Monday, November 18, 2013

The LEO and the Peace Officer

What is the difference in policing methods between a peace officer and a law enforcement officer?

Here are some examples of what it means to be a peace officer:

How many readers of this article are old enough to remember, as a kid, the cop who gave them a kick up the backside or a clip around the ears when they did something wrong?

How many can remember the instant respect that the uniform got when out in public and on the beat?

How many ex-criminals owe their 'going straight' to the fear generated of being dragged into the police station and the beating to come if they did not tell the truth or toe the line?

How many of us today can think back to the last time, if ever, they were pulled over for some traffic infringement and sternly lectured to about their stupidity rather than being handed a fine?

How many of us today can remember being out in public and in a group of noisy rowdy people who were obviously breaching the peace in the small hours of the morning and then having their heads knocked together by some cops who told them to get off the street?

How many can remember the last time the next door neighbors often and violent domestics were dealt with for good without either trouble maker being arrested on multiple occasions?

Who can remember that once upon a time one could walk into town and wander around knowing you felt safe from society's predators because there was a cop on the beat in the area somewhere?

A good peace officer was also a good cop!

Here are some examples of what a law enforcement officer (LEO) is now made to do:

First of all, today's modern university trained LEO is not permitted to do any of the above peace officer actions! The law enforcement officer would be subject to disciplinary measures, firing or even criminal charges if taking on the role of the peace officer!

The LEO is now trained to be sensitive to minority and religious expectations, to appreciate cultural diversity even if it means that common sense must be suspended so as to better appreciate that which no thinking person would accept, be psychologically aware of special mental health problems, to look for criminality in every 'job' they attend even to the extent of investigating the obvious victim, to treat illegal drug dependency as a 'social problem' and not a criminal concern, to have 'empathy' for everyone they must deal with, but above all be resistant to offered gifts from those victims of crime they have dealt with who may have thought them good at their job because the acceptance of such rewards for a job well done could lead to 'corruption!'

Why is it only the police who are attacked for being corrupt? What about the politicians and the judiciary they work for, how about their corruption which is just so obvious to many?

Some police now wear uniforms that in nearly all aspects of dress look similar in unkempt style to the very people they often arrest. So how does that earn respect? 

Cops now have to stand and accept being verbally abused, threatened, intimidated and even put up with minor assault, such as being spat at. How does this inaction against those who really need to be given a hard lesson from authority earn respect?

There is no requirement for modern officers to be of a particular height or weight which has led to some very small of stature officers who are about as threatening to a big hardened criminal or a fundamentalist Muslim, as a sponge cake is to a clown.

If a couple have an argument at home or out in public, and a busybody do-gooder phones for law enforcement both couples are entered onto a police data base for 'domestic violence' argument only incident. In effect, for simply having a normal argument that may have become a little heated those involved in that 'domestic' are then registered on the police data base for future reference as persons of interest. 

If one of the couple is assaulted by the other then the person who did the striking and who may happen to own firearms then becomes subject to having his/her firearms seized as a potential killer!

Don't you think it's drawing a long bow to consider an unwarranted strike in the middle of a heated argument is also a precursor for someone being capable of pre-meditated murder! 

Today's law enforcement officer must also at some point in their shift do stationary or Random Breath Testing (RBT) of a mandated number of vehicle stops and alcohol testing of the vehicle drivers. It was once legal to drive with a blood alcohol concentration of .08, but this was downgraded some years ago to .05 due to the declining numbers of persons being arrested for Driving under the Influence (DUI). There is now a move within government for the dropping of a driver's alcohol concentration to zero! 

No longer are police walking the beat like they once used to. CCTV dominates the public places now which is about as effective as a cardboard cut-out of a cop you may see from time to time taking up space at a Bank or Post Office. Do you the reader still feel safe today when venturing out at night into the city or large town for a bit of fun?

