• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the legitimate role of police?

radcen said:
This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.
Click to expand...

The courts have already dispensed with this, like it or not.

The police carry guns to protect "their" lives not "your life"

They are under no obligation to put themselves in danger to protect you or your children.

A few of the tougher ones who actually want to will actually take down criminals but most of the time they investigate crimes, make reports, and write citations.

There is a reason you cannot face discipline for cowardice as young people serving in the Military do; the civil service union would never allow this for police officers.
 
DeadCircuits said:
Of course in reality not all of our laws genuinely protect people. The prohibition of marijuana for instance. You could argue as to whether the intent of the law is to protect people from harming themselves with substances, but it's pretty clear to me that marijuana does not do substantial harm to individuals or their communities.
Click to expand...

Scientific evidence shows otherwise:

Dr Marta Di Forti, Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist at King's College warned that the powerful drug placed Britain's 2.1 million cannabis users at risk of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, psychosis, delusions and hallucinations.

'The increase of high-potency cannabis on the streets poses a significant hazard to users' mental health, and reduces their ability to choose more benign types,' she said.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...oxins_and_vulnerable_teens.html#ixzz59gchIJDy
 
code1211 said:
Most police will agree that they respond to crimes of violence to write a report, not to stop the crime. By the time they arrive, in the vast majority of cases, the crime of violence is already completed.

That said, though, they provide the famous "Thin Blue Line" that protects most of us from the folks on the other side of the line.

A society without police is nothing more or less than a mob.
Click to expand...

The real “thin blue line” is those thin shooters gloves between you trigger finger and the trigger.

The problem with self defense is proving a “good shoot” whereas a police shooting is always a good shoot.
 
Mircea said:
Scientific evidence shows otherwise:

Dr Marta Di Forti, Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist at King's College warned that the powerful drug placed Britain's 2.1 million cannabis users at risk of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, psychosis, delusions and hallucinations.

'The increase of high-potency cannabis on the streets poses a significant hazard to users' mental health, and reduces their ability to choose more benign types,' she said.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...oxins_and_vulnerable_teens.html#ixzz59gchIJDy
Click to expand...

I don't actually disagree that cannabis can be harmful, perhaps I should have been more clear in saying I don't think it's harmful in a way that is helped by criminalisation. You're not protecting a cannabis user by sentencing them. It would be more appropriate to offer them support to get off the drug and to establish a life without it. The current laws do not protect vulnerable cannabis users, people are buying strains of indeterminate strength that may or may not be contaminated from illegal dealers.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk
 
chuckiechan said:
The real “thin blue line” is those thin shooters gloves between you trigger finger and the trigger.

The problem with self defense is proving a “good shoot” whereas a police shooting is always a good shoot.
Click to expand...

"Officer, I felt my life was in danger."

Obviously, given recent events, not all police shootings are "good shoot(s)".
 
radcen said:
This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.
Click to expand...
http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Policing-and-Profit.pdf
 
The police slogan is to protect and to serve. Protecting and serving can be both reactive and/or preemptive. If there is a crime spree in an area, the police will protect and serve, by reacting in force, to the phone call. They may then protect and serve, preemptively, by creating a long term presence in that neighborhood to get ahead of future problems.

Reactive protect and serve is much easier to get one's head around. If I have a car accident, the police office called to the scene will protect and serve, in reaction to a real time situation, so the truth can be served. Preemptive is more abstract, since the creative and anticipatory tactics needed to get ahead of the problem, may not appear obvious, to short term thinking. They may place a stop sign there, that nobody wants.

As another example, say a large inner city neighborhood has a lot of assaults. The obvious reactive service and protection would be react to the latest 911 call and arrest a suspect. A preemptive solution to protect and serve, that may be easy to see, would be increased patrols. However, in other times, the preemptive may not make sense. For example, say an officer is sent to forge a friendly relationship with the gang of thugs, as a way to leverage their behavior for the future. It may look too soft for some, and not reactive enough to the crime that was committed. It is looking long term.

Alternately, what may appear to be an over reaction in terms of preemptive protect and serve, such as rounding up all the criminals, for one assault. It may seem too harsh and intrusive. However, it may have a long term reactive and preemptive foundation for service and protection. If a criminal has a rap sheet, with say two convicted assaults, this does not mean he only hurt two people. It means he could have hurt dozens of people, but there was only enough evidence to get two convictions. Criminals are not able to earn a living by getting caught and convicted for every single crime. They earn a living, in this high risk job, because they get away with most of their crimes. There are many people who suffer in silence.

Most crimes never get solved. Sometimes what appears to be overreactive preemptive, in terms of protect and serve, is retribution for the all the people who suffer in silence, and have no voice for their final justice. They are not on the rap sheet as a case that is resolved. This can lead to a unique form of reactive serve and protect, connected to the past and the lingering hurts, which has not yet been resolved in terms of truth and justice.

For example, say a husband abuses his wife over serval years. He is caught for the bruises reported on a particular day. If we convict him for the evidence of that one day, does the wife feel justice for the other 100 beatings? Justice has only been served for one day but not for two years. Protect and serve, for the wife who cries 99 tears in silence, may be a good beating for the husband, before he goes to trial. The left will think this is mean, since they have a soft spot for criminals. But it adds up terms of the larger picture of a reactive avenging angel, protecting and serving those who cry alone so they have closure.
 
Last edited:
hado117 said:
there has never been a time in U.S. history , when the people have had a greater need to arm themselves . than today.
Click to expand...

Hado117:

Yes, about the first 125 years of US history when private citizen possession/ownership of guns was essential as America conquered the continent and eliminated, sequestered or marginalised competing populations in North America. From that point on firearms possession/ownership by private citizens diminished in importance until today it may even be seen by some as a net disadvantage to American society.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Hado117:

Yes, about the first 125 years of US history when private citizen possession/ownership of guns was essential as America conquered the continent and eliminated, sequestered or marginalised competing populations in North America. From that point on firearms possession/ownership by private citizens diminished in importance until today it may even be seen by some as a net disadvantage to American society.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

the marginalization of the continent began before the u.s. was a country... if not , Canada wouldn't exist
 
radcen said:
This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.
Click to expand...

To enforce the law and order within their jurisdiction. Hence, they have no obligation to protect individuals unless a special relationship has been established (custody, investigation, etc.)
Do you you understand that there is a difference between enforcing the law and protecting someone? Obviously not. Ignorance is bliss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom