Not enough cops

[Hugo]

Maybe it's in my interests to let burglary run rampant in group B's district while mine sits quietly, so that by comparison I look great.

Right, and group B's district becomes impoverished by the crime, and lots of people move away. Then the criminals start spilling over into affluent district A to steal their plasma TVs and Mercedes. Real smart.

And what if the customer who was robbed/raped/ beaten fires his police company? Are they still going to be spending money trying to find the perp? I doubt it.

No, because it looks really great if a company can say, "Yes, we totally failed in our obligation to our previous client and we did absolutely nothing about it. So, would you like to sign this contract with us?"

There are two things which would separate really good police from cheapie firms. One is people, highly skilled, disciplined, motivated employees. The second is information. The company with the best information resources is going to be the best police force. And you expect these companies to freely share their information resources on an everyday basis? Not bloody likely.

I have already provided you with reasons as to why they would. You can't provide any as to why they won't.

Basically, two police companies would form an agreement to share information. Both of them benefit. It does not make sense for them to be secretive.

On what planet? Restaurants don't often poison their customers because of government inspections.

No, they don't poison their customers because killing your patrons isn't a good way to stay in business. What are you saying - that restaurants are just scheming up to kill all of their customers and only government is stopping them? What planet are you on?

You can be reasonably sure buildings and houses won't fall down because of government codes and inspections.

No, you can be sure they won't fall down because the companies who build and sell houses and apartments won't do any more business with contractors who construct buildings that fall down.

How the hell is it Canadian Tire keeps getting customers into its auto bays? Everyone knows how bad they are!

Their customers don't agree with you. What's your evidence for this libel?

Does that financial planner of yours know what he's doing?

I assume that if he's been successfully in business for twenty years, yes, he does.

Security guards? The closest thing to private cops, and most of them couldn't find their asses with both hands and a map.

As opposed to State police, where 5 SWAT teams are (and I quote) "outgunned" by two teenagers with sawed-off shotguns?

[Hugo]

Oh of course they will, provided they're cheaper.

It's cheaper not to have any customers? Interesting theory. Stupid, but interesting.

And you think this will somehow be improved by contracting out the job to hundreds of private forces with varying levels of training and intelligence, different standards, different procedures, all in competition with each other, and all wanting to undercut each others prices?!

That's what built the railroads, my friend. That's a system that was pivotal in advancing our standard of living.

Ah, the thrill of firefights between different police forces who don't agree on the evidence or guilt of one of their clients!

They wouldn't fight. It's extremely expensive, and violent police forces would price themselves out of the market. What they'd do is contract to use various private courts when disputes arose with other police forces. Negotiation and arbitration is always cheaper and more efficient than war.

Oh lovely. So we have private companies who can make a profit out of putting me on a work farm? Perhaps you'd like to bring back the poor house? Debt bondage?

And this is different from prison how?

You are forgetting that there is no room in Capitalism for any motive but one; profit.

Bzzzt: Wrong! There's no room in capitalism for anything but what the consumers demand. Why else would Fair Trade Coffee exist?

Suppose a chain of strip clubs hires a given police service to protect them and look after them? Fine. But that chain is also a den of prostitution and drug dealing. Is the police service going to do anything about that when the client doesn't want it to? What's the incentive?

Why should they do anything about prostitution and drug dealing? Who's the victim?

Kickbacks and payouts to police to look the other way used to be commonplace.

When did the practice cease?

Now with a police service whose only purpose for existence is making a profit they'd become commonplace again.

Again, look at Enron. Corruption is a good way to go out of business, fast.

Sorry, it won't work. Not a flipping chance in hell.

Well, you can't demonstrate that either with evidence (of which you have none) or argument (which is all self-contradictory anyway).

[Argus]

Oh of course they will, provided they're cheaper.

It's cheaper not to have any customers? Interesting theory. Stupid, but interesting

I'm not going to argue any further with you, Hugo. It's futile. You have the zealous devotion (Ironically) of the dedicated Communist. And like the Communist you have a wonderful system, which will work perfectly - on paper - where all your companies and consumers are robots. But like the Communists, you are bizarrely incapable of understanding or coping with how human nature will affect your perfect system. Communism has some great ideas. It might work - if it weren't for human nature. Your system has the same myopic problem. It would probably be an even worse disaster than Communism for the freedom of individuals to do whatever they want without any regard for the well-being of others.

