View Poll Results: In your opinion, who do the police work for?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • The police work for us, the citizen.

    16 50.00%
  • The police do not work for us, and are not accountable to us.

    12 37.50%
  • I'm not sure who the police work for and who they are accountable to.

    4 12.50%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: In your opinion, who do the police work for?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    37

    In your opinion, who do the police work for?

    We encounter police in our attempt to carry our message. It would be useful if we were all on the same page as to what we should expect from the police we encounter. One thing I think we all have in common is the expectation to be treated respectfully. I have no doubt the police feel the same. There appears to be confusion about who the police work for, who they are accountable to. The answer to those questions may help us understand what treatment we should expect from the police.

    For example, if there is no accountability to us, the citizen, for behavior and performance of duties, there may also be no expectation of courteous respectful treatment. We may be operating with a false or unrealistic expectation.

    There is little threat from the rest of the community when we publicly open carry. If there is going to be a dicey encounter, it is likely to be with law enforcement. I think part of being properly prepared is to have a realistic expectation of what we may encounter, and why we have those expectations. This poll may help clarify those expectations.
    Last edited by jtrider; 09-12-2010 at 11:06 AM. Reason: Added content

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Individual LEOs work for the city, county, or State governments.

    As a unit, these government entities are answerable to the people for their policies. Individual officers are answerable to the people through the courts for any unlawful activities that are either criminal or egregious enough to pierce limited immunity.

    LEOs do not "work for us." During an interaction, we do not have the power or authority to direct their actions. At best, we can inform them of the law and refuse to comply with unlawful orders--at our own peril, to be judged in a court later.

    Your poll presents a false choice. It does not include the above concept that LEOs do not work for us, but can still be held accountable for their unlawful behavior.
    Last edited by eye95; 09-12-2010 at 10:57 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Eye, you just can't leave it alone, can you? Don't you think you are carrying this a little too far? It seems that it's not enough to discuss your opinion with others on the other thread. Now you have to start a new thread to prove your opinion and shove it down everyone's throat, instead of allowing other people their beliefs and opinions. No one ever said that they would tell and officer that he works for them. You have gone beyond being reasonable about this. Why do you have such a need to prove yourself right and everyone else wrong?!? You are not an adminstrator and we do not have thread or forum police so get over yourself already, no one appreciates it!
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Eye, I apologize, you did not start this thread. I read incorrectly. I have no further comment on this subject, I think we have beat it to death.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Thank you for the apology.

    I notice that you did not change the comments to direct them to the person with whom you seem to agree. If those comments would have been appropriately directed at me, don't you think they would have been appropriately directed at the person who actually started the thread, regardless of your agreement with his ideas?

    (BTW, I don't think that they would be appropriately directed at either of us, regardless of who started the thread.)

    Oh, and if I had started the thread, I would have provided an exhaustive list of choices that would have included mine and the one with which I disagreed. That would be the honest way to set up a poll.
    Last edited by eye95; 09-12-2010 at 11:17 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    37
    I think the question of who the police actually work for is a political question in nature, and will have a political answer. Meaning, each of us will have our own interpretation, understanding and expectations. I don't believe there is one answer that can be mandated for all to conform to. To force a political belief on others is unethical, unreasonable and in simpler terms, an act of bullying.

    Since the current concept of police has existed, there has been the question of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"? Who guards the guardians? To whom are they accountable and how can they be prevented from abusing their position?

    While each of us may be in the process of coming to terms with our influence or lack of influence regarding police encounters, are we compelled to adhere to the interpretation of another member?

  7. #7
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    My answer is simple. If I pay tax money, and it goes to a cop, he or she is my hired servant, unless another tax payer becomes a victim of my misdeeds or mistakes, at which point the officer has the right and obligation to stop me on behalf of the other people he or she serves. I expect to be treated as such by the cop, and I can, will, and have followed through on violations of this with FOIA's and complaints. I see no reason to read into it further than that.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    All of government works for us.
    No matter how you cut it.
    Public employee-employed by public
    Public Servant- Serve the public
    Since they are doing work for the public they work for the public it's that simple.
    Trying to twist the word to mean something else because we don't directly hire or fire public employs is inconsequential.

