Too many cops?

[Sir Bandelot]

Uhhh... no. If you remember, I specifically said the police would not have done anything, and I did not need it for insurance purposes, so why waste my time and effort.

Because, it's a waste of their time and resources when they should be going after the big boys?

Vandalism that cost me time and money. You really think such actions should just be shrugged off? How many other acts do you think the people caused? Think they honestly would have stopped at just my bike?

It's not nice. But with so many more cops,they ought to be able to do a better job.

Maybe they would have more time to deal with it if they left people alone who are minding their own business, not bust thousands for mere possession. Go after people who commit real crimes.

There, we've given our support to the OP.

[William Ashley]

An article in Maclean's asks if maybe there are too many cops. It would appear that the police are justifying their presence by ramping up the number of arrests that they make for things that many Canadians don't consider crimes:

Is this really making Canada safer?

I've been seeing a lot more cops over the past 10 years. I think the ideal society is where everyone is a cop living under a reasonable non biased legal system with just laws, the problem is the salary related to professional police as they often earn upwards of $100,000, which means higher taxes especially when municipal forces are involved.

I'd much rather prefer a volunteer constabulary, and have the military combat organized crime - which Canada sort of does.

I don't think we need to pay people $100,000+ to fight to meet quota's on tickets, we really don't need police officers for bylaw enforcement - you could let the firefighters direct traffic during downed lines, or call in the reserve for greater issues of public disorder.

Police do have a role such as the detectives, and specialists on specific types of cases. I think technology is really the future as a crime deterrent. Robots/drones, sensor systems such as cameras, my location based computing system and secure location based secure ID transmission, biometrics systems etc..

Cops serve a role, and it is up to the people who run the forces, to determine the needs, but I am seeing a lot more police, I don't think it is cost effective, but the system is broken, and with the "old way of thinking" it just means taxes and more debt, and police to help enforce the political wing.

Cops really haven't been much of a help for myself whenever I've contacted them, they always seem to have higher priorities, or "they don't do that" - interested in businesses or high value items rather than low value items and individuals., even assisting a crown prosecutors office in obstruction of justice by not releasing video evidence that would have proved my innocence of a charge against me under court order to be released to me, not willing to step in to help. when the crown attorney's office failed to oblige the judges order.

None the less they do serve a role, but frankly I don't like cops much because I almost always only see them in a corrupt form, not the way they are intended.

There are alternatives, such as technology, I think the public needs to invest more in that. Also cops need to be more community based, there is to much driving around in a car these days waiting for a 911 call.

We also need more public policing, the public really needs to be responsible for themselves, we can't rely or invest our powers into a force, if that force is corrupt or fails to protect our interests, we must do it ourselves.

Part of my reason for where I stand on Justice, Policing, Corrections, and the Courts (including communications with ministries, agencies and other parties - at all levels of government), is because I've seen some of the worst of it, I know the violations, and I know much of what is involved, so I have my own thoughts on what is required to protect the public, and best serve a healthy well protected society.

More professional cops is not the answer, a more involved public is, but a public that is both interested in learning, and has the societies interests in mind.

The article resonates in me, on the basis of the Ministers view that only law abiding citizens are citizens. That is false. Criminals in society may often reflect that the governments position on law doesn't reflect peoples view on the law. There is a threshold but it incredibly ignorant to state people who break the law shouldn't have input into the direction of government or legislation.

They are the disaffected. While some crimes are intended and even organized, many are not, or reflect the social course.

Criminals are a very important input into legislation, because they are ones who are most effected by it. I find the ministers statements incredibly ignorant.

“We govern on the basis of what law enforcement agencies have told us. What victims and law-abiding Canadians have told us.”

You are forgetting the citizens who are the convicts, they matter too. If you don't listen to them you are making legislation that doesn't effect all stakeholders. There is a difference in trying to be mean or vengeful "tough" and being stupid and not having a full view. Police lie and at times so called victims lie. These are self evident truths, so taking such a narrow view in not taking into account the full view, is just plain stupid.