Highway Patrol officers now issue tickets for the most meaningless and obscure of traffic infringements instead of stern lectures or some friendly advice. Lectures, which once had a more meaningful effect on those drivers who deserve to be lectured about their stupidity, are no longer permissible. And the myriad amount of traffic laws that even a judge has to refer to the Traffic Act in Court for determinations, is impossible for the average citizen to be completely aware of while 'special advice' instead of a fine from a highway cop would go a long way in improving that drivers knowledge of traffic laws and respect toward authority!

Being fined means nothing to some people who will just continue to do what they feel like doing!

Unruly juveniles who come under police notice are now given three chances at criminal activity under various Young Offender Acts – which has variations from state to state - before being summoned to answer at Court for strike number four. Due to the limitations on Law enforcement officers to dish out 'summary justice' on the spot to an offending juvenile, there has been a marked increase of re-offending juveniles who go on to become career criminals. Where once upon a time the peace officer would effectively 'nip in the bud' most unruly juvenile's propensity for getting into trouble, the LEO is powerless and this 'powerlessness' is never more exploited than by the criminal element and the up and coming juvenile/criminal offender. 

But there is no common sense applied by our lawmakers who generally have never really had anything to do with enforcing their own laws!

And as any good parent is aware of, if you do not apply some form of discipline on your children as they grow and learn, then the chances of them growing into responsible adults are to a certain extent minimized. How is it then that lawmakers, many who are responsible parents themselves, can usher in and put in place such ill thought out laws that allow our young to have three strikes at criminality before being properly dealt with?

There is more truth in the old adage about sparing the rod and spoiling the child than there is in today's airy fairy progressive (Collectivist) thinking!

What kind of police force would you the reader desire, the good cop that is also a peace officer who knows how to nip in the bud the many social problems before they get out of hand or the LEO who is trained by so called academics in a university to be sympathetic to everyone and hard on no one!






















  1. There is one paragraph up there that seems to be jumbled a bit, as if you wrote the opposite of what you meant. The impartial to gifts/ graft passage. I think I saw another where I was uncertain as to what you meant.

    But don't worry about it too much. Anyone with any sense knows you are preaching common sense even if it's not all clear. There is a more pressing concern at this point than your thoroughness my friend.

    The very act of talking sense while these ruling class types are seeking more and more power for themselves can make you an enemy of the state. That's where the problems stem from and I fear that voting has been too corrupted for them to fear the consequences of the voters. They need to fear a Higher authority but think themselves too bright to do so.

  2. Nothing like another pair of eyes to look over the article! You make a fine proof reader. Have updated that paragraph and thanks!

    My take on what police should be doing as part of society to keep society together is worlds apart to those who now run police forces. I once got into a heated correspondence through a magazine with the acting head of the Goulburn Police Academy, and whose general thinking I laid bare within the pages of that magazine for all to read and think about. His response to my condemnation of his views and curriculum, which really just fills the space between police recruits heads with shit, was like a red flag to a raging bull so I let him have another burst, but this time with both barrels!

    Like any true collectivist who can't argue their own stance due to lack of conviction for what they believe in, he didn't respond, but just in case he had read my second and more thorough expose of his destructive agenda I gave him another broadside through a third article which was also published!

    I hope some of 'his' police recruits got to read those articles for a more balanced view on what they were being taught.

    I truly hate Collectivists!

    1. "You make a fine proof reader." Well maybe for that one item. I am happy I helped you out.

      My proof reading could be good because I read every word rather than speed read. However, something I just read can distract me so that I'm just going past the next set of words as I think of the previous set. So that makes my proof-reading hit and miss. This time it partially worked. Recall that in my previous comment I mentioned there was another area that I thought was unclear but didn't remember where. Unfortunately that was all I recalled and couldn't find it later. Whatever it was couldn't have been too bad or I'd probably have been able to find it. Like I said, hit and miss. So "fine" is a bit off the mark in my own assessment.

    2. Funny you mention that second bit because I did find another area to 'tidy' up after I re-read the post.

      Like you, I am no speed reader and like to take my time 'digesting' what is written.

      Hey, remember when there was actually such a position in media as a proof reader?

      Goes to show how far we have fallen when we no longer take the written word and its meaning too seriously.