    They then would have to show respect for the public whom they work for.

    Just like if you hired my company to build your house me and my employees work for you while on your project it's that simple. You don't directly hire or fire or even direct my employees what to do but they are performing work you ordered. Hence working for you.

    The same goes for LEO, Teachers, Public Works, etc. We as voters decide we want a job done, pay a tax, and hire people to do it. Hence they work for us.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Many years ago I worked for a company that used an employment service. The company I worked for paid the service to supply employees. If the company had a problem with the employee it sent them back to service. Now, I can't say that the employee was fired by the service, but it would stand to reason that the service wanted to keep the company happy and keep it's payments coming in. Did the company have the ability to "fire" the employee, no. Was the company in effect their "Boss", yes(when the employee was preforming the duties assigned to them by the company). Did the service want to keep the company happy and so provide employees that would fulfill their duties properly, yes.

    I see a parallel here to the taxpayer-public employee argument. True, we do not pay the employee directly, however we are the ones who define the duties we expect and the manner in which we wish them preformed. The police dept. is the service providing us these employees. If they want to keep their payments coming in they need to guarantee a good employee or we may be forced to look elsewhere for a service provider.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Try not paying for public services (meaning don't pay your taxes) and see who is in charge.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by jtrider View Post
    While each of us may be in the process of coming to terms with our influence or lack of influence regarding police encounters, are we compelled to adhere to the interpretation of another member?
    Of course we are not compelled to adhere to your interpretation.

    Seriously, though, my purpose all along is to prevent folks from reading the opinion that LEOs "work for us" (a total misuse of the idiom "work for"), try to use it during an interaction, and suffer the consequences.

    Oh, and unless you include the opinion opposing yours in the poll, then you are conducting a push poll, i.e. pushing your opinion on others.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Many years ago I worked for a company that used an employment service. The company I worked for paid the service to supply employees. If the company had a problem with the employee it sent them back to service. Now, I can't say that the employee was fired by the service, but it would stand to reason that the service wanted to keep the company happy and keep it's payments coming in. Did the company have the ability to "fire" the employee, no. Was the company in effect their "Boss", yes(when the employee was preforming the duties assigned to them by the company). Did the service want to keep the company happy and so provide employees that would fulfill their duties properly, yes.

    I see a parallel here to the taxpayer-public employee argument. True, we do not pay the employee directly, however we are the ones who define the duties we expect and the manner in which we wish them preformed. The police dept. is the service providing us these employees. If they want to keep their payments coming in they need to guarantee a good employee or we may be forced to look elsewhere for a service provider.
    The company had the ability to effect a personnel action: removing the person from their present position. So, yes, the temp works for the company. An individual does not have the power to effect a personnel action on a LEO. The LEO does not work for the individual.

  13. #13
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    LEOs do work for us, the citizens, the public as a whole. They do not, however, work for any individual citizen or group.

    They do not answer to the individual citizen, but to their supervisors that we also hire to work for us, the citizens, the public as a whole.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Try not paying for public services (meaning don't pay your taxes) and see who is in charge.
    True, perhaps I should have said if the Police Chief wants to keep his check coming in(not get fired) they need to guarantee good employees.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 09-12-2010 at 12:52 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by jtrider
    are we compelled to adhere to the interpretation of another member?
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Of course we are not compelled to adhere to your interpretation.
    Boy, did he ever twist that around?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The company had the ability to effect a personnel action: removing the person from their present position. So, yes, the temp works for the company. An individual does not have the power to effect a personnel action on a LEO. The LEO does not work for the individual.
    An individual can effect a personnel action against them. They can can have the LEO reprimanded. Just as a supervisor at a company can reprimand an employee. Does that mean either will be fired, depends on the severity. If they get enough, who knows.

    I will agree in today's climate the individual has little effect on a LEO's employment. I am speaking more to the way it was suppose to be. If a LEO in today's climate fails to meet the citizenry's standards there is little chance the "establishment" will do much to them. I just think it should be different.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    An individual can effect a personnel action against them. They can can have the LEO reprimanded. Just as a supervisor at a company can reprimand an employee. Does that mean either will be fired, depends on the severity. If they get enough, who knows.