But arguing with you on it is like arguing with those poor, misguided fools still devoted to Communism. It's a waste of time because your version of reality is simply not the same as mine. Mine encompasses human nature and behaviour, and yours insists it will act in concert with your ideological beliefs.

[Hugo]

You have the zealous devotion (Ironically) of the dedicated Communist. And like the Communist you have a wonderful system, which will work perfectly - on paper - where all your companies and consumers are robots.

Of course, any social system will be better if people are more moral and selfless. It goes without saying. However, libertarianism does not rely on any change in human nature to work. It works with humans just the way they are. The greed of humans can be relied upon to limit the greed of other humans - so long as some of them aren't given a monopoly on coercive force and violence (in other words, government).

It might work - if it weren't for human nature. Your system has the same myopic problem.

Your self-contradictions are showing. If it is human nature to be greedy, selfish and evil, why do you think it is a grand idea to award some humans massive and arbitrary power over others? Does the history of state-sanctioned murder and violence not show that government is perhaps more vulnerable to the entry of evil and violent people than any other institution?

It would probably be an even worse disaster than Communism for the freedom of individuals to do whatever they want without any regard for the well-being of others.

It worked in Iceland. It worked in Pennsylvania. It worked in Ireland and in England for many, many centuries and produced very vibrant and healthy societies. Communism and American minarchism both collapsed of their own contradictions after about 75 years. Libertarian Ireland survived for almost a millenium and was ended by British invasion. Anglo-Saxon libertarianism survived for several centuries and was ended by Norman invasion. Anarchist Iceland survived for several centuries and was ended by Norwegian invasion. Holy Experiment Pennsylvania survived only for a few years and was ended by British invasion.

See a pattern emerging here?

But arguing with you on it is like arguing with those poor, misguided fools still devoted to Communism.

No, it isn't. Your problem is that the inconsistency and self-contradictions in your own arguments are being thrown in your face, and you are embarrassed and humiliated by it. The libertarian theory cleaves militantly to pure principle. Yours depends upon arbitrary compromises. Logically, your position is indefensible - as you have found. It's also laughable that you call Communists foolish when large tracts of your argument are pure Karl Marx.

Mine encompasses human nature and behaviour, and yours insists it will act in concert with your ideological beliefs.

No, yours takes two fundamentally different and opposed views of human nature according to what you are trying to argue. When discussing capitalism, humans are greedy, selfish, violent and evil. When discussing statism, lo and behold! humans are suddenly altruistic, selfless, pacifist and saintly.

The reason you're discontinuing this argument is because you can't reconcile your beliefs with each other, and the reason why systems built on your beliefs don't work is because the beliefs themselves don't work.

[Charles Anthony]

extracted from Hollywood muscles Canada -- Movie piracy

But through all this, I cannot fathom any other system that would work.

To be fair, it behooves us to clearly identify what we mean by "work" with respect to the justice/law/order/punishment/security/defense service market.

For me, these services are just like any other. The best comparative analogy is with the insurance market. We can agree that everybody is better off with insurance for life, automobiles, disability, critical illness, pets, home, whatever. Right? However, not everybody can afford it all. Furthermore, there is NEVER a one-size-fits-all policy across the board. People pick and choose according to what suits them and what they can afford. We do not make these tax-payer funded essential services.

Now look at private security companies. We can also agree that everybody is better off with a private security alarm company 24hour guard watching their homes. However, not everybody can afford it.

Now look at the concept of divorce and the new fad of reality television courts. Most disputes are settled privately without the need for public money. Public humiliation (reality shows) and the possibility of public humiliation (divorce settlements) keep things in order. These can be expanded.

To understand my concept of justice, you must understand that you (and everybody else) has the right to self-defense. That must be an absolute. When I say absolute, I even grant you (and everybody else) the right to carry concealed weapons. I also believe that you (and again everybody else) have the right to own a patch of land. This forum has a fine thread What is land ownership anyways -- Can you really own land? which examines this concept from all sides.

