I feel that LEOs have a shitty job. A few of them make horrible mistakes and should be punished for that. I do not hold all LEO resposible for a few bad apples (as a whole).

Some of you are going to hate the current popo no matter what. SO if you were in control and had the power to change it, what would you do?
What sort of LAW ENFORCEMENT do you propose.

I was thinking going back to the old west style. Everyone have a pistol, unconsealed or consealed doesn't matter. No more of these pointless lawsuits against gun companines, or criminals tring to sue the people they were tring to rob then got hurt. But I don't think we need to get rid of LEOs, just some of the BS laws people put in the books, that they try to enforce.

Well, we'd have a lot less to talk about here, that's for damn sure.

BTW, in this "wild west" version- will my five year old be able to pack at school, just in case some 6 year old bully wants to steal her pudding pops?

I would like to see LEOs get out of their damn cars and walk around the hood every once in a while!!  And it would be nice if they spend less time raising revenue and more time actually helping people.

Also, it would be nice that when you do actually have to call them that they don't accuse you of the fucking crime you are calling about!!

Sgtar15

The 'hue and cry' from English Common Law?

[:D]

No, seriously!

[b]HUE AND CRY[/b], a phrase employed in English law to signify the old common law process of pursuing a criminal with horn and voice.

It was the duty of any person aggrieved, or discovering a felony, to raise the hue and cry, and his neighbours were bound to turn out with him and assist in the discovery of the offender. In the case of a hue and cry, all those joining in the pursuit were justified in arresting the person pursued, even ‘though it turned out that he was innocent. A swift fate awaited any one overtaken...

The word “hue,” which is now obsolete except in this phrase and in the “huers” on the Cornish coast who direct the pilchardfishing from the cliffs, is generally connected with the Old French verb [i][b]huer[/b][/i], to cry, shout, especially in war or the chase. It has been suggested that while “cry” represents the sound of the voices of the pursuers, “hue” applies to the sound of horns or other instruments used in the pursuit; and so Blackstone, Comment. iv. xxi.

By hue and cry, if he still had about him the signs of his guilt. If he resisted he could be cut down, while, if he submitted to capture, his fate was decided. Although brought before a court, he was not allowed to say anything in self-defence, nor was there any need for accusation, indictment or appeal. Although regulated from time to time by writs and statutes, the process of hue and cry continued to retain its summary method of procedure, and proof was not required of a culprit’s guilt, but merely that he had been taken red-handed by hue and cry. The various statutes relating to hue and cry were repealed in 1827 (7 and 8 Geo. IV. C. 27). The Sheriffs Act 1887, reenacting 3 Edw. I. C. 9, provides that every person in a county must be ready and apparelled at the command of the sheriff and at the cry of the county to arrest a felon, and in default shall on conviction be liable to a fine.

“Hue and cry” has, from its original meaning, come to be applied to a proclamation for the capture of an offender or for the finding of stolen goods, and to an official publication, issued for the information of the authorities interested, in which particulars are given of offenders “wanted,” offences committed, &c.

For the early history, see Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. ii.; W. Stubbs, Select Charters.

Eric The(IDiDSay'WellRead'Didn'tI?)Hun[>]:)]

And, it would be nice if LEO actually had to live by the same laws the rest of us do (ie rifle prices, traffic laws, etc, etc)

Sgtar15

What would I do without law enforcement?
Probably live the same way I do now.  I can't think of a single instance where law enforcement has made any difference in my life, except making me a hundred dollars poorer the last time I got a ticket.

Go back to "protect and serve"
Live by the same laws we do and can only have the weapons we are allowed to have.
Take the revenue gathering (tax collector) out of law enforcement.
No militarization of the police.
End all JBT tactics and no knock raids.
Always remember....you work for us.

More things I would like to see LEOs do:

Stop at all traffic signals.

Be old enough to shave before joining the force.

Actually pretend to enjoy helping the public.

Ask people if they need help when their car breaks down.

Yet traffic tickets when they blatantly violate traffic laws in a cruiser (this will never happen!!)

Shut the hell up about their pay.  You knew what the job paid when you took it!

Stop high speed chases for minor violations....you have the license, you can get them later!

And, stop using the BLUE WALL to protect your own when they are obviously guilty!!

I can go on and on...............

Sgtar15

Probably not. But teachers and principals will be allowed to paddle and punish those who have been bad. None of this, oh your in trouble stay home for two weeks.

Well I can see where you would have that opinion, but what about the things you dont see? They remove lots and lots of BGs from the streets that "may" have affected you or yours later down the road. Even stopping a speeder "could" potentially save your life.