    I will agree in today's climate the individual has little effect on a LEO's employment. I am speaking more to the way it was suppose to be. If a LEO in today's climate fails to meet the citizenry's standards there is little chance the "establishment" will do much to them. I just think it should be different.
    No, the individual cannot have an officer reprimanded. The individual can complain. That may or may not result in a reprimand, at the discretion of the folks whom the officer really does work for. If a complaint does not work, the ballot box and the courts are the recourse. Neither guarantees success and access to either does not indicate that LEOs work for us.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Boy, did he ever twist that around?
    I wasn't aware I even offered an interpretation. This poster swings pretty wild when challenged, doesn't he?

  19. #19
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by jtrider View Post
    I wasn't aware I even offered an interpretation. This poster swings pretty wild when challenged, doesn't he?
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Maybe he's fighting so hard against this idea being a public employee himself.

    Most public employees I know including LEO's admit they work for the public.

    And yes we can have a direct influence I have seen it happen. This is why I encourage everyone who has a negative or a positive encounter to either file a complaint (an official one which they try to not let you file, trust me on this one) or a letter of commendation. Officers have files and can acquire a "jacket" of negative complaints, they get enough their supervisors realize that their employees (the public, you and I) are not happy with an employee and they may reprimand/remove said employee.

    My illustration is a very apt illustration yet see how the points are ignored, noone here is saying we can directly fire or hire them, yet they still are performing work for us, so the bottom line they work for us.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Ya know what? I used to respect what you had to post. You seem to have slipped into the mode of not being able to convince a person of your POV, so you make the argument personal.

    I don't know where you got the idea that I am a public employee. Maybe you haven't thought through completely something that I've said and jumped to a conclusion.

    Conclusion jumping is an example of the sloppy thinking that causes problems on a message board.

    Care to kick your rationality up a notch and participate in the discussion in an adult manner?

  22. #22
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Maybe he's fighting so hard against this idea being a public employee himself.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95
    Please don't tell me that I am wrong. I am a math and physics teacher. I know what the formal mathematical definition of "center of mass" is.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...oting-Question

    Maybe this is where you got the idea that he is a public employee? Post #11 to be exact. Either he is lieing or he is a public employee or he works for a private school. Which is it, eye? It appears that he is quickly losing credibility here.
    Last edited by rodbender; 09-13-2010 at 12:06 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    74
    I am sorry to have to inform you folks of this, but police are under no obligation to work for us, and certainly are not accountable to us!

    This is a proven fact as stated in several court cases!

  24. #24
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Wgaf?

    I pay my taxes, but I, as an individual, do not get to decide where that money goes or how it is used. I vote, but I, as an individual, do not get to order my representatives to vote only the way I want them to.

    We, the People of the United States, 'own' the government, and the police work for 'us'. They do not work for any individual, just as they do not have a duty to protect any individual. They serve and protect society as a whole.


    But at this point, I'd like a Who Gives A **** option to be added to the poll.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Ya know what? I used to respect what you had to post. You seem to have slipped into the mode of not being able to convince a person of your POV, so you make the argument personal.

    Don't try and pull the straw outta of my eye while the rafter is in your own. Really read what you just wrote go back and look at your responses to my posts, and apply your advice to yourself. And no personal attack meant. Sorry if you took it that way.

    I don't know where you got the idea that I am a public employee. Maybe you haven't thought through completely something that I've said and jumped to a conclusion.

    See Rodbenders Post.

    Conclusion jumping is an example of the sloppy thinking that causes problems on a message board.

    I didn't jump to any conclusions notice how I said Maybe at the beginning of that post.

    Care to kick your rationality up a notch and participate in the discussion in an adult manner?

    Amusing how you lecture on being an adult and rational and not having personal attacks and then write this sentence. Really? Your words betray yourself.

    I have been rational, again because you think my viewpoint is idiotic, doesn't make it wrong. Your rational has been because it offends Public Servants. My rational is than don't take that job if you can't respect the people you work for.

    I used to respect your posts too, until you seemed to want to be the free speech monitor. And go into teacher mode and treat us like we are your errant students because we don't fall in line with statist thinking. My advice to you is tone down the arrogance, and debate like equals. You might not have noticed but your tone really has been like this.
    Responded in Blue.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •