Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ TM
Well and eloquently put sir. I thank you.
1000 Agrees to you.
I agree with some of what you’ve said, however in general I think police and other civil servants should be held accountable by the appropriate systems/individuals that are expressly put in place to perform that function. Internal investigators, district attorneys, supervisors, chiefs, etc, have the knowledge and authority to hold police accountable.
Keep digging. You might get to China...
rmfr
AJ777, you wrote, “I agree with some of what you’ve said, however in general I think police and other civil servants should be held accountable by the appropriate systems/individuals that are expressly put in place to perform that function. Internal investigators, district attorneys, supervisors, chiefs, etc, have the knowledge and authority to hold police accountable.”
Please describe why I, specifically, am not qualified to hold a LE officer or department accountable.
And that's why I am in favor of having them all pay for their own insurance, just like other professionals.
What sort of insurance?
@AJ Re: "....should be held accountable by the appropriate systems/individuals that are expressly put in place to perform that function."
Yes, sir. In that you are partially correct. We do have the systems in place as those you mentioned. And those ARE the systems that keep the officers "in check" and issue disciplinary actions if officers are found to be negligent in any way.
For instance, a citizen is unhappy with an officer's performance during an incident. That citizen has every right to contact that officer's supervisor and voice a complaint. Matter of fact, if a citizen requested, we were REQUIRED to call a supervisor to the scene. In no way, shape, or form was I allowed to tell that citizen to "Fuck off", or "Kiss my ass", or "Tough shit, buddy." If I had ever done that, my ass would have REALLY been in BIG trouble, regardless of what the citizen's original complaint was.
Anyway, at that point, it will be up to the supervisor to hear the citizen and determine if there is any validity to the complaint based on the department's policies, rules, and regulations. If the supervisor determines there was no negligence on the officer's part, then he explains that to the citizen and all is well. If the supervisor does believe there was officer negligence, then a formal investigation is started using the systems you mentioned. And in that way, citizens do have every right in the world to criticize their respective law enforcement agencies and officers.
That makes no sense. How exactly would potential malfeasance by the police be brought to the attention of those bodies, if ordinary citizens aren't allowed to criticise them?
Would you rather live in a police state, where the police were beyond any criticism, or would you rather live in a democracy, where the police were held accountable for their actions and subject to the same laws they enforce?
I think you ought to read some first hand accounts of the rise of Nazism, and on totalitarian police states in general. To see what life becomes when the police are beyond all public criticism, and are merely the tool of government.
I do wonder sometimes if you're being entirely sincere.
Bravo Tin-Man
I come from a cop family. My uncle, father, and both brothers served. They served their community.
TIN: " Law enforcement agencies and the officers within them are there to “Serve and Protect” the citizens"
If only that were still true. Since the incorporation of cities and so.. police who work for the cities, any form of Protect and Serve has gone right out the window. Police work for the city, the city is a business and it is the job of the police to generate revenue for the city. Hunting down criminals is way down on the list of priorities. Hunting for criminals costs the city money and when they find them and arrest them, they cost the city, state and government even more money.
"Policing for Profit" is the strategy of the new era. Target people with enough money to pay but not enough money to fight tickets in court. Target the working stiffs whose bosses get pissed at them should they have to take a day off for court. The Supreme Court of the United States has even ruled, "It is not an officer's duty to try and protect anyone."
https://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-p...
Add to that the fact that promotions and raises are all based on quota systems and you have the makings of a tyrannical police state. The police can not be held responsible for their actions, they lie on reports, they plant evidence, and corruption is common.
One easy answer to all of this is to force individual officers to carry their own insurance just like other professionals. It will not solve the problem completely but it will sure make it difficult for a bad cop who violates the rules / laws of his or her profession to continue working. The police of today are NOTHING like the police I grew up with. The rules have changed while we were all watching TV.
A cops job is to arrest someone and bring money into the system. Their job is to escalate any situation and get that arrest any way they can. The day's of being a Peace Officer are gone. I say that meaning no disrespect for the fine men and women who once did a fine job. The system is no longer what it was. We live in a police state and our rights are being stolen from us because we are too ignorant to see it and too powerless to do anything about it.
Cognostic: "Add to that the fact that promotions and raises are all based on quota systems and you have the makings of a tyrannical police state."
And that is why the State of North Carolina passed a state law prohibiting "quotas" for any North Carolina LEOs. Wish I could find that State Supreme Court ruling, but it was like 30 to 40 years ago.
rmfr
@ Cognostic
"Law enforcement agencies and the officers within them are there to “Serve and Protect” the citizens"
That's what they 'should' be doing, I agree. It seems like now days they seem to be there as "comply or die" enforcers.
@ AJ777
AJ777...do you know what a foxhole is? Can you hobble there on your maimed foot? Or just dig your own...it will have to be large to accommodate that over inflated sense of righteousness you carry round...so...* tosses trench tool* get started....
I know you are famous for loading the gun that is going to shoot you...but really....can you afford to lose the other foot?