We do not need ANY LEO. What is an absolute must is to have Peace Officers. People who's only job is to enforce a law, regardless if someone else or thier property has been injured, are for the most part not needed. There are alot of "bad" cops these days, and in truth, I understand how they get that way. While cops catch the brunt of the publics frustration, it's the lawyer/ politicians that make these laws and demand that the be enforced that needs to be set straight.

I think if we got rid of victimless crime laws (drugs, guns, etc) then we could get by on half the number of LEOs (and pay them all twice as much :).

In David Friedman's book "The Machinery of Freedom," he outlines a vision for life without public law enforcement - he believes there would still be LEO but they would all be employees of insurance companies. (less crime means lower insurance payouts...)

Without LEOs I and others could "remove" those people ourselves.



A speeder?  No.  A drunk driver perhaps.

I don't dislike cops as much as I dislike the laws they enforce.

Make drugs, gambling, and prostitution legal.

Take all firearms laws off the books.

It's not a question of "none" it's a question of "do we really need so many?"  Repeal a lot of the stupid victimless-crime laws and then there wouldn't be so much revenue to collect.

Don't let one bad cop ruin the rep of all of them. I know plenty of good cops. One of them I just went shooting with. I also know a few bad seeds, but everyone recognizes that they are bad.  The problem is not the cops, but the laws. If I was a cop, I would not lose my job in the name of letting someone sell crack. It is good that they enforce the laws. They are LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  It is bad that the politicians keep giving them a larger, more complicated mess to keep sorting out.  HATE POLITICIANS!

We would have to protect ourselves against criminals

We would have to regulate our own driving speed

Round up the bad guys ourselves
Judge them fairly based upon evidence and witnesses and administer suitable punishment

We would still need to find some way to address grievences with one other

If people had internal policemen they wouldnt need external ones....

Until the day of His judgement and his coming rule over us...we will always need policemen...

What hurts us is when they violate the public trust..and this is true of any occupation or title that sits in authourity over us...

Violation of trust makes people angry afraid and looking for a replacement..this is true of both indivudual public officials and governments....

Its how America came to be...evil men were in authourity over us....we got  rid of them and formed our own government....of free men who were able ,due to largely to their decency ,were  able to govern themselves..

What's funny is when I told my co-workers that a while back, they all looked at me like I was crazy.

We used to not have them. One elected Sheriff for each county/parrish who was really a officer of the court and deputies hired as he needed them.

They were inadaquate, so we slowly acquired larger, professional law enforcement.

Most people LIKE to be able to go about their business and sleep at night without having to constently have to run out and defend themselves or their neighbors from crime. You cant do law enforcement when you have to work to support yourself.

The problem has become that they have been allowed to think that they are THE source of protection to the public, instead of servents and assistants of the public.

In regaurds to the first post, well lets all just line up and kiss there asses.

Where to start...

First off, I am a big advocate of personal protection and RKBA. I am also a member of this nation's law enforcement community. Frankly, if your neighbors would do a better job of protecting themselves and their property, I would have alot less reactive work to do.

Law enforcement in America is necessary. The public can be (or could be) armed to the teeth and there would still be lots of "real" crime. The vast majority of crimes in this country are property crimes, theft, burglary and dmage of property. No matter how well-armed the population, and how draconian laws against this stuff are, these types of crimes will always exist, barring some radical change in the human condition. As private citizens, there isn't much anyone can do about these crimes beyond basic crime prevention measures. It takes a collaboraaive investigative effort to ever clear these crimes, and the national clearance rate for proprty crimes is still only about 19%.

A return to the "old days" will not work, because law enforcement was ineffective, corrupt, untrained and largely the result of political patronage. The "Wild West" typically had lower murder and Aggravated Assault rates, as far as modern researchers can tell, but there also aren't any really accurate stats from that era, and most crimes were probably not reported or documented.

