Question.....

When does a police force cross the line to being a quasi military?

In the cities of the UK, gun crime is not uncommon, neither is gang warfare.

In an effort to respond to this, the police will resemble nothing like the image we might once have had of the professional 'bobbie', and will instead have more of a look of a 'soldier', and will certainly almost be as well armed as one.

Is that is when the line is crossed? Is that a valid example of a police force morphing into a quasi miltary?

And if it is, is it the best way to resolve the gang and drug crime that pollutes our towns and cities?

If I was in control of the Police -FORCE- I would arm them up and atire them like GTA's N.O.O.S.E.....

Drastic times, drastic measures

I always liked the concept idea of "Judge Dredd" I AM THE LAW!!! Put down your weapons, and, prepare to be judged...

But in the end, it is really just reacting to the issue, isn't it?

It's not solving it. Otherwise it would be, er, solved.

To find solutions, we need to be a bit more cerebral, and a little less gung ho, imo.

That's down to policy rather than policing surely?

Sir Bonvolio wrote:That's down to policy rather than policing surely?

Or down to police policies, perhaps?

It is they who can choose, within the law, what course of action a given situation merits.

I often think they elect for the most dramatic action, when another action would bring more positive results.

From all of mt run ins with them, I've found them to do just that. Realise that I'm not a danger to anyone, and just make me feel a bit silly for messing around.

As with any society, there are some that are worse than others. Same in the police, you'll only hear about the harsh ones usually.

I can't find them, but I saw two clips recently, one, where an American police officer pulled a truck driver over for using the outside lane. The trucker knew he shouldn't have done it but was forced by the car infront deliberatly trying to block him, the officer told him off in a nice way and let him on off as he knew he wasn't a problem.

The other was in England, an officer got called to a wharehouse because a group of children were smashing pallets and being a nuisance. The officer found the group, told them off, made them tidy up all the mess, made sure they knew not to come back and then, took four names and addresses from the 15 strong group, so that they were accountable for any further disturbances. Genius.

I personally am not very fond of my local police department. (I had ZERO tickets on my record, and they wrote me a ticket for not stopping all the way at a stop sign. And it was $75 for not stopping! No wonder there is no state tax, they RAPE you if you get a ticket!) Not only that, but it's a bunch of "country" boys that are all born and raised right here in town. If you come in from the outside, you are treated differently. (I've asked around and talked to people about it. Even the locals admit that they don't get pulled over as often as those who aren't from here.)

But I agree with SirB, generally speaking. There's a few bad apples, but I think most police officers try and just do the right thing.

I have never had a problem with people in your town. I worked in South Dakota a couple of years back. I used to go through there all the time. I would tell them I drive a truck out of South Dakota and they were cool with that. Also I would start making fun of Utah, and they would too. I always got along with people there. Cops never bothered me there. That being said, most states are starving for revenue. In normal times I am sure that you as a resident there. They would not of even looked twice or cared that rolled through a stop sign. Now though anything anyone does that can be ticketed and fined, most likely will be. So as you say it is really nothing but a tax. I am sure the cops were told bring in the revenue or you will no longer have a job. I would imagine the cops are not happy about that because it shifts there focus from safety, to revenue. If you take it to a traffic judge, I am willing to bet he drops $25.00 off your ticket. If you just go in there and don't really say much I feel they will. Try it see what happens. Just don't say too much. This has been my experience over the years.

Well, speaking of police officers, I found this story when I logged on just now.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/missouri-police-warn-adults-about-nintendo-game/1298251

The game in question is one that I happen to own and play about once a week. I'm also part of a group of mom's that play and exchange friend codes. Interestingly enough, here's a link to the original story:

http://www.kmiz.com/news/story.php?id=13725

Here's a quote from the story:

"There is no reason an adult should have this game," says Andy Anderson, Mid-Missouri Internet Crimes Task Force.

Now, I'm pretty pissed off. Pissed off enough that I googled and found an e-mail address for Andy Anderson and wrote him an e-mail letting him know that this game is not only popular among children, but among women, many of them mothers. Not only that, but a lot of us mom's play this game with our kids (I play with my step son) and it's fun.

I know it's a silly game, but I like it. You can go fishing, which is my personal favorite thing to do, build a museum up with fossils, fish, bugs and painting. You can actually dig up fossils and other neat things, you can visit "the city" and see a "play", shop, and other cute little things. It's actually a pretty feminine game - like an easier version of the Sims.

I know that this kind of labels me as an official dork now, but please tell me I'm not the only one who's slightly miffed that this guy said that? A LARGE portion of this games very users are the PARENTS of those children. And we own the game because we like it and it's fun! Where does he get off saying that no adult should own that game?

In a story by Missouri ABC affiliate KMIZ, Anderson warns parents to avoid the kid-friendly city-simulation game Animal Crossing: City Folk for the Nintendo Wii, claiming its online play offers an easy way for sexual predators and pedophiles to target their kids.

"There is no reason an adult should have this game," he said, going on to state that adults who play games like Animal Crossing are likely doing it for "the wrong reasons."

No reason at all? What about, um, if they just freaking like it.

Anyone want to know who this chap, Anderson, reminds me of?