And to not give a shit.
The snarky part of me would like to hear how you pronounce “Lompoc” and “Paso Robles.”
(Even if you get it right, you still end up sounding like a redneck…which I suppose means you’re Doing It Right.)
Yeah, this - the phrase “a major donor to the Malheur County Sheriff’s Department” jumped out at me too - This would be called bribery in the UK.
“…so perhaps it SHOULDN’T be legal to donate to police as it incentivises the police to keep the donors happy.”
Ya think? This is such an obvious work around for corruption I’m flabbergasted that it hasn’t come up before. Under what legitimate circumstance would the police require donations? They’re not a blood charity. Clearly a conflict of interest.
Although I’d rather not point the finger at the US… but I’m assuming that this isn’t commonplace elsewhere in the world, or is this just something I’m finding out about now?
I don’t know how popular either practice is worldwide; but (aside from overt bribery, which is generally avoided or at least hidden; because it is clearly illegal) there appear to be two basic strategies:
You can be a generous, public-spirited, donor to the local department and/or ‘Patrolman’s Benevolent Association’.
If you have security-guard needs, in home or business, you can make a point of hiring off-duty officers, not with any official understanding that your signing their second paycheck should influence their conduct during the time they are earning their first, of course.
Maybe I’m just cynical; but I’d suspect that anywhere such things aren’t explicitly forbidden, they probably happen.
“Dammit, I forgot to turn off the camera!”
Why exactly is it possible for the police to turn off the cameras? It should be on ALL THE TIME. Save the whole day’s video for a few weeks, in case there’s an accusation of misconduct, and after that cut it to just the 5 minutes before and after every stop (and the stop itself of course).
Shoulder-cams too. Disabling them or destroying the footage should be an instant fireable offense or a federal crime.
Because, I don’t know, terrorists might infiltrate us otherwise. Hey, if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.
The public shouldn’t really be allowed to donate to any public service, that’s what taxes are for. ‘Donations’ directly contradict that entire principle and literally incentive corruption.
I would suggest the US work on changing that law, however you’d need someone with enough money to lobby for it.
Hey, weren’t you ever told to turn electronics off to save electricity? Cops are very careful to conserve our natural resources.
I don’t see what difference it would make. A police officer could brutally beat you in front of a million people and they’d still get a 2 week holiday and an early retirement.
The problem isn’t really the lack of evidence.
What is it with some of these so-called “small town” or rural county police operations? Some of them are slicker (well, usually) and more unethical than the big-city forces. In this case, not so slick, though. But the wink-nudge, good-ole-boy stuff with local “enterprises” seems built into the rural culture.
Yeah, yeah…I know that its a generalization. But there’s a reason for it.
“Donations” to legislators or law enforcement, or any government body for that matter, should be forbidden outright, since it can be safely assumed that the donor has expectations of ultimately being payed back in one way or another.
Actually fixing the system may be difficult, since the legislators themselves are all shamelessly riding the gravy train.
Y’know that fancy-enlightenment-stateman-philosopher stuff about “A government of Laws and not of Men”?
It’s an idea with many virtues; but it’s also an idea that runs blatantly counter to how humans have operated for most of history (kin/clan groups, hereditary dynasties, diplomatic marriages, social relations of reciprocal favor/gift giving, etc, etc.)
Cities, to a substantial (but by no means total) degree are one of the few things that really atomize such relationships just by sheer scale. Our little hominid social brains just can’t hack it past maybe 150-odd people. It’s certainly possible for subsets of an urban population (whether it be the Great and Good of the halls of power, some down-at-heel street gang, or anything in between) to form tight social cliques, and the instinct to favor ‘us’ over ‘them’ (see also “Professional Courtesy” as used by police officers); but it’s much harder for a single socially-cohesive clique to wear most of the hats, because cities are just too damn big. Rural jurisdictions, by contrast, just don’t have so many seats to fill, so it’s much easier for an organically-associated social network to have a lock on a substantial portion of the action.
The horse with the broken leg was just awful. To injure one of these magnificent animals for the sake of entertainment is sub human. Horse tripping (part of that rodeo) should be a crime.
Oh, and cops are all lying thugs with malformed genetailia and a Napoleon complex.
I’m sure that even though its barbaric and cruel it’s justified by tradition, like all the cruel and barbaric activities around the world.
Fox hunting, rodeo, bull fighting. The only justification these sickos have is nostalgia.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.