Perhaps citizen patrols could adequately suppress crime. That is, if you could get everyone to do their share. What do you do with the ones who won't? Put them in jail? Sounds like forced labor to me.
What about criminal investigations? Are you going to collect your own evidence, pay to get it processed/analyized? Match it to a suspect? Interview witnesses/suspects? And you're going to find time to do this when? I suppose the boss will give you the time off, without pay. I know, we could handle the stuff we witness ourselves and hire a private agency to investigate crimes that aren't witnessed. Just like hiring a lawyer to defend us. Consider the cost. Have you ever hired a lawyer? Who wants to take out a second mortgage because someone broke into their house and stole their T.V.? Well, it's only  $1500.00 T.V. Wells Fargo will charge you $7,500.00 to investigate the crime and another $10,000.00 to present the case to a prosecutor(hypothetical). Since prosecutors were LEO's and employed by the Govt. under the old broke down system they are privatized and for hire under the new system. So I guess under the "old west" style only the wealthy will have access to criminal investigations. If a family member is murdered and nobody wants to confess to you then I guess you will have to guess "who done it" and deal out justice. I hope you get the right guy. Yep, "Old west style" that's the ticket! [rolleyes]

In "REGARDS" to your post....nobody kissed "THEIR" asses, just asked a simple question and gave a humble opinion.  

First off I'd like to say thank you for your service as a LEO. But what really ticks me off is that I've had two radios stolen from my truck along with my tailgate. Now as a citizen protecting MY property that I paid for. I was told that if I were to set up on my roof and pick the SOB off while he was doing it, I would go to jail. I forgot what the officer told me he'd book me under. Now in my mind.. if any SOB wants to go around stealing stuff in the middle of the night off of other peoples property they deserve anything that's coming their way, even death. With none of this I'm sueing BS from the "victims" legal guardian. Hell if they were their guardian, they should've known what the hell their kid was doing in the first place!

I have no real problem with LEOs except for the fact that my local won't sign a form 4. I'm not saying by going back to the "old ways" is going to make everything better. It's just a thought of a time where you can defend yourself and your property with out all the legal red tape.

Like recently with the guy in NY. Shot an intruder with an unlicenced pistol, and now's facing jail time. I don't know the whole story, but from what I can gather he WAS a law abiding citizen because they said he legaly had 3 long rifle. (If I remember right.) But because of some POS law that some dumbass wrote into the books he's labeled a criminal for defending himself and property. Hell he probably didn't even know about the law in the first place. Now what kinda f'ed up shit is that!

Yes I know ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of most LEO's. But hell I don't even think LEO's know every single law in their state with out looking it up or calling it in. And I've known LEO's and their families to get alot of slack when getting pulled over or when they've done something wrong.

I just find it crapy that alot of people are guilty before proven innocent.  [rant off]

edited to add: Just for the record, I never said that their shouldn't be LEOs, I give thanks to any good person that puts himsself in harms way for the sheeple. My hat is off to all the good people in the military branches, police forces, medical servacies, fire dept., and so on.

If I remember right he said he'd book my under premedotated murder, murder, discharge of a firearm in city limits, endangerment to the public, disturbing the peace, and i think entrapment. something like that.

Peace Officer = Good Cop
Law Enforcement Officer = Tax Collector

I've also wondered about the clean up process and how it's going to be.

Well, most of those offenses aren't listed anywhere in the Texas Penal Code. Try Chapter 9, which deals with use of force. Texas allows you to use dealy force to protect your property from theft, criminal mischief or arson during the night time. I couldn't do it; I am held to a stricter standard than you are for use-of-force, but you would get no-billed by the grand Jury in most places in the state (my county probably hands out medals for that kind of stuff). I would discourage you from ambushing criminals, but you have a right to protect your stuff.

Sounds like you live in the wrong community. My boss would sign your Form 4, and he supports RKBA.

There are a couple of stages of law enforcement in this country. It is necessary to understand some of the history to have a real grasp on why things work the way they do.

First up, as far as "tax collection" goes, my agency has an annual budget of about 11 million a year, about one third of our jurisdiction's total annual budget. Our court collected $200,000 in fines for offenses that our officers issued citations or made arrests for. $200K would field about 3 officers for a year, once you factor in salaries, insurance, vehicles, equipment, training, supervison, administration, support, maintenance and other factors. While $200K is no small amount, our enforcement efforts have little to do with the collection of revenue. I rarely wrote tickets, though I made lots of traffic stops (I didn't cite CHL holders, either, because they are on our side).

Police departments developed into the "professional" model during the middle of the last century, as exemplified by the LAPD during the 1950s to the 1980s. The older model for organizations that had relatively untrained officers, large-scale corruption and little court oversight was unworkable and ineffective.

The professional model was a vast improvement over the old systems, and is needed as a backbone for all agencies. It has its drawbacks, though. It has a rigid hierarchy, is slow to change or adapt, and is REACTIVE. One of the cornerstones is Peelian reform (Sir Robert Peel, the founder of London's Metropolitan Police during the 1820s and father of modern policing), is that the mission of police is to prevent crime and criminality. Professional model organizations wind up responding to calls and investigating crime. Offenders are arrested, and criminals go to prison, but the fundamental conditions that cause, allow or foster crime never change.

