A hate group of cops on Facebook!

Post Reply New Topic

Depends on who they mean by "them"........

Apology accepted, but I'm not.

"Them" and "they" in the translation means us, the populace, the citizens. Basically, "I don't care if they hate me, so long as they fear me."

Not the attitude a cop should have.

What happened to "To Serve & Protect"? Only sympathizers with a police state would utilize that quote from Caligula

"them" could very well mean the filth of society.

Again, not the attitude a cop should have.

More specifically, those that uphold the law are supposed to be a positive force. The first word in 'protect and serve' is 'protect', not 'punish' or 'avenge'. Fear isn't an appropriate emotion for them to be trying to cultivate - they are a shield, not a sword (talk to the military for a sword).

As much as I hate to say this, they do have a right to express their views, however flawed they may be. That does not, however, mean they should have immunity to the consequences of such behavior, regardless of what the Snyder v. Phelps decision says.

Facebook has a TOS, just as WP does, and they consented to it when they opened their page. When people misbehave and break the rules they agreed to follow, they need to be held accountable for it. I think you were perfectly justified in following your conscience and reporting them. I respectfully disagree with you on the "free speech" issue, however.

Cops don't have free speech. When they take the badge off, sure they do. But if they represent themselves as cops, then have a motto like "Oderint dum metuant", that is wrong. Cops, firefighters, military do not have free speech. As soon as they take off the garb and accoutrements, and are no longer a representation of authority, then they are citizens with the same rights as anyone, although military service limits that more.

But not as cops.

I would just like to reiterate this. I find that the biggest problem with modern day psychology regarding the police(or furthermore within the police itself) is this part in bold, which is not followed.

The military is what we create for absolute force and killing. They are allowed to kill. We train them to kill. It is there job to kill.

The police we create to enforce the laws and protect the populace. We do not hire them to kill, intimidate, or extract information in unlawful and unprotective ways.

Even if you could in some cases use unlawful methods to bring an ACTUAL criminal to justice, and have them punished for law...they are not supposed to be allowed to do so. They are supposed to follow the law 100% and no more. Failure to uphold the law in any case, including in cases where they try to locate or bring a criminal to justice is unacceptable. They are meant to be avatars of the law itself, and therefore are not allowed to deviate even 0.1% from it.

What I find hilarious, is those who have a strong support for law enforcement or even law enforcement themselves, who attempt to claim that very little should be necessary for a cop to be able to use excessively violent tactics or lethal force if even the smallest amount of opposition occurs.

Here is the counter argument. simple.

We hire the military to kill...and even they are capable of following orders under MAJOR duress without killing. A killing force, who when given orders NOT to KILL, merely to subdue or rescue, are in many cases able to do so.

If this is the case where MILITARY, whose job it is to kill, can do a better job than law enforcement at rescue and subduing enemy elements, than I say we get rid of the police force entirely and have the military replace them in terms of domestic force as well.

So to repeat myself and let it sink in:

I don't wish to see this happen. However, if the police cannot protect and serve 100% to the letter of the law, and no more, and the military does law enforcement's job better than law enforcement themselves, than I say get rid of the police force altogether.

Last edited by Hero on 09 Mar 2012, 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is an argument that police forces are unconstitutional.

I'd rather not leave that to an individual cop to decide who "the filth" is, since that is highly questionable ethically and will simply result in more problems.

I Am confused by the title. "hate group of cops" is redundant.

I think you're confusing free speech for freedom from consequences. We're actually on the same page insofar as we both expect a modicum of professionalism and respect from uniformed LEO's. Furthermore, while they indeed have the right to free speech while in uniform, they also shouldn't be insulated from being reprimanded, suspended, or even fired depending on the severity of what was said.

I disdain ignorant bigots, perhaps even more so than you, but I'm also unwilling to strip them of their inalienable rights under the pretext of policing morality, especially when law enforcement agencies already have internal affairs departments to investigate such behavior.

It has been decided in court that public servants do not have freedom of speech while representing themselves as public servants. Cops or highway workers can't hand out flyers about a political rally while working or in uniform for instance. (Highway workers have uniforms.)

I see that as more of a possible work performance issue than a free speech one, and once again, free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.