bash an aussie police officer and walk free. (3 Viewers)

[Marin3 Muscl3]

Meh, scum is subjective. What's relevant is they are often less intelligent, sensible and rational than the people they are trying to regulate. They are frequently hot headed, belligerent fools.



I can still criticize them. I'm not saying abolish the police. I'm saying that many police at them moment are barely competent.



The intelligence and usefulness of these people is questionable. They receive huge amounts of government funding, yet have little or not accountability to the people that pay their wages and finance their extravagant adventures.

Then they have the audacity to use their sweeping powers to invade the privacy and individual sovereignty of the very people the are supposed to protect.

I think they have the right to if those people may be a very serious threat to national security in the future? You are right in a way but no offence, you don't know what intelligence officers do. When terrorist attacks happen, people call for beter laws and greater security. When these bodies do their job they are scrutinized. What does the public want. Safety to be handed to them with a ribbon on top?? Leave them alone.

 

[Marin3 Muscl3]

Australians killed in actual wars and terrorist attacks during the entire Cold War era and its aftermath - <1000

Australians killed in road accidents in the past decade alone - 18,112

Source - Fear less what shadows hide: our roads are killing fields - OpinionPaulSheehan - www.smh.com.au

The hysteria about terrorism and national security is simply not justified. They are wasting money on this attention grabbing issue, when there are far more dangerous things that attract much less attention because there is less of a moral outrage factor.

That's not even getting into the horrific danger of having secret organizations that are basically above the law.

Ok there is a difference in numbers. When i say terrorism i dont just mean international threats, i mean outright national threats to people. Not even terrorists. Retards planning to kill this many people and all that. You have detectives and police officers working to try and stop these things. They may not be as smart as docs or lawyers but they are intelligent in what they do. So when they do end up saving lives you can't just say;

"They are wasting money on this attention grabbing issue, when there are far more dangerous things that attract much less attention because there is less of a moral outrage factor".

It's easy to criticize the police on a number of things but when you or somebody you know is in serious danger you are going to call the police for help. 100%. They may be crook but are atleast protecting people and saving lives.

 

[Venetiad]

Mabye all police officers should retire so they can avoid these terrible events!

Honestly, I'd side with the police even if they were being overly-aggresive. It's better to have that kind of enforcement than none at all, or enforcement which has no rights.

 

[SnowFox]

Mabye all police officers should retire so they can avoid these terrible events!

Honestly, I'd side with the police even if they were being overly-aggresive. It's better to have that kind of enforcement than none at all, or enforcement which has no rights.

I watched the Vid on the news, they were doing their job trying to break up a fight.

The random doing the flying headbutt came out of nowhere.

As a woman said in a interview:

Let them fight each other and kill themselves, that way the police cant be blamed for doing their job

 

[arook1991]

i hope one day YOU are getting the crap beaten out of you, and the cops decide it isnt worth their time. yes there are some bad cops. but the majority are doing a public service you dont have the balls to.

From my experience the majority are power hungry ego trippers that took the job for a sense of power

Kevin Rudd said:
"I think it's high time the community just absolutely got behind the police in everything they do."

how can you say that, police are people they make mistakes.

 

[Studentleader]

Is a disgrace

 

[incentivation]

It attracts people who are not intelligent enough to make more money in more intellectually taxing professions, people who enjoy dangerous and risky situations, and people who like to be in positions of power.

Obviously its a generalization. It happens to be an accurate one.

And of course these 'intellectually taxing professions' (whatever that might mean) attract purely ethical and honest individuals, as well as persons of the highest integrity (i.e. lawyers, stockbrokers, politicians, bankers etc ).

General duties policing, that is, front line first response policing (the police the average joe interacts with) tends to have a lower calibre officer. Now lets just sit back and ask why?

Is it because of the mandatory tenure imposed on new and obviously less experienced police? Is it because those of the higher calibre progress into more complex and intellectually stimulating areas? Or is it because the flexibility of the front line rostering allows secondary employment? (which is particularly attractive to those who work in the trades). I'd say it's all these reasons and more.

In an organisation of near to 16,000 personnel, about half would constitute General Duties police. A further percentage of that breakdown would fit into your little categorisation.

Now if we consider the career paths outside of General Duties, which the other half have entered into (by no means exhaustive):
- State Crime Command - (Various specialist investigative units - Homicide, Terrorism, Fraud, Robbery and Serious Crime, Child Protection and Sex Offences, MEOCS, Drugs, Asian and other organised crime, etc)
- Prosecution Command
- Airwing
- Traffic Services
- Forensic Services
- Professional Standards
- Technical Services (surveillance, listening devices & other communications)

One would be hard pressed to argue that the vast majority of these specialist areas don't require some form of intellectual vigour. For instance, to be accredited as a fingerprint expert (which is recognised worldwide) takes 6 years to complete, prosecutors undertake advocacy against solicitors and barristers everyday. You categorise intelligence as a merely academic phenomena.

You discredit yourself when you make ridiculous generalisations based on little more than personal opinion. Your objectivity is vastly clouded by either an intrinsic dislike for police, a previous experience or your rampant libertarianism.