If you take the above two principles for granted -- I am not expecting you to adopt them, just try to do a thought exercise -- I believe that invariably people will look beyond monopolized state law and enforcement to settle their disputes or to protect themselves.

A state monopolized justice/law/order/punishment/security/defense system distorts the free market. Without it, people would procure the services of private police and private courts on their own.

If , as you say, one can buy the justice they afford, how would that be different from what you deem to be non-satisfactory about the current way the law is dished out?

It would be different because it forces rich people to pay ENTIRELY for what they get and, since poor people get nothing, poor people pay nothing. Sounds fair to me. My question to you is now: why are you forcing poor people to fund police service when poor people get ZERO service? Please understand that my rhetorical question comes from the fact that public servants do NOT have a profit motive to entice them to provide ongoing better service. I can not possibly think of publicly funded services do anything other than get worse and worse with time.

Now, I understand the following question: what about the poor people who can not afford ANY private police?

My answer is simple: their police service will necessarily be bundled into other services.

If we try to be practical and creative, we can imagine poor people being tenants on somebody else's property. Their landlord will provide their services to stay competitive. A landlord can not continue to make profit if their is no law and order on his land.

If all land was privately owned, in other words, there are no public parks and no public highways, O.J.Simpson would not have been able to escape his property so readily. Somebody would have to harbor him and protect him. Ultimately, he would have been in self-imposed exile or house arrest with ZERO means to acquire an income. Whoever would harbor him would face the same fate. This is where the importance of clearly delineated private property comes in and the damage created by public goods.

I do not subscribe that the poor get zero protection from the law. Do they get "Justice Light" , yes in some cases they do. But even rich people can and have been railroaded. (not as likely I admit)

With respect, I believe you are down-playing the way poor people are treated in the eyes of the law.

He was subject to a fair trial . What was not fair was putting those idiots Marcia and Christopher in charge of the prosecution.

He was also subject to an expensive trial paid by tax-payers. That is an injustice that not many people consider.

As for rich people get better treatment, I am not of the opinion that is true. Yes they tend to get better verdicts due to better vigilance in the case from their lawyers, but for many crimes they have to go through exactly what others do. Once they reach the courthouse, things can change.

I agree that up to a certain point, money may not matter. We are looking at the same stick. However, I insist that you are only looking at the long end. I ask you to look at the short end of the stick. Relative to rich people, poor people get virtually ZERO protection on the street and virtually ZERO defense in courts.

No, what I meant was might makes right. The bigger you are the more you can grab.

You are actually investigating two different things.

1) Personally, I DO NOT believe might makes right. I believe it is wrong to grab something that is not yours.

2) Unfortunately, I am convinced that most people behave otherwise. I believe people DO grab what is not theirs.

Having a state monopolized solution is not a fair way for people to defend themselves against people who grab.

[Wilber]

Most police departments are quite happy to work with reputable security companies. They just don't have the time to deal with things like home alarms, the great majority of which are false. They are swamped picking up the same people for the same crimes over and over again because the rest of the system refuses to deal with these people and get them off the street. It's not unusual to pick them up twice on the same shift.

[Charles Anthony]

Wilber, I agree with everything you say and you used the following word "reputable" which is very important. Reputation is a crucial element in a market for both services and goods.

[Mad_Michael]

Or does it have something to do with the left wing mindset, which Trudeau once aptly described as "bleeding hearts who can't stand to see men with guns in the streets".

Good gosh.

The quote you are lifting from Trudeau was given during the October Crisis when Trudeau declared martial law!

He wasn't talking about handing out tickets for jaywalking here. There were tanks rolling down the streets of Montreal.

[BubberMiley]

This forum's favorite pastime is making broad ideological generalizations without anything to back them up. Some leftwingers are big government Stalinists who like a strong police force to ensure the state remains supreme. Some rightwingers actually believe in freedom and don't trust the government, and see the police as enforcers of the state's will. But making foolishly contrived, broad generalizations is a waste of time. The problem is not a lack of police, but a misuse of existing resources. Half the cops are sitting in speed traps, waiting for otherwise safe drivers to technically be guilty of a ticketable offence. The other half are fretting about plants growing in peoples' basements and how grown adults choose to spend their private time. Dealing with actual criminals is too much like work when there are easier, safer criminals to attend to.

[sideshow]

This forum's favorite pastime is making broad ideological generalizations without anything to back them up. Some leftwingers are big government Stalinists who like a strong police force to ensure the state remains supreme. Some rightwingers actually believe in freedom and don't trust the government, and see the police as enforcers of the state's will. But making foolishly contrived, broad generalizations is a waste of time. The problem is not a lack of police, but a misuse of existing resources. Half the cops are sitting in speed traps, waiting for otherwise safe drivers to technically be guilty of a ticketable offence. The other half are fretting about plants growing in peoples' basements and how grown adults choose to spend their private time. Dealing with actual criminals is too much like work when there are easier, safer criminals to attend to.

Thats a stupid statement. There are actually very few traffic assigned officers and there are specific task forces assigned to the drug unit.

The rest of the service basically responds to 911 calls that they receive over their laptops in the cruiser car, or are dispatched via radio, or are given during their shift briefings.

The calls are assigned a priority based on severity of call and are dispatched to available units (sometimes units are preempted from less serious calls to attend to more serious ones).

[Rue]

Do you know that Canada's national average for police officers is 188

per 100k population (source stats canada june 2004 daily)?......

No I did not but it does not surprise me. Municipal and provincial governments have made a mess of administering municipalities.

Please do not get me going on Fat-head David Miller and his tax tax tax I need more tax b.s.

[Wilber]

This forum's favorite pastime is making broad ideological generalizations without anything to back them up. Some leftwingers are big government Stalinists who like a strong police force to ensure the state remains supreme. Some rightwingers actually believe in freedom and don't trust the government, and see the police as enforcers of the state's will. But making foolishly contrived, broad generalizations is a waste of time. The problem is not a lack of police, but a misuse of existing resources. Half the cops are sitting in speed traps, waiting for otherwise safe drivers to technically be guilty of a ticketable offence. The other half are fretting about plants growing in peoples' basements and how grown adults choose to spend their private time. Dealing with actual criminals is too much like work when there are easier, safer criminals to attend to.

Bull, the traffic component of most forces is smaller than it has ever been. They don't have the people. Patrol officers spend most of their time trying to deal with crime that results from addiction, not chasing the people who make the stuff.

Our police force has about 180 members total for a community with 124,000 people covering over 300 square km. Vancouver doesn't have many more than they did 25 years ago even though the population has increased by a third. The Charter and other changes to our legal system has more than doubled the paper work required by police officers and prosecutors while the results gained from getting convictions have diminished. They are hardly over staffed.

[Argus]

The problem is not a lack of police, but a misuse of existing resources. Half the cops are sitting in speed traps, waiting for otherwise safe drivers to technically be guilty of a ticketable offence. The other half are fretting about plants growing in peoples' basements and how grown adults choose to spend their private time. Dealing with actual criminals is too much like work when there are easier, safer criminals to attend to.

I agree that there is a misuse of resources. But not as you see it. In reality, 1/3 of cops are at court, or waiting to testify, or waiting to give evidence, or in some way attending the pleasure of the courts. Another 1/3 are at the police station filling out paperwork. I think I posted somewhere there were about 18 forms to fill out when arresting a drunk driver, for example. A big chunk of others are involved in some kind of support or administrative function. That doesn't leave a lot to be out on the streets.

[stevoh]

Speaking as a left winger, I generally associate "crime reduction" with multiple solutions. I have no problem funding police forces where it is needed, but I also agree with funding drug rehabilitation programs, after school activities for teenagers, and a plethora of other tactics used to prevent the crime before it starts.

I think that punishment gets to a point where increasing the punishment is no longer effective. Most of the crimes that occur are petty impetuous crimes based on opportunity, not planned out crimes where the consequences of the crime are carefully considered. A criminal performing an illegal act also believes they will get away with it (in most cases), so the level of the punishment is again not necessarily an effective deterent, since it will never be applied.

I know its a generalization, but it does seem like the typical right wing approach to raising crime rates is more police, harsher sentences. I prefer an approach that focusses on what happens to make the criminal before the crime is committed, AS WELL as catching them after the fact.

[Leader Circle]

The problem is not a lack of police, but a misuse of existing resources. Half the cops are sitting in speed traps, waiting for otherwise safe drivers to technically be guilty of a ticketable offence. The other half are fretting about plants growing in peoples' basements and how grown adults choose to spend their private time. Dealing with actual criminals is too much like work when there are easier, safer criminals to attend to.

I agree that there is a misuse of resources. But not as you see it. In reality, 1/3 of cops are at court, or waiting to testify, or waiting to give evidence, or in some way attending the pleasure of the courts. Another 1/3 are at the police station filling out paperwork. I think I posted somewhere there were about 18 forms to fill out when arresting a drunk driver, for example. A big chunk of others are involved in some kind of support or administrative function. That doesn't leave a lot to be out on the streets.

Bubber makes it sound as if your average dope grower is a friendly, happy-go-lucky, pot head, which do no harm. Many of these growers are also dealers and if they are willing to sell pot, what else will they do?

Misuse of resources is true, but I'd have to agree with Argus, because of the politically correct world, we are too busy being caught up in the proper paperwork to punish the proper criminals, because we wouldn't want them to get a good lawyer to get them off on a technicality!

If criminals were more scared of the punishment, they may not commit the crime!

Bring back capital punishment!

[guyser]

If criminals were more scared of the punishment, they may not commit the crime!

Bring back capital punishment!

Except it has shown not to work.

The problem is not a lack of police, but a misuse of existing resources. Half the cops are sitting in speed traps, waiting for otherwise safe drivers to technically be guilty of a ticketable offence. The other half are fretting about plants growing in peoples' basements and how grown adults choose to spend their private time. Dealing with actual criminals is too much like work when there are easier, safer criminals to attend to.

I dont think that is too far out , excpeting the 1/2 in speed traps thing. But existing resources should be better utilized.

There are myriad problems when dealing with this issue. Most, including me, have no idea what problems the police service has. And I am talking internal politics.

I can only speak of Toronto Police Service . There is one police station that routinely ignores calls as they make too much money on overtime and paid security (concerts parades etc) to be bothered. They will make a token effort at some point in the day, but it is largely a joke to call that station.

The collective bargaining done by Bromell is legion. There are some nice perks for officers in the way of holiday pay, working hours etc. I am thinking it still true , but did you know they work 7 on 7 off ? Hey , nice if you can get it. But lets say you are stationed elsewhere, outside of the country (it happens more than we think) you are banking those alternate 7 days off every other week. So if you as a cop get sent to some country on an exchange, and lets say you are gone 2 months, you will on arrival be entitled to a month off with pay.

Do I begrudge them this? Part of me say yes , part says no. They do a job, a damned hard job full of dealings with low lifes , sick, injured people and it can be a thankless job. But by no means is it a dangerous job. The last time I checked a variety store owner is in more danger than a cop.

The PSB does no one any good by having the police act as revenue generators for the province. And with each day that passes this seems to be more true.

Bubber makes it sound as if your average dope grower is a friendly, happy-go-lucky, pot head, which do no harm. Many of these growers are also dealers and if they are willing to sell pot, what else will they do?

For the most part I dont think that is false. I just dont. Plenty of them get busted , many of them housing children because they are not violent. (Meth labs the opposite) What else will they do? I dont know, buy groceries , drive around, go to hockey games , normal stuff you and I do. They do tend to remain quiet , unobtrusive and try to fit in. I wont debate the merits of some of them as criminally violent , but judging by what I have read and seen I dont come to the conclusion that they are all the criminally sick.

Misuse of resources is true, but I'd have to agree with Argus, because of the politically correct world, we are too busy being caught up in the proper paperwork to punish the proper criminals, because we wouldn't want them to get a good lawyer to get them off on a technicality!

Dont blame PC , and dont blame lawyers for someone getting off on a technicality. You can and should look at the cops for prior lackidaisical behaviour when arrests were made.

The days of yore are gone. As a kid (in the 60's) I had something stolen of mine by a gas repairman. My dad was friends with an Irish cop . My dad told him the story and he said give me his name and I will pay him a visit. You will get your stuff back. I didnt get it , but he did make the strong arm visit. That cannot happen anymore.

The top brass should find a way to hire more cops within the budget they have. The problem is these are cops ,not financial experts. They too want more more more as everyone else does on the civil servant route.

We have not , as yet, seen the rise of SWAT , APC's , and gargantuan guns as they do a little but south of here. They cost a fortune to buy , all money that could put more police on the street.

And society plays a big role. The lack of respect shown to police men is sad. They are treated like the boogeyman, unless you need one. I would think this plays a huge role in why many cops dont live in the area they work in. Now why Police Chief Moron Fantino was living outside of TO is beyond me. ( Guess he has to live in Ontario now)

It certainly would help the image if the TO police got rid of the JBT's they have, but the union will have none of that.

[uOttawaMan]

Sure we need more cops!

As someone in the process right now... I like that idea.

In all seriousness, there are a myriad of systemic problems, the courts definetly included... which are the reasons why "crimes go unpunished" in the public opinion.

[sideshow]

"There are myriad problems when dealing with this issue. Most, including me, have no idea what problems the police service has. And I am talking internal politics.

I can only speak of Toronto Police Service . There is one police station that routinely ignores calls as they make too much money on overtime and paid security (concerts parades etc) to be bothered. They will make a token effort at some point in the day, but it is largely a joke to call that station.

Paid security, etc. are done on an officers own time-has nothing to do with work time-like on days off.

The collective bargaining done by Bromell is legion. There are some nice perks for officers in the way of holiday pay, working hours etc. I am thinking it still true , but did you know they work 7 on 7 off ? Hey , nice if you can get it. But lets say you are stationed elsewhere, outside of the country (it happens more than we think) you are banking those alternate 7 days off every other week. So if you as a cop get sent to some country on an exchange, and lets say you are gone 2 months, you will on arrival be entitled to a month off with pay.

Every jurisdiction is different. In mine, they work 5 days on (ten hour shifts-one thirty minute break) 4 days off.

Do I begrudge them this? Part of me say yes , part says no. They do a job, a damned hard job full of dealings with low lifes , sick, injured people and it can be a thankless job. But by no means is it a dangerous job.

Being exposed to disease, violence and such is not dangerous? Most incidents dont hit the media, so you have no idea how often police are actually injured/made sick, etc.

The last time I checked a variety store owner is in more danger than a cop.

Depends on the store and its location.

The PSB does no one any good by having the police act as revenue generators for the province. And with each day that passes this seems to be more true.

Bubber makes it sound as if your average dope grower is a friendly, happy-go-lucky, pot head, which do no harm. Many of these growers are also dealers and if they are willing to sell pot, what else will they do?

For the most part I dont think that is false. I just dont. Plenty of them get busted , many of them housing children because they are not violent. (Meth labs the opposite) What else will they do? I dont know, buy groceries , drive around, go to hockey games , normal stuff you and I do. They do tend to remain quiet , unobtrusive and try to fit in. I wont debate the merits of some of them as criminally violent , but judging by what I have read and seen I dont come to the conclusion that they are all the criminally sick.

Hells angels members have kids and send them to school, sports, etc.....

[guyser]

Paid security, etc. are done on an officers own time-has nothing to do with work time-like on days off.

No one said they did it during work hours. They make enough that they feel no need to go out on calls.

Every jurisdiction is different. In mine, they work 5 days on (ten hour shifts-one thirty minute break) 4 days off.

Fair enough. But still, 5 on 4 off. Nice perk if you can get it.

Being exposed to disease, violence and such is not dangerous? Most incidents dont hit the media, so you have no idea how often police are actually injured/made sick, etc. [/b]

Rarely from what I am told by frontline cops and sargeants.And that differs from a nurse how?

The last time I checked a variety store owner is in more danger than a cop.

Depends on the store and its location.

Depends on the Police Station and its location. It is , on average more likely to be a variety store owner and be killed than a cop is.

Hells angels members have kids and send them to school, sports, etc

So does the rest of society. Hells angels are into more things than pot.

[Catchme]

Dealing with actual criminals is too much like work when there are easier, safer criminals to attend to.

Yeppers, like off duty fire fighters and their children!

[August1991]

This story was on the front page of Montreal's largest circulation daily today. It seems appropriate:

The Montreal police sergeant who founded the company SOS Ticket that helps people get out of their tickets, has resigned from the police force. The Montreal PD and the city found he was in a conflict of interest and told him to choose. After 12 years on the job, Alfredo Munoz chose the company. He says the police department's priorities are in the wrong place - trying to make money instead of fighting serious crime. He tells The Journal de Montreal that Montreal cops have ticket quotas - officers in community police stations have about 1 a day, those on the traffic squad, he says, have about 16 tickets to give a day. Munoz says if the 133 officers had been put on the anti-gang squad instead, we wouldn't have such a street gang problem.

Link

Montreal recently hired 133 new officers and tickets issued have risen by about 25%. The claim is that the new officers are paying their way by ticketing.

[sideshow]

Paid security, etc. are done on an officers own time-has nothing to do with work time-like on days off.

No one said they did it during work hours. They make enough that they feel no need to go out on calls.

I'm not sure I see the connection. A call comes in. Its dispatched. An officer has to take it. They dont work on piece work, so what they do on their off time is really immaterial.

Every jurisdiction is different. In mine, they work 5 days on (ten hour shifts-one thirty minute break) 4 days off.

Fair enough. But still, 5 on 4 off. Nice perk if you can get it.

Yes and no. They also work rotations-5 days on days, 5 days on afternoons, and then 5 days on nights-with a few rotations that actually have them spend more time on evenings and days (due to the higher crime rates at these times). They end up working the same amount of time each year as the 5 on 2 on shifts that everyone else works. As well, they end up working no matter what day it falls on-christmas, b-days, whatever. Also, overtime is pretty much mandatory, and not wanted or needed by everyone. If they are in the middle of processing an arrest, you cant have them simply leave....

Being exposed to disease, violence and such is not dangerous? Most incidents dont hit the media, so you have no idea how often police are actually injured/made sick, etc. [/b]

Rarely from what I am told by frontline cops and sargeants.And that differs from a nurse how?

Actually its pretty frequent-depending on where they are stationed, some on a daily basis. And it doesnt differ from a nurse. I think they have a dangerous job and are compensated at a level (very close) to police.

The last time I checked a variety store owner is in more danger than a cop.

Depends on the store and its location.

Depends on the Police Station and its location. It is , on average more likely to be a variety store owner and be killed than a cop is.

Fair enough. But then I guess you could say truckers, mine workers, railway workers, pretty much everyone other than office people have dangerous jobs because they all get killed at work frequently.

Hells angels members have kids and send them to school, sports, etc

So does the rest of society. Hells angels are into more things than pot.

As are most grow op dealers......

I guess the difference of police officer work vs. other work is different for a number of reasons.

I cant think of too many professions that you are given a gun, pepper spray, a taser, told to go into unknown locations, resolve conflicts both verbal and physical, write extensive paper work on it sometimes after already working 10-20 plus hours, and then, after making what sometimes are split second decisions, have to go to court and defend those decisions later.

All while being told you are over paid, lazy, not responding to calls, etc.

[Wilber]

Dealing with actual criminals is too much like work when there are easier, safer criminals to attend to.

Yeppers, like off duty fire fighters and their children!

Off duty fire fighter and "kid" who were passengers in a vehicle driven by someone charged with impaired involved in a collision. Firefighters who have been accused of becoming belligerent after the fact including shoving a bystander by the kid (who is an adult by the way) according to witnesses. Of course none of this has been proved and it is subject to investigation but don't let it get in the way of dumping on the police.

[Wilber]

Hells angels members have kids and send them to school, sports, etc.....

Hells Angels and other organized crime groups don't live in grows or meth labs with their children, they buy a house and get someone else to do it for them. The house is eventually made uninhabitable and they move somewhere else. Real contributors to a neighbourhood.

[blueblood]

Dealing with actual criminals is too much like work when there are easier, safer criminals to attend to.

Yeppers, like off duty fire fighters and their children!

Off duty fire fighter and "kid" who were passengers in a vehicle driven by someone charged with impaired involved in a collision. Firefighters who have been accused of becoming belligerent after the fact including shoving a bystander by the kid (who is an adult by the way) according to witnesses. Of course none of this has been proved and it is subject to investigation but don't let it get in the way of dumping on the police.

Judging from the video on Youtube and the news the off duty firefighter and kid were resisting arrest. You resist arrest you get the piss knocked out of you and get carted off to the klink.