Are you trying to impute that a law officer (employed by the tax payer) has greater rights than the taxpayer and citizen who supports him?
(edit Last para added and tags edited)
"Do you support criticism of law enforcement by those that have no experience in the field?"
Do you really see no problem with a country's police force being beyond criticism? I fear you are going to force me to fulfil Godwin's law in a moment.
In the UK there is an independent body called the Independent Office for Police Conduct, that investigates complaints against the police, and I would have no other way. All citizens have a right to lodge a complaint with this independent body.
@ Sheldon
"Independent Office for Police Conduct"
I wonder, do you really think they are independent and unbiased? Do you honestly think you will get justice from them? Just curious.
@ AJ777
Although directed at Old Man, I can also answer this.
Working as a scientist, I do. The methods used by many CSI personnel is very similar to the Scientific Method. Although never working in criminal law, how do you think a scientist investigates a scientific hypothesis? They collect data and apply it to the hypothesis to draw a "best" conclusion. Kind of like proving the hypothesis is "guilty" or "not guilty." If you can, Think Critically about it.
rmfr
Bumping this astonishing contradiction by AJ777 to end of thread:
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 16:10 AJ777 "We don’t need evidence of this nature to make a criminal case, and we don’t need scientific, forensic evidence to prove Christianity either."
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 17:09 AJ77 "Criminal investigations are dependent on reliable evidence that is verifiable."
Barely an hour and you have roundly contradicted yourself.
Sheldon, no contradiction, just your lack of understanding and closed mindedness causes you to ignore truth to support your views. But, in your world truth doesn’t exists so what’s the point.
@ AJ777
What Sheldon pointed out, is, a blatant contradiction! Truth is what we can prove by, observation, measurement, and testing by experimentation. Something that has NEVER happened in regards Christianity.
AJ777 "Sheldon, no contradiction,"
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 16:10 AJ777 "We don’t need evidence of this nature to make a criminal case, and we don’t need scientific, forensic evidence to prove Christianity either."
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 17:09 AJ77 "Criminal investigations are dependent on reliable evidence that is verifiable."
I've ignored your petty ad hominem fallacy. The facts are these are two verbatim quotes from your posts, and I've included time and date, and they quite demonstrably contradict each other.
Truth exists independently of whether or not one can conduct an experiment to convince oneself of that truth. Your statement “Truth is what we can prove by observation, measurement, and testing by experimentation.” Is self defeating in that you cannot prove the truth of this statement using the methods stated. Your statement is a philosophical assertion.
@ AJ777
Truth is, the quality or state of being true. True is, in accordance with fact or reality. Therefore, truth does not exist independently of reality. This is a statement of fact, not a philosophical assertion.
What ever you are referring to as existing outside of reality, can never exist, by definition. That is, a self defeating position.
Shiningone,
“What ever you are referring to as existing outside of reality, can never exist, by definition. That is, a self defeating position.”
I never referred to anything outside of reality, whatever that means. Truth is that which corresponds to reality. 20
@ AJ777
"I never referred to anything outside of reality, whatever that means."
Yes you did,
"Truth exists independently of whether or not one can conduct an experiment to convince oneself of that truth."
Reality is defined as what we can prove by experimentation. You know exactly what it means. You are being dishonest. I do not debate with dishonest people.
MORE UTTER BULLSHIT BY AJ777 I go on vacation and this guy is still at it. Tell me one thing that is true independent of an experiment. What is self defining is the utter inane comment that there is truth independent of truth. Please prove you claim. Give us all a truth, we can agree on and rationally know, without experimentation. Utter Utter BULLSHIT!
Cognostic "MORE UTTER BULLSHIT BY AJ777 I go on vacation and this guy is still at it. Tell me one thing that is true independent of an experiment. "
Anything you want to believe, obviously. That's why theists like AJ777 like the idea, because they can delude themselves that religion has access to some esoteric truth science can't test.
How was your vacation? I didn't have one last year, just booked to go away in August, it's going to a long long wait.
Ya, I'm always interested where people go to get away, and what they do. Tell us.
AJ777 "Truth exists independently of whether or not one can conduct an experiment to convince oneself of that truth. Your statement “Truth is what we can prove by observation, measurement, and testing by experimentation.” Is self defeating in that you cannot prove the truth of this statement using the methods stated. Your statement is a philosophical assertion."
Nonsense, one can simply point to the relentless success of the scientific method. QED...
Sheldon, that’s a non sequitur.
AJ777 "that’s a non sequitur."
AJ777, No it certainly is not. What a bizarre thing to say.
You claimed that “Truth is what we can prove by observation, measurement, and testing by experimentation.” Is self defeating in that you cannot prove the truth of this statement using the methods stated."
Of course we can objectively measure the success or failure of the scientific method, and therefore measure it validity as a method.
Again the claim was wrong, but claim it's a non sequitur to refute your claim is just bizarre.
You do know what non sequitur means don't you?
Pages