The response was "Community Policing" or "Problem-Oriented Policing" or permutations or mergers of the two schools of thought. Community policing decentralizes police agencies, stresses "patrol generalists" as opposed to specialized units, and stresses community involvement and response to community needs. Problem-Oriented Policing deals with getting the community and other governmental and non-governmental agencies to help police deal with some of the root causes of crimes in the community, and to work together to solve them. These measures are PROACTIVE, and can actually cause crime rates to go down.

COP and POP can go too far, and a balance needs to be struck between them and the Professional model. They do work, and while there is debate about what was responsible for plummeting crime rates during the 1990s, POP and COP were at least partly responsible. Regardless of the opinions often voiced on this board, community support and satisfaction of law enforcement service in this country went dramatically up in this country over the last decade. We do annual surveys, and our community couldn't think much more highly of us than they do now.

As far as the whole "militarization" argument goes, I think that it is a bunch of crap.

Police departments are in many respects much more professional, and individual officers are more tactically oriented than in years past. I do not see any problems with this. In the dark days of the 1970s, there was no real tactical training for most officers in this country, and there were about 2-3 time as many officers killed each year as there are now (events like 9-11 notwithstanding). Teaching officers how to safely arrest a dangerous subject or clear a building properly is not militant. In fact, the reverse is true; the law enforcement community is responsible for the advances in close-quarters tactics and less-lethal technology that are influencing current military operations. MOUT, in the old days, involved razing buildings and killing everyone who wasn't clearly on your side. The more restrained and precise urban operations exhibited by our military, the advances in body armor and close-in firearms technology, are all driven by American law enforcement experience over the last couple of decades. Things like face masks, BDUs, helmets, firepower, armored cars and all of the "hot-button" issues need to be debated in a free society, but some of the responses that these things have no place in LE are ridiculous.

I am a law enforcement tactical officer, and I train fellow officers on tactics and use-of-force. While I am no "expert," I do consider myself to have above-average knowledge on these subject matters. I do not see any "militarization" of police. I do see officers that are more tactically proficient and better trained and equipped than in the past. This is good. It is your tax money; do you want Barney Fife to come save you, or do you want a trained, capable professional? (although Andy Griffith was actually a great cop; they actually used bits from his show in the academy to demonstrate sound judgement and problem-solving skills).

BTW, can you tell that I really studied hard for my promotional exams?

Haven't seen too many cops save anyone.  In columbine, didn't they stay outside for quite a while, and prevent anyone from going in?

And yes, putting on black ninja suits, and covering their faces, and playing with m-16's and m-60s IS militarization.

Sorry, that's the way it is.

Well said!!

If you don't like what LEOs do then GET INVOLVED!  If you can't or won't get involved then you have little reason to complain.  

IF YOU AREN'T PART OF THE SOLUTION THEN YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Within limits, the wild west idea DOES have its merits.  As has been pointed out already, the society of the "wild west" in the 1800's in America had a very low crime rate.

I personally would favor the following changes, in principle at least:

Local laws are made by local tribunals, which are volunteer positions with very definite (and relatively short) term limits. The citizenry may vote to REMOVE a tribunal member from his position, but not to INSTALL him in that position.  It'd be along the lines of a recall petition.   Tribunal members would have the exclusive right of voting FOR volunteers to join the tribunal, and could not vote to remove them.

In short,  A person who wishes to volunteer for tribunal membership would be voted in by the tribunal.  The people would be able to remove him.   Of course, the original tribunal would have to be elected by the people.

Police would be DRAFTED, for the most part,  and continued service would be subject to public vote. An asshole cop would be voted out of a job.
The citizens would have the right to call such a vote at any time upon posting two week's notice of the upcoming vote along with the specifics of the issue to be voted upon.    Voter turnout would have to meet a predetermined percentage of eligible voters or the vote would be invalid.

Police would be subject to reciprocal punishment in the case of false arrests. (Specifically, arrests that are not warranted by the situation that the officer is dealing with.)  Meaning, as an example,  if you arrest someone for DUI and they are found not guilty, the OFFICER serves the sentence given for DUI.    This would virtually ENSURE that all arrests would be "clean", with absolutely no reasonable doubt about the situation.   It would utterly put an end to police harassment of the citizens.

Jury trials would always be based in part on the concept of the juror's bill of rights.  The juries would be permitted to judge not just the facts of the case, but on whether or not the alleged crime was actually justifiable given the circumstances, and whether the law in question itself is a just law.    

Judges would not be permitted to restrict the jury from implementing the juror's bill of rights.

Jurors would have the right to ask questions of the judge, prosecuting attorneys, and defense attorneys without restriction.

No person who wishes to be excluded from jury duty would be required to serve on a jury.

Jury duty would be strictly a volunteer service, and the jurors would be selected by the attorneys and clients on both sides of the case.   Both parties would have the right to request jurors who are competent to make an educated judgement about matters which pertain to the case and involve specialized knowledge.    For example, a civil case regarding copyright infringement over an electronic device would include some jurors who are compentent in the field of electronics as a layman would not reasonably be expected to fully comprehend the operating nature of the item in question.

Other changes:

No searches of any kind, for any reason, without signed and witnessed authorization by the subject of the search, or a court order issued in OPEN court.   Absolutely no "no knock" raids allowed, period.

Police would be REQUIRED to WALK their beats at least once every two weeks.  This is to ensure that the police have a very good opportunity to establish a rapport with the locals.  It's good PR, as well.

Mere possession of ANYTHING would not be illegal, no matter what it is.  

The concept "It is not possible to commit a crime within the confines of your own residence and with consenting adults" would be a core value of the law.  Anything that happens behind closed doors is legal as long as no UNWILLING victims get harmed by it.

Same concept applies to any act performed on private land.  No harm, no foul.




CJ

I KNOW that I have saved lives over the last few years. There are people who are alive today who would undoubtedly be dead if not for my efforts. That is one of the reasons I go to work; If not me, then who?

Columbine in particular, and active shooter situation in general, were situations that the law enforcement community had not come up with an effective response to. Believe me that they have now. I am a trainer for active shooter situations (among other things). It is one of the most difficult tactical problems to train folks for, and it sucks to be a bad guy for this. I estimate that I have taken a couple thousand Simunitions hits during this (and sims run about 50 cents a round-they aren't cheap). Columbine was a bad deal, and LE responded to the best of their experience and training, which unfortunately wasn't enough at that time. Things have changed, and there have been better response since then. First responders are now trained to go directly to the threat and stop it, period. It is not easy training, and there are a large number of psychological hurdles to overcome to get folks to do it right, but many, if not most departments in the country have adopted some form of this training. Things have changed.

Funny you should mention Columbine and then condemn officers having rifles. At the start of that incident, before the shooter had managed to actually kill anyone, they were engaged at 55 yards by one of the SROs assigned to the campus. He was unable to get any hits (55 yards is difficult with a handgun under optimum conditions). Do you think if the SRO had an M16 (he was at his car, and could have quickly deployed one), that the situation would have turned out differently? I carried an M16 carbine daily for a couple of years, until I traded it in for a new M4A1. I think that rifles for Patrol Officers are a needed, necessary tool, and are much more suited for police work than shotguns, and are better than handguns for a large number of potential, foreseeable situations. I will gladly debate that topic, and it is not militarization for officers to have adequate equipment. BTW, I haven't ever deployed my issued weapons with the selector levers set on "AUTO," but it is nice to know that it is there, and there are situations where it would be appropriate for me, as a law enforcement officer, to use full automatic, though they are rare.

While I don't wear a mask (although I have my old Nomex CVC mask from the Army if I ever got stuck on a perimeter or doing scouting and it was really, really cold out), have a ninja suit (Camo BDUs are available for free and make much better tactical sense), or have access to crew-served weapons, there are specific situation where any of those would be called for, and it is short-sighted to issue blanket statements condemning their use. Again, I don't see how this equates to militarization. Who in the military wears hoods? Combat vehicle crewmen are the only folks I can think of, and they do it primarily for safety reasons (anti-flash burn), which are the same reasons that LE agencies who use this stuff generally do.

I think you are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Why worry about clearing each individual case? If one burglar commits twenty offenses a year then taking that one felon out of circulation permenantly would prevent all the crimes that he would commit in his carreer. If one home owner got lucky and caught a burglar in the act and took care of the problem that would also take care of all of the future break ins that would have happened to his neighbors.

In our current system of law enforcement as you said only a small percentage of property crimes are cleared, meaning the thief is caught. After he is released from confinement in one or two years he is right back at it.

If citizens were allowed to police their own communities and weed out the scum then it would be a very short time before we could go back to leaving our doors unlocked.  

Sorta reminds me of the time I got suspended for hooking school...... I STILL haven't figured that one out.

Uh, I thought in Texas you could shoot anybody on your property after dark, no questions asked?

BS. LEOs response to Columbine was NO response. They waited 3 hours before they even attempted entry (and the JBT SWAT was at the school in something like 30 minutes). They finally made it in long after the victims were killed and the shooters killed themselves.

That's what I thought too. But he could've just been telling me this so I won't get any more ideas on sitting up on the roof and tring to kill anyone that steals anything.

I'm pretty sure they'd charge me with something to take away my rights and throw me in jail.

Any LEOs out there want to comment?

Everytime a cop argues that tickets/fines are not tax collection they bring up this same tired arguement. Just because the money you collect from tickets/fines dosen't go directly to your dept does not mean they are not taxes. Following your logic, IRS tax collectors wouldn't count as tax collectors because the money they collect goes to the treasury dept and not to directly funding the tax collectors themselves. To sum up it doesn't matter WHERE the money is going, if you are taking money from the public you are collecting taxes.

No. I never argued that government did not collect fines, but that law enforcement was not about revenue collection. To follow my logic, fines equal a miniscule amount of money compared to what it costs to field our agency, and there is no logical arguement that we exist to collect revenue, when traffic fines wouldn't cover the department's operating costs for a single week, or the entire local government for more than two days. Our department is funded mostly by sales taxes, then property taxes, which have nothing to do with fines that are collected.

I already commented. It is legal for you to use deadly force to protect your propert in Texas from theft, arson or criminal mischief, during the night. Whether it would be ethical or moral of you to sit on your roof and snipe car burglars is another matter.  You probably would be arrested for this, and probably would get no-billed by the Grand Jury, but you could get convicted of Murder, too, depending on the local DA and the Jury.

About people that always bring up Columbine,  I really don't care. Have a beef with the tactics employed? Talk to that agency. I wasn't there, and I had no input.

It happens our policy on active shooters is quite different.
Essentially, we track them down and kill them.

We are also issued or carry personal AR-15's.  Both policies were been in place long before Columbine. I don't really care whether you think that's "Militarization" or not.

Want to really get a case of the tinfoil going?  Look at our riot control policy sometime. (sorry to dissapoint, but we don't have any auto weapons or M60's. We do have an armored vehicle)

For the "Revenue"  dudes.  Just what do you suggest as an alternate? "pretty please"?  I wrote 16 tickets today,  to people that blocked emergency access for a fire truck and  EMS rescue unit, making them incapable of even making it to the emergency. It's very likely a man will die, or at least be crippled because of them.

Jail time?  Who would pay for it?
Community service? Again, those programs cost money to administer. What do you do if they don't show, or are incapable of working?

As for the "Wild West"  I believe a lot of guys want to go back to those days simply because they fantasize about shooting people.

Sgtar15,  please point out for me what law governs rifle prices?  

I was going to address CM Johnson, but nevermind. the NAACP would love him.

Kroagnon,   When there is a body cooling in the driveway don't expect us to just take your word for it, even in Texas.

Please, by all means, reply to my comments.  So long as we play nice, I'd LOVE to hear your take on my suggestions.  It might cause me to rething my position,  and I always seek to to learn more and integrate that knowledge.  

CJ

AS for the people who say "Take the revenue out of traffic citations, " I say to you, what then?

Sppeding tickets, drunk driving, reckless driving, running red lights.  

You see these things happen, what do you want to happen?  For them to get pulled over.  If no monetary fine, then what?  Suspend their license?  Doesn't work. I see three four of those every day.  And that ticket is $550.00 a pop.  They don't seem to care even with that.

Send them to jail?  The jail in my area is so overcrowded, they release even non-violent felonies ROR within a few hours of arrest.

So what would you have us do?  

To everyone that hates what we do, please, I beg you, go on a few ride-alongs.  See what we do, and then, after you see what we do, and how it is done, I would like to then hear your input.

It will open your eyes to some truely stupid, boring, scary, nasty stuff all in one day.

I see many opinions, and all of those opinions have valid points, but don't judge all of us on what some cowboys do on T.V.

We need to go back to the Peace Officer concept of "protect and serve", and away from the increased ninja wannabe military concept of "dominate and control". If it doesn't happen, and soon, a lot of good people on both sides are going to be wasted needlessly. The good cops have to stop protecting the bad ones out of a misguided sense of brotherhood. Non- LEOs need to identify the good cops from the bad cops and have the courage to bring civil complaints against the bad ones.