Raleigh cops call release of body camera footage "dangerous" (when they raided the wrong family).
Raleigh cops call release of body camera footage "dangerous" (when they raided the wrong family).
I was stalked and harassed (like 100s of emails, txts, in person, etc) and when reported to the police they asked if “I have tried throwing it in, I might just like it”. Another was when they pulled a gun on me in front of my store because some one reported a bunch of cars that got robbed (it was me I made that report). Another was when a year after the stalker had a warrant out for their arrest proceeded to preform multiple “wellness” checks on the stalkers behalf (thereby doing the harassment for the stalker), and when asked if they knew who called the checks in they said they did know, but even if the other party is stalking/harassing you they still think they need to do the check.
Want more? When I was a child I was run over by a cop who ran a stop sign while on my bike, I was about to be arrested before another cop showed up, not to help me but to “stop the first from doing something stupid”.
I am not even 40 yet and I have at least a dozen stories where a cop made things much worse, and I am not even in a more a risk demographic.
Oh I am on my town counsel, so in a very small way in government. The real piss off is that the cost for the town to have police (we can not say no) has tripped in the last two years.
(Oh and I am not in the states so my government does not spend it on the military, but I get the point)
So here’s the thing: why do the police automatically close ranks and protect these abuses? Police unions, and even just regular PDs in small towns and big cities alike, will almost always close ranks around any sort of investigation into officers that abuse their power, or are accused of bad behavior. Why? If they really wanna “protect their loved ones”, shouldn’t they instead NOT tolerate abuses? Should they not, instead, strive to bring abuses to light, so the remaining officers can all hold each other accountable to that higher standard?
Additionally, I really take umbrage with the use of the word “defunded”, because what we usually mean is a little more complex - however, “the police in Millville, OH don’t need an armored personnel carrier and a crate of rifles and level IV plates all the time to protect their town of less than a thousand” doesn’t quite fit on a protest sign, and neither does “we shouldn’t be sending the police in to do things like wellness and mental health checks which they’re ill-equipped and ill-trained for”, or even “maybe not every situation should be immediately met with deadly force at the slightest inconvenience.” Moreover, if we do agree with your “protect and serve” mindset, shouldn’t the police WELCOME the help of a trained wing of people to deal specifically with things like suicidal tendencies, wellness checks on the elderly or the mentally unwell, and other situations that might escalate with the presence of an armed person shouting instructions at them?
My town is a frequent target of ne’er do wells, as the police do not have any real coverage here. My car was pilfered again just 2 days ago and the police do nothing as of now. I know at least two of my neighbours who would take shots at these thieves if not for the police. As it stands people here don’t fear the criminals but the police, the ones stealing know they are more likely to be protected by the police then their victims.
We live in clown world, and the cops are holding up the big top.
Funny thing is that cops have told people to give into thieves making an already shitty argument even more moot.
So if one dude in Toronto recommends that having your car stolen is better than having your house trashed, it means that cops in general tell you to give in to all the thieving?