Cops do NOT prevent crime

Think about it.

They drive around, in their cars and RESPOND to crimes that have ALREADY been committed, or are currently in the process of being committed.

Or write traffic citations.

Rarely, they happen upon a crime in the act. But that is rare.

This post is in response to a conversation I had with a friend.

To most of us here, this is obvious. But it's one of those general misconceptions that many people have. But then, when they actually consider it, it hits them like a brick... Like an "OH.....!" Moment.

This has been a Thunderbolt Public Service Announcement.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

When the subject comes up to non believers I point them to this case.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

these girls should have been armed ... its too bad what happened to them ... foolish living in a place where you cannot own a gun.

It would have been a crime for them to be armed.

But I am sure once they arrived the took good reports and lots of photographs.

Baked on Grease said:

When the subject comes up to non believers I point them to this case.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

+1

There is another case I remember about a woman with a restraining order that ended up making it to SCOTUS as well.

I try to remind people that the "To Protect and Serve" on the side of patrol cars is an advertising slogan similar to the McDonalds "I'm lovin' it.".

Both serve to project a corporate image, neither should be taken at face value.

I like this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqJKpIhn2xg&list=FLrqIe8F93yTNEqLJzC44r2Q&index=1&feature=plpp_video

unreconstructed1 said:

+1

There is another case I remember about a woman with a restraining order that ended up making it to SCOTUS as well.

I try to remind people that the "To Protect and Serve" on the side of patrol cars is an advertising slogan similar to the McDonalds "I'm lovin' it.".

Both serve to project a corporate image, neither should be taken at face value.

Click to expand...

I quoted this just because it needs repeating.

I neglected to point out in my first post that I do not dislike cops. I respect the job that they do. Many times, they are 'handcuffed' (pun intended) to what they can actually do. And rightly so, in most cases, where citizens rights are concerned.

But I just wanted say that I am not a cop hater. I believed that most of them are just trying to do their job and honestly believe that they are doing the best they can.

Even if they are misinformed sometimes.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

thunderbolt said:

I neglected to point out in my first post that I do not dislike cops. I respect the job that they do. Many times, they are 'handcuffed' (pun intended) to what they can actually do. And rightly so, in most cases, where citizens rights are concerned.

But I just wanted say that I am not a cop hater. I believed that most of them are just trying to do their job and honestly believe that they are doing the best they can.

Even if they are misinformed sometimes.

Click to expand...

We get people like you all the time. It is nothing new. The reason nobody said anything to "correct you" is because most of us, including I, are exactly the same.

Most of us have full respect for the government and their employees, but we realize that government in its very nature is detrimental to liberty. We need a government just big enough to enforce laws (with a victim) and anything beyond that is taking liberties.

Most of the times it is actually illegal for cops to prevent a crime. In the state of Kentucky I can legally carry an AR-15 around with me during my daily activities (as long as I am not mailing a letter or getting my drivers license renewed). If a cop takes that firearm away from me, he is actually breaking a law. So it is not a surprise that they cannot prevent me form shooting up a crowded mall.

Even if you have a LEA that ONLY wants to protect peoples rights and enforce laws, they cannot be super human. They will always be behind the curve.

unreconstructed1 said:

+1

There is another case I remember about a woman with a restraining order that ended up making it to SCOTUS as well.

I try to remind people that the "To Protect and Serve" on the side of patrol cars is an advertising slogan similar to the McDonalds "I'm lovin' it.".

Both serve to project a corporate image, neither should be taken at face value.

Click to expand...

I've had imbeciles get angry and declare that "To Protect and Serve" on the patrol car doors proves that they HAVE to "protect" you.

I always respond, "If it said 'Have a nice day!', could you sue them if you didn't?"

Deanimator said:

I've had imbeciles get angry and declare that "To Protect and Serve" on the patrol car doors proves that they HAVE to "protect" you.

I always respond, "If it said 'Have a nice day!', could you sue them if you didn't?"

Click to expand...

But they do "serve and protect" .. just not you ...

They are not imbeciles, just brainwashed into thinking the guberment has the ability to protect them...

thunderbolt said:

Think about it.