For instance take the Ontario Ombudsman investigation into criminal acts committed by corrections Ontario.. so you are going to listen to them or not?

What about police who get charged, for breaking the law. What about victims that are criminals themselves?

It isn't black and white, the ministers position is narrow minded and is just plain stupid.

Legislation should aim to protect ALL CITIZENS, not just one camp of citizens. To do that you need fair legislation that aims to ameliorate the conditions of abuse and victimization, not a system that purports, covers up and enhances those failings.

Edited August 26, 2011 by William Ashley

[segnosaur]

Re: Unreported bike theft...

Uhhh... no. If you remember, I specifically said the police would not have done anything, and I did not need it for insurance purposes, so why waste my time and effort.

Because, it's a waste of their time and resources when they should be going after the big boys?

Wow, just.. amazing. Boggles the mind.

I gave multiple justifications why its more than justified for the police to go after such minor crimes. (Hint: See post #23). Yet you manage to ignore all the points I made, and instead of addressing them you return and make the same retarded comment you made before.

Tell me, was that actually accompanied by a mighty wave of your and and a fart? Do you ever actually, you know, address points? Or do you just go on online forums and post random garbage?

Re: Vandalism...

It's not nice. But with so many more cops,they ought to be able to do a better job.

Oh, but wait a second... a second ago you claimed that dealing with such small crimes was a "waste of resources".

Maybe they would have more time to deal with it if they left people alone who are minding their own business, not bust thousands for mere possession. Go after people who commit real crimes.

First of all, if you recall, I brought up the issue that we don't really know how many people are arrested for "mere posession". When people are arrested for multiple offenses, statistics concentrate only on the most serious crimes. Your thief who gets caught with drugs on them will get reported as a drug crime even though the individual would have been arrested anyways.

Secondly, if you want to argue that they should reform drug laws in order to free up police resources for other crimes, there may be some validity to that argument. But that is not the same argument as "Do we have too many cops".

[segnosaur]

I don't think we need to pay people $100,000+ to fight to meet quota's on tickets, we really don't need police officers for bylaw enforcement - you could let the firefighters direct traffic during downed lines, or call in the reserve for greater issues of public disorder.

In 2005, Ontario police were earning in the area of 60-70K for a "first class constable". (See: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20051103/police_salary_comparisons_051103/20051103/?site_codename=toronto)

A "first class firefighter" earns $73K. (See: http://howtoliveincanada.com/work-as-a-firefighter-in-toronto/)

I don't think you're going to save much if you replace police with firefighters for things like directing traffic.

As for bylaw enforcement, I always assumed that they were not full policemen. (I know Ottawa has separate bylaw enforcement officers that have different vehicles than the regular police.)

[Smallc]

Maclean's----The CBC in written journalism

[William Ashley]

In 2005, Ontario police were earning in the area of 60-70K for a "first class constable". (See: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20051103/police_salary_comparisons_051103/20051103/?site_codename=toronto)

A "first class firefighter" earns $73K. (See: http://howtoliveincanada.com/work-as-a-firefighter-in-toronto/)

I don't think you're going to save much if you replace police with firefighters for things like directing traffic.

As for bylaw enforcement, I always assumed that they were not full policemen. (I know Ottawa has separate bylaw enforcement officers that have different vehicles than the regular police.)

I didn't say hire more firefighters, I said use firefighters for directing traffic when needed, or call in the reserve/military. There are even volunteer firefighters that could be used, and they already have a green light.

http://www.gravenhurstfire.com/index.php/emergency-response/the-green-light

although more volunteers might be useful

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2010/05/12/pei-volunteer-firefighter-shortage-584.html

Stay at home moms would be great for this one.. maybe earn some money to buy their kids a new game or something in waving their hands around

Even "Volutneer traffic directors" would be another option for traffic direction. For those 3 times in a year that traffic needs direction.

There are a lot of first responders...

I think undercovers are some of the only actually useful cops out there for actually combating non instant based crime. Also locally deployed cops would be better for emergecy response than "police station based policing".

It is way faster to respond if you are already in that community - doing foot patrol or live there.

With segways etc.. response times can be pretty damn fast. And an armoured segway costs way less than a police car, both in gas and purchase and maintenance.

There is a lot of effort to create police forces based on cruiser based policing. It creates an image of non engaged, ignorant and desensitized police, not connected with the areas they police in. I think police wouldn't have such a bad rap with many people if they actually were involved in the communities they police in not only with "the clean" side of a few organizations. They need to know the people they police, the people need to know them, otherwise it is just an occupation.

The system breeds a criminal underground, one where even the cops are crooks and ignorant of the law.

Bottom line, that must be what the voter wants.

It reduces to - the law is in denial. People don't want to admit to the reality of the law - other than a Russian roulette life where people are neither protected nor privileged by the existence of de jure law, in a sludge de facto reality.

It is a realm of make believe, in reality dictorial executive exercise on inclination and personal objective.

The legislation is purporting a worse case scenario, and more clearly marking the grey areas. The result of a shift in the status quo is one that I would eagerly watch, but I think it presents a lot of challenges to the citizenry, mostly due to a culture of ignorance. I don't "understand" how cops suddenly get handed soap and spinach, to prepare themselves for the task ahead and succeed.

I actually have the sense to check myself when I think of how some might respond to a real shift to a father knows best state for Canada rather than a laissez-faire arbitrary system. Its seems self destructive of Canada and Canadian cultural identity for such a large body of Canada, that it can't be viewed as a populous based or healthy move. Maybe I'm just out of touch.

I'm more incline to let the people police themselves, and set a standard that enhances and protects society, not one that is handed down from an oligarchy that doesn't represent the views of the people as a body, so as to protect minority rights that are non infringing other members of society. - I wouldn't imagine that any political party in Canada should be supported in enforcing oppression of the public without justification of the need to infringe on personal liberties. 4 more years?

Edited August 26, 2011 by William Ashley

[segnosaur]

I didn't say hire more firefighters, I said use firefighters for directing traffic when needed...

Well, if the firefighters are on part of their regular duty, they may not be able to direct traffic (since they could be called out to a fire at any time.)

Even "Volutneer traffic directors" would be another option for traffic direction. For those 3 times in a year that traffic needs direction.

If we need traffic direction so few times in a year, then that's not a big usage of police research. So thinking that it will somehow save money probably wouldn't work.

There is a lot of effort to create police forces based on cruiser based policing. It creates an image of non engaged, ignorant and desensitized police, not connected with the areas they police in.

While stationing police in cars may not make them appear "friendly", it may be necessary for pragmatic purposes.

Your idea of "community based policing" can only be carried so far; not all areas will have the population density to support their own "local force", not to mention the need for cars to (for example) transport prisoners/police roadways.

[Sir Bandelot]

I gave multiple justifications why its more than justified for the police to go after such minor crimes. (Hint: See post #23). Yet you manage to ignore all the points I made, and instead of addressing them you return and make the same retarded comment you made before.

And yet, when this happened you didn't call the police yourself? Or did you?

I guess we both have a different explanation for why people don't report crimes to the police. There can be many reasons, to be sure. One that I put forward is, they felt the crime was too petty to call the cops. Why? because as you said, "There's nothing they can do about it". They won't be launching an investigation for who slashed a bike tire, for example. Now we can discuss whether they SHOULD do that or not, but that is a fact as it is now, they won't bother.

Isn't that what you said?

Tell me, was that actually accompanied by a mighty wave of your and and a fart? Do you ever actually, you know, address points? Or do you just go on online forums and post random garbage?

From the Forum rules:

"Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent..."

[segnosaur]

I gave multiple justifications why its more than justified for the police to go after such minor crimes. (Hint: See post #23). Yet you manage to ignore all the points I made, and instead of addressing them you return and make the same retarded comment you made before.

And yet, when this happened you didn't call the police yourself? Or did you?

I guess we both have a different explanation for why people don't report crimes to the police. There can be many reasons, to be sure. One that I put forward is, they felt the crime was too petty to call the cops. Why? because as you said, "There's nothing they can do about it".

My exact word that I used was "ineffective". That's different than saing there's nothing they can do about it.

Being ineffective means that the case won't be solved, whether its due to the fact that a case is impossible to solve, or that they simply don't have the interest to solve the case.

Tell me, was that actually accompanied by a mighty wave of your and and a fart? Do you ever actually, you know, address points? Or do you just go on online forums and post random garbage?

From the Forum rules:

"Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent..."

Did I hurt your feelings?

Yeah, I'm insulting. Sometimes rude. But there's a reason. Because I have very little respect for people who engage in debates without ever actually saying anything useful.

If I say "You're wrong on point X because of Y", then you should either try to come up with your own rebuttal, or acknowledge a possible flaw in your argument. However, what you did is you simply responded with X. That type of mentality deserves no respect.

[Sir Bandelot]

Did I hurt your feelings?

No. Is that what you want to do?

Yeah, I'm insulting. Sometimes rude. But there's a reason. Because I have very little respect for people who engage in debates without ever actually saying anything useful.

If I say "You're wrong on point X because of Y", then you should either try to come up with your own rebuttal, or acknowledge a possible flaw in your argument. However, what you did is you simply responded with X.

Maybe I am not like you at all. Because of that, the way I think might be hard for you to understand. We might never agree on certain things. I formulate my opinions over time. It doesn't bother me to make mistakes. I know everyone does. And none of you know me.

"That type of mentality deserves no respect."

Actually you lose respect by doing that. If you want respect, keep to the topic. In my opinion a little joke, a bit of a jab is not a big deal. As long as respect remains.

Lack of respect is also breaking the rules.

"Please respect others using this board by refraining from personal attacks..."

You have not been reported in this case.

[William Ashley]

Well, if the firefighters are on part of their regular duty, they may not be able to direct traffic (since they could be called out to a fire at any time.)

And cops couldn't get a higher priority? What are the chances of 10 fires happening at the same time?

Redundant point.

If we need traffic direction so few times in a year, then that's not a big usage of police research. So thinking that it will somehow save money probably wouldn't work.

Less paid staff, lower costs, ROB FORD LOGIC.

While stationing police in cars may not make them appear "friendly", it may be necessary for pragmatic purposes.

Your idea of "community based policing" can only be carried so far; not all areas will have the population density to support their own "local force", not to mention the need for cars to (for example) transport prisoners/police roadways.

This very much supports community based "special constables" if populations are so small that stationing won't make sense, get local police to deal with issues. "VOLUNTEER POLICE" "RESERVE OFFICERS" etc.. They exist.

Prisoner transport is abusive. 1. Most prisoner transports can be avoided by

1. Releasing people - I've seen a lot of people held that should have been released. Myself for instance was "held over for a long time - because I didn't have money to pay the $500 bond because I was unemployed and broke. I couldn't get the logic of having a $500 bail paid if I didn't have $500 to my name. Even though it was a "sworn statement. The monetary figure was completely out of touch with EVERYTHING. Instead the government put me up fox x amount of time on taxpayer cost... TOTAL WASTE of tax payer dollars. Same deal goes for the 10 or so times transporting me half way around the province back and forth for court dates for 5 or so minute appearances. Drive two hours talk to a judge for 10 seconds. ABSOLUTELY STUPID! It is penalization before conviction to sit in a metal box for hours in hand and leg restraints. It is another abuse in the system. Those charges were withdrawn.

