since when does having a piece of paper on the wall mean you'll be aable to handle difficult, fluid situations in teh best way?

I'll have the links in a little while.

Many departments require a four year. They tend to be small cities and very large towns. They are the places with enough budget to be selective, and a small enough body requirement to be selective. Other departments require only a HS diploma or GED.

OK, I was under the impression that a 2-year would get into virtually anywhere.

Also, while you may look on two year degrees as low education,...

Actually not exactly. my AA in Justice took me 3 years while working, so I won't undermine the amount of work required. I wasn't trying to be an academic elitist, but in the grand scheme of things, a 2-year in Justice is about as weak as it gets. I think I can say that w/o repercussion because I went that route. The transition from AA to BS was huge, probably 3 or 4 times the work. No more mult-guess tests where the instructor gives away the answers the class before the test, and upper division classes are a bitch compared to 100 and 200 level.

...and yes there are programs that some people find more difficult.

Most are more difficult I hate to say. I was reminded of that many times. At ASU, the justice dept was under the college of public programs, which is the easier program.

"People in academia" tend to live in another world. You should know that,...

Sometimes, but generally when you get to university and you're talking tenured professors that is real true. At CC I find that isn't really true, which is why I would take classes from PhD students (that hold Masters) instead of PhD's.

you're still going for your degree.

Actually I have a BS in Justice and am working on an ADN, which is an Associates in Nursing. In reality it is a hard as some BS degrees, as there are no electives and the curriculum includes microbiology, Anatomy and Physiology 1 and 2, Chemistry and other toughies.

I'm not claiming I have superior education as in a physics type education.

Remember, in the real world, low education is highschool or less.

I think that's all subjective as well as dynamic, in that it continually changes. I would say your assessment was true 20-30 years ago, but with more people in college, 1 in 5 has a Bach degree nowadays.

Besides, since when does having a piece of paper on the wall mean you'll be aable to handle difficult, fluid situations in teh best way?

The piece of paper represents a series of classes that hopefully teach critical thinking, so the inclination is that it will most likely lead to the better handling of matters. You can't teach judgment to people that don't want to learn it, as it's not an academic function, so there might be quite a bit lost in the treanslation through college in that regard - so I agree there.

[grlsgotalot2lrn 0]

What about personal responsibility on the mother's part? When i first read the post, I felt sorry for the mother. But i feel most sorry for the girls - having them call the police. How bout calling the police and then immediately get the girls in the car/on the bus as far away as she could. If my estranged and erratic husband were breaking the law to hurt myself and our daughters, then I would certainly break the law to protect my children and myself. It's not the police that need to protect us, it's the laws and the courts. But mostly we need to protect ouselves.

[justinb138 0]

I was thinking about similar stuff myself.

If the mother knew their crazed father could be out there (as he had broken into the home before), what the hell was she doing letting them play ouside unsupervised?

[USNLawdog 0]

Serve and protect, sounds great doesn't it? I like it, it's catchy. The few the proud, be all that you can be. I love it, you say that phrase and everyone know's who your talking about. The secret service is here to protect our high ranking officials, there are body guards to protect, movie stars and other celebrities. Then there are police officers, out there to protect the entire city/town/community. If you are relying on the individual officer for your protection you are nuts. I have 2 guns at home, just in case one doesn't work or runs out of bullets. Do I trust the police to come to my aid, yes. Will they be here quicker then I can put a few bullets into that guy wearing the ski mask and carrying a pistol coming into my apt at 2 AM, no. Your personal protection is up to you. I'll be moving to Florida in 2 months time and I've already taken steps to protect myself. I've gotten a concealed carry permit and got a gun specifically for concealed carry (HK USP compact .45). I've gotten numerous holsters for different types of clothes and situations. I've familiarized myself with the laws concerning concealed carry and the use of deadly force withing the state. All that before I even moved there. The cops cannot protect you 24/7 if you want protection 24/7 there are companies that will provide the protection for you, at a price. It's a helluva lot higher then a cops normal wages. Enjoy your protection, you may not need it all the time but it's nice to know all the money your shelling out could protect you someday. Or just maybe that bodyguard will be looking at someone else suspicious, and the suspicious guys buddy will walk up from the other side and put a bullet in your head. Maybe you need 2 bodyguards, and a personal assistant. Hey get the guy from tomb raider he was there to serve the girl and when all those guys in ski masks raided the house he grabbed a shotgun. I want him on my side. So in closing are the cops here to protect and serve, HELL YES! Are they here to protect and serve you as a individual, no. If you think otherwise, you need to stop thinking, your going to hurt yourself.

"I've taken the liberty of drafting your confession, you will be given a fair trial and then taken out back and shot."

[justinb138 0]

Kind of reminds me of a sticker I saw about a decade ago on some guy's garage door.

It said "Insured by Smith & Wesson, Policy #357"..

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

Kind of reminds me of a sticker I saw about a decade ago on some guy's garage door.

It said "Insured by Smith & Wesson, Policy #357"..

LoL...that's funny...I want one of those......

~R+R...

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[USNLawdog 0]

I love it! I'm looking to get one of HK's bumper stickers, that says "insured by H&K" I'm probably going to pick one up at the next gun show.

"I've taken the liberty of drafting your confession, you will be given a fair trial and then taken out back and shot."

[justinb138 0]

Here's a few good ones.

[RoadRash 0]

Those are awesome man...I'm gonna have to forward those to a friend of mine...and make sure a certain gun nut gets one for a holiday......

~R+R...

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Sounds like the two of you have made up your mind before the US Supreme Court and the subsequent judges presiding over the lawsuits to be filed if the mother wins the SC challenge.

The SC decided to hear the case, so it doesn't appear to be completey ludicrous.

[fenceline 0]

Common Law duties of police (in Canada and I would assume the US)

1. Protect Life
2. Protect Property
3. Keep the Peace

Pretty simple. Until you throw in the legal mess of court rulings from over a couple hundred years, policy and politics. Those are the "official" clouding issues. Now go to a heated situation that has taken years to deteriorate on a personal level of those involved. Maybe add a little alcohol, a little stress and you got pre determined notions of what should happen. Yup, you find me someone that can fix that in a couple of minutes.

Besides, those cops only had him to follow around.

I am sorry for her loss, but if she was so concerned with her children and afraid of such a man, why not keep a little closer eye on her kids. Putting your faith in a piece of paper to protect you is ridiculous.

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.dcnewspress.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14199119&BRD=1585&PAG=461&dept_id=213470&rfi=6

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/050322/973e600c002a4ee46b7484e3f26aa24a_1.html

Quote

Ginsburg appeared to be the only justice probing the issue from the side of domestic violence advocates. "What does the protective order do then?" she asked John Elwood, an assistant U.S. solicitor general who also argued in support of Castle Rock. "The police are not bound to respond?"

This one really toasted my ass. I suppose it'd be too much trouble for a supreme court justice to know more about precedent than me?


On the lighter side, I guess this guy has never watched '60 Minutes' before.
http://www.dcnewspress.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14199035&BRD=1585&PAG=461&dept_id=213470&rfi=6


edit: I left out that the High Court is only deciding whether or not she can sue, not whether or not she will win.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Ginsburg appeared to be the only justice probing the issue from the side of domestic violence advocates. "What does the protective order do then?" she asked John Elwood, an assistant U.S. solicitor general who also argued in support of Castle Rock. "The police are not bound to respond?"

This one really toasted my ass. I suppose it'd be too much trouble for a supreme court justice to know more about precedent than me?

I'm sure he knew it. But he wanted the question answered. Precedent isn't ironclad, you know.

[Kennedy 0]

I'm sure she at least got a summary of case law from one of her soon to be $1500 an hour peons, but I just don't understand why this case was even accepted. What constitutional grounds are there?

Besides, if they make police responsible for harm that comes to people, then every PD in the country will shut down tomorrow. They can't afford the liability for every criminal, and they can't be everywhere.

edit: You generally need a very good reason to go over stare decisis

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelpdiver 2]

Same one as in all the prior decisions listed?

I'd agree that this particular case would be a bad one to change current case law, and would have far reaching effects on police departments.

[GTAVercetti 0]

While I do not think that it is the job of police to protect me as an invidual, in this case it is the simple fact that by not arresting the father, who violated the restraining order, the police BROKE THE LAW in Colorado.

That is it, pure and simple. Seems to me that it is not about protection, it is about the fact that the cops did not follow a law specifically designed for them.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[USNLawdog 0]

OK should the father have been arrested? Yes, should he not have been able to commit this hanious crime? yes. Bottom line is it happened and noone should monday morning Q-back the police officers decision. We don't have all the info the officers did. We didn't get to look into the eyes of the woman or hear the words she used to talk about her ex husband. These officers did what they thought was right. These officers are paid to make those decisions and trusted by the city and community to make them. If the community stops trusting one of those officers they can get them fired by pettitioning the city/town legislature. If this woman were to pursue the punishment of officer so and so who failed to exercise good judgement in this case causing the death of those kids she might win, or at least get a settlement. However by pursuing the entire police force she is biting off more then she can chew. Now she's fighting the law enforcement community as a whole. I can only imagine the lawsuits that will come up in cities if she wins this case. Any cop that doesn't bend to the will and whim of any person is going to get the city sued for millions.

Anyone want to form a skydiving vigilante group? We can prosper in this brave new world. Drop in on the criminals from above. We can have cool names like swooperman

"I've taken the liberty of drafting your confession, you will be given a fair trial and then taken out back and shot."

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

While I do not think that it is the job of police to protect me as an invidual, in this case it is the simple fact that by not arresting the father, who violated the restraining order, the police BROKE THE LAW in Colorado.

That's what makes this case slightly differnt form quoted precedents, however, she should have pursued action against the officer. She has no good claim against the department, other than maybe requesting they improve their restraining order training. She doesn't have a prayer of wining a monetary settlement from the department based on insufficient training, and she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning based on services not provided.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*