They drive around, in their cars and RESPOND to crimes that have ALREADY been committed, or are currently in the process of being committed.

Or write traffic citations.

Rarely, they happen upon a crime in the act. But that is rare.

This post is in response to a conversation I had with a friend.

To most of us here, this is obvious. But it's one of those general misconceptions that many people have. But then, when they actually consider it, it hits them like a brick... Like an "OH.....!" Moment.

This has been a Thunderbolt Public Service Announcement.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Crime prevention is a hard thing to prove one can hardly ever know if or when a crime is prevented by some one who see the LEO drive or walk by.

Do you slow down when you see a patrol car, does a robber not rob because there is a officer near by we could go on and on.

So how does one prove a negative.


Cops are never around when you need them and are around when you don't, like the last time you recived a speeding citation.

We all want the LEO around when we need them like when your up side down in your car after an crash and they are there helping save your life. But then maybe they prevented the crash by stopping the other guy for speeding before he hit you thus there was no crash. You well never know that nor the officer or the person stopped.

Lots of times as a LEO its dammed if you do and dammed if you don't If you don't enforce the traffic laws and crashes and people getting hurt and killed goes up every body says your lazy and not doing your job.

You start enforceing the taffic laws your a hard ass and the people getting the citations are pissed off.

Its all ways nice to have them there when we need them but when they do something we don't like we don't want them around.

I am the frist to aggree that we have way too many laws and regulations and we should thin the herd so to speak.

The question is how , when and what. because some where, some one thought it was a very good idea at some time.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

Lots of times as a LEO its dammed if you do and dammed if you don't If you don't enforce the traffic laws and crashes and people getting hurt and killed goes up every body says your lazy and not doing your job.

You start enforceing the taffic laws your a hard ass and the people getting the citations are pissed off.

Its all ways nice to have them there when we need them but when they do something we don't like we don't want them around.

I am the frist to aggree that we have way too many laws and regulations and we should thin the herd so to speak.

The question is how , when and what. because some where, some one thought it was a very good idea at some time.

Click to expand...

actually, I beg to differ. I don't have a problem with an officer doing his job, even if that job is citing me for speeding.Once or twice an officer has even declined to ticket me for speeding because I was absolutely honest when asked if "I knew how fast I was going."

The problem I have is the officer who insists on searching me, or my property, when there is no reason. Just because you caught me speeding doesn't give you a reason to search my car. The tattoos on my body don't give you a reason either. I have watched LEOs "cause" a drug dog to "hit" on my car, with full knowledge that I have nothing, and haven't ever had anything in my car, and I've read the reports on the inefficiency of using drug dogs in the first place. My problem isn't with officers trying to do their job, my problem is with those who believe that their badge gives them authority to do whatever, whenever they want. If you would like to know the kind of officers I'm talking about, I can post many, many cites on the type.

I could debate this topic at length, but I will digress, since I wouldn't want to derail this topic any farther than I probably already have.

Yes it is a debate that has been going on for decades.

LE does not prevent crime, I would agree.

However, their presence is appreciated in some situations.

bagz013 said:

LE does not prevent crime, I would agree.

However, their presence is appreciated in some situations.

Click to expand...

Yes...Maybe.

Personally, I would much rather have a couple well-known and trusted neighbors that I can train with and they become a known quantity.

Then, I would simply call them, or they can call me as well, then we could solve the situation, THEN call the cops to come pick up the pieces.

Rather than have a total stranger tell me to stay in my driveway while he "clears" my house.

Pipe dream? Yeah, probably.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I think that the term "law enforcement" is a misnomer for the job that police officers perform...they are more properly labeled as "order maintenance".

bagz013 said:

LE does not prevent crime, I would agree.

However, their presence is appreciated in some situations.

Click to expand...

I agree. Directing traffic, finding the lost tot. Accident reports. Anything else is taken as an invitation to dominate.

carolina guy said:

I think that the term "law enforcement" is a misnomer for the job that police officers perform...they are more properly labeled as "order maintenance".

Click to expand...

I don't "force" is in the word and they take it literally shredding our common law heritage, of no victim no crime.

Interesting to look at the history of police force, some look at the first police force in Ireland as an Occupiers force meant to keep the public in line.