Most charges don't require arrest. But they drag people to the station anyway for undertaking.. or investigation. It is actually somewhat illegal but people don't know their rights not to be detained. Cops cost the tax payer a lot of money when they do this. The process is utterly bloat wasteful, and penalizes people that haven't even been found guilty of an offense.

--------

There are better alternatives to traffic "oh another NON CRIMINAL FINE" (they arn't even criminal offenses, they are unconstitutional fines)

BUILD police stations ON HIGHWAYS... checkpoints... so choke points can be set for "big things"

And use of location based secure ID that will monitor speed over distance based on sensors that can register moving vehicles and persons in license plates and secure ID's.

Most traffic offenses really don't need to be responded until someone is dead or injured.

Cherry picking just annoys people usually.

I can drive at 160km/h on a windy wet cliff road with a lake on the otherside in the fog in the middle of the night without feeling seriously endangered. Where as people need to drive responsibly... but small speeds like 90km/h on a straight road, really makes little sense. Most of the time imo traffic tickets are just hassles. They do not involve safety.

People get into accidents driving within the prescribed limits too.

Edited August 27, 2011 by William Ashley

[segnosaur]

Maybe I am not like you at all.

You're right, you're not like me.

That's because I make it a point to try to address every point that is made by an opponent in any sort of on-line debate. You, on the other hand, seem to ignore points, or dismiss them with a wave of that mighty hand.

Because of that, the way I think might be hard for you to understand.

Nobody can 'understand' someone if they never actually say anything.

I pointed out reasons why going after relatively "minor" crimes might be beneficial. You never provided any response, only returned to your original claim that I had debunked.

"That type of mentality deserves no respect."

Actually you lose respect by doing that. If you want respect, keep to the topic.

I do keep to the topic. I make it a point to try to address every point an opponent makes.

And in the rare occasion I defer to an earlier post, I at least state what post it was.

You have not been reported in this case.

You are more than welcome to report me. The owner of this site can and should have free reign to run this site as he sees fit. If I have stepped over the line, the owner can take appropriate actions.

[segnosaur]

Well, if the firefighters are on part of their regular duty, they may not be able to direct traffic (since they could be called out to a fire at any time.)

And cops couldn't get a higher priority? What are the chances of 10 fires happening at the same time?

By the nature of their job, there are more available policing "units" than there are firefighting "units".

And while the chance of 10 fires happening at one time is low, you still want to maximize response time, something that will not happen if your local fire team is out of place and a truck must respond from a station located further away.

Prisoner transport is abusive. 1. Most prisoner transports can be avoided by

1. Releasing people - I've seen a lot of people held that should have been released.

Makes no sense...

"You were just arrested for shooting someone. But since I can't fit you on my Segway I'll just let you go".

Emergency responders have to plan for worst case scenarios.

[Sir Bandelot]

You're right, you're not like me.

That's because I make it a point to try to address every point that is made by an opponent in any sort of on-line debate. You, on the other hand, seem to ignore points, or dismiss them with a wave of that mighty hand.

Sounds like you have been dismissing my posts. But that's not a problem far as I'm concerned.

I do keep to the topic. I make it a point to try to address every point an opponent makes.

Again, by making ad-hominems you're not keeping to the topic. Again, by making ad-hominems you're NOT keeping to the topic. That's what I was talking about. Then you weaken your own argument.

You are more than welcome to report me. The owner of this site can and should have free reign to run this site as he sees fit. If I have stepped over the line, the owner can take appropriate actions.

You did step over the line.

[segnosaur]

Again, by making ad-hominems you're not keeping to the topic.

Actually, I'm not making ad-hominems attacks.

An ad-Hominem involves attacking qualities of the poster, not the argument the poster made. However, since you never really made an argument, there was nothing for me to actually deal with.

My suggestion that you "dismiss things with a wave of your mighty hand" is not a ad hominem; it is an observation regarding your posting style.

