• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

In your opinion, who do the police work for?

In your opinion, who do the police work for?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .

jtrider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
37
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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:

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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!
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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:

jtrider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
37
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
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?
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Try not paying for public services (meaning don't pay your taxes) and see who is in charge.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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:

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top