Then you weaken your own argument.

At least I'm making arguments. Still waiting to hear how you justify your "thin edge of the wedge" argument (as well as everything else) in the health care thread.

You did step over the line.

If you feel wronged then you have ever right to report it.

Technically the only one who can determine whether I "stepped over the line" is the moderator/owner of the forum.

[Sir Bandelot]

If you feel wronged then you have ever right to report it.

I don't need to report it, as long as you behave. If you doubt what you did is out of line with the forum rules, you can test that theory by continuing. Then we'll ask the mods to step in and see what they think.

[CPCFTW]

More like too many hippies. I'm anticipating more hippy riots after Layton's death. The hippies are gonna lash out against the establishment. Not only did they lose the election "because of the system", they now also lost the king of hippies himself. Watch out for Canada's impending hippy spring with that hippy page leading the charge.

Edited August 27, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Argus]

An article in Maclean's asks if maybe there are too many cops.

Canada has fewer cops per population than most other western nations.

It would appear that the police are justifying their presence by ramping up the number of arrests that they make for things that many Canadians don't consider crimes:

Well, too bad for those Canadians. The government thinks they're crimes. If people want them not to be crimes they need to change the government.

Is this really making Canada safer?

Not safe enough. We need a lot more cops.

[Argus]

C: while not nice, they are petty crimes and a waste of time for cops, who should be dealing with serious crimes.

Like rape, for example, most of which isn't reported? If you read the Victim survey you'll see large percentages of all manner of assault, robbery and sexual assault are never reported to police. Most fraud is not reported, and even when it is the police rarely bother to investigate due to the poorly written laws and the limp-wristed punishments the courts hand out. People know this.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Argus

[Argus]

I guess we both have a different explanation for why people don't report crimes to the police.

Usually because they feel that A) the police won't solve the crime and if they did the courts won't do more than slap the criminal on the wrist and C) it will be a big pain in the ass thing involving long reports to fill out and sign and then, possibly, in the event anyone is caught, taking time off to go to a court and be a witness, etc. etc. That speaks to the hideous complexity, inefficiency and ineffectivnees of a mindless bureacratic system.

[CitizenX]

Less useless laws = less cops (+ probably happier )

[Guest Derek L]

Less useless laws = less cops (+ probably happier )

No laws = No Crime…………In Communist Russia, crime solve police

[Sir Bandelot]

Usually because they feel that A) the police won't solve the crime and if they did the courts won't do more than slap the criminal on the wrist and C) it will be a big pain in the ass thing involving long reports to fill out and sign and then, possibly, in the event anyone is caught, taking time off to go to a court and be a witness, etc. etc. That speaks to the hideous complexity, inefficiency and ineffectivnees of a mindless bureacratic system.

I don't disagree with you Argus. What I'd like to see is police being used to arrest real criminals. That includes people who break into homes to steal a TV, or steal your bike from the backyard.

Now of course the punishment should also fit the crime. In some cases yes, we're being far too soft. Meanwhile in others, like personal pot possession (as raised in the OP), we're wasting too much time and money on it. My opinion is, if they want to light up at home, treat it the same as alcohol. If they go out and break into homes to get their drug money, off to jail they must go.

That way we use the cops for what they're needed for, jails are not full of people who don't need to be there, and we're not letting the real bad guys go with a mere slap on the wrist. Now what's wrong with doing it that way?

[CitizenX]

No laws = No Crime…………In Communist Russia, crime solve police

Once again you have not only misunderstood me but twisted what I've said. Do you work for SunTV News?

Edited August 27, 2011 by CitizenX

[Guest Derek L]

Once again you have not only misunderstood me but twisted what I've said. Do you work for SunTV News?

You said:

Less useless laws = less cops (+ probably happier )

I said, using your logic:

No laws = No Crime…………In Communist Russia, crime solve police

Not much of a twist.....