This weekend our traffic enforcement

[hounddog]

You keep saying how all the data presented to you is bad because they're stats.

I never said the data is "bad," only that it has not been sorted through and catalogued, or classified into catagories, as presented.  That is either by accident, or by design to bolster an arguement.  The data is probably real, and I am not going to dispute its origin or authenticity.  Mainly because I am too lazy and busy to look it up! 

However, that does not mean that it is actually or specifically relevant to the topic as presented.   A good scientist would never present raw data as relevant to his point without first sifting through that data to see where it actually bolsters his position. 

[bing_oh]

Are you saying that because it's possible to manipulate statistical data, all statistical data has been manipulated?

Hounddog might not say it, but I sure will. Statistics, by their very nature, are manipulated. Let me explain...

First, statistics are boring. So, the vast majority of Americans don't pay any attention to raw statistics. They're nothing but numbers, and numbers can't keep the attention of the ADHD American public. So, through pure presentation, statistics are manipulated.

But, the biggest problem is, even raw statistics are manipulated by inclusion and omission. Statistics take a very specific focus on one small thing. Think of it in car terms...statistics focus on just the rotor in the distributor of a 57 Chevy. You can probably find some interesting information about that 57 Chevy by studying that rotor...maybe you can gleen information about the distributor, the electrical system, or even the entire engine by studying that rotor...but it doesn't necessarily tell you about the car as a whole. The same goes for statistical evaluations of things in the real world. Nothing in the world is totally uneffected by outside forces. The statistics only look at a small portion, potentially ignoring all of the outside forces that effect it. And, it's impossible to keep statistical records of every force that effects something in the world...there's just too much interaction in real-world scenarios. So, by deciding what additional statistical data is presented or omitted, even totally accurate statistical data is manipulated.

[TBR]

Generational wealth does not mean that kids will be given everything they want.

Dad croaks, leaves his kids (perhaps they are adults, it is largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned) $100 million, it is safe to say they will get everything they want. Additionally, generational wealth creates an attitude of entitlement, why shouldn't little Bobby get that new computer when he has a few million sitting in a trust fund? 

[Raza]

Dad croaks, leaves his kids (perhaps they are adults, it is largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned) $100 million, it is safe to say they will get everything they want. Additionally, generational wealth creates an attitude of entitlement, why shouldn't little Bobby get that new computer when he has a few million sitting in a trust fund? 

Your argument is bullshit. 

[JYODER240]

Dad croaks, leaves his kids (perhaps they are adults, it is largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned) $100 million, it is safe to say they will get everything they want. Additionally, generational wealth creates an attitude of entitlement, why shouldn't little Bobby get that new computer when he has a few million sitting in a trust fund? 

So what you're saying that the kids shouldn't get the money?

[James Young]

hounddog writes:

This is an unbelievably sophmoric statement, and doubled by the fact of your insufferable reliance on statistics, which as we all know, are easily manipulated.

Sophomoric or not, it is a long-term observation of fact, going back at least to the days of the National Safety Council and the puerile Signal 32-type films shown to all high school students.  When you have to fall back to a position that is not in question and has been rendered irrelevant in a feeble attempt to demonstrate the validity of your current position, it?s time to get a new argument.

The nature of traffic flow and safety can be measured only by the use of statistical tools.  Your problem is simply that you don?t like the truth that those statistics point out.  They are not the story as you try to imply, but merely help us see the story, the complete story.  What happens at a crash site in New Hampshire tells us little, but combined with 40,000 other fatal crashes gives us patterns and information by which we should be modifying our public policies.

Contrary to your belief, statistics are not easily manipulated, at least not in a public arena with critical peer review.  Your allegation is simply that the statistics are being manipulated in order to prove our argument.  That allegation is wrong.  First, we?re not manipulating the statistics.  What I gave was straight from NHTSA.  Second, and more importantly, our argument arises out of the statistical evidence; that is, the evidence tells us where to go.

Let?s be very clear.  NHTSA statistics are biased for two major reasons:  (1) the primary source ? police reports ? is biased against speed because of historical perspectives that no longer obtain and because anti-speed is much safer politically and (2) NHTSA was organized and remains staffed by anti-speed people, many from the insurance industry.  Even with all that built-in bias and despite all their anti-speed verbiage, they cannot ? and therefore you cannot ? dismiss the truths exposed by these statistics.  Note that these statistics are not samples but are the entire population of events so there is no sampling error.  When they speak of ~40,000 fatal crashes, their data include all fatal crashes across the nation.  It is not as though they sampled 50 fatal crashes and extrapolated from there.

These numbers are deceiving, and couterproductive to your arguement that safer cars and crash barriers has resulted in fewer deaths and injuries at high speed.

You were the one who made the absurd allegation in Reply #299:  ?More physical and measurable evidence of that is we have more auto related fatalities than ever before.  IF the modern measures of better roadside traffic crash reducers/barriers and the safety measures built into our cars were enough, we should see fatal and serious injury accidents fall dramatically in correlation.  They have not.?

That allegation is false and I gave the proof using your own statistics. 

Those numbers are actual values for the entire nation for the two years in question.  That is hardly deceiving.  Far from being counterproductive, they support the obvious conclusion that safer cars and better-engineered roadways actually work, reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities.  What other conclusion could realistically be drawn?

These fatalities and injury reports are to include, but not limited to; car vs. pedestrian, car vs. bicycle, off-road vehicle while on road crashes (snowmobile or atv), car vs. animal, all motorcycle crashes, all fatalities from every speed zone, train vs. car, train vs. pedestrian when roadway is involved, etc.

That is correct and they do include every fatal and injury crash from every roadway in America, including all of those above.. 

Because of this, you assertion that since fatalities and injuries have fallen there is a correlation between those raw numbers and highway/auto safety are self-evident and self-prooving.  That could not be further from the truth, and is highly inaccurate.

Those are not ?raw? numbers.  They are tabulated data from NHTSA.  They are verifiable back to the sources.  The improvements in automotive technology, civil engineering and traffic engineering does correlate to the tabulated data from NHTSA, as well as many others.  The conclusion is obvious:  improvements in technology lead to improvements in our safety performance.  PERIOD. 

Obviously, since you say I?m wrong, then you need to demonstrate a correlation between another set of factors and improvements in safety performance.  Put your work up for peer review and once that?s completed, we?ll examine it.  If I?m far from the truth and inaccurate, please tell us exactly where and why that is the case and support your argument.

The rest of what you wrote is just you opining in your normal long- winded manner, not provable on your end, and is simply not worth my time and effort to respond.

You?re entitled to your opinion.  Unfortunately, my set of facts is far superior to yours.  The sad fact is that failing to respond to me is not a matter of time and effort but that you can?t because the science is not on your side.

I am saying that he [JY] wants more scientific methods used to determine "proper" speed limits, yet mocks the very science and mathmatics that would be required to make it happen. . .

I have no idea what you mean here.  Far from mocking the science, I embrace it and my argument follows from that.

. . .while seemingly wishing only to use raw traffic crash data collected by, as he would say, 'uneducated half-wits' or whatever insult he chooses to thinly and half-heartedly veil.

Again, it is not ?raw? data.  You?re throwing up a lot of crap that doesn?t even make sense. 

One of the rights that we do not enjoy as humans is the right to not be insulted.  If you?re insulted, get over it.

I never said the data is "bad," only that it has not been sorted through and catalogued, or classified into catagories, as presented.  That is either by accident, or by design to bolster an arguement.  The data is probably real, and I am not going to dispute its origin or authenticity.  Mainly because I am too lazy and busy to look it up!

However, that does not mean that it is actually or specifically relevant to the topic as presented.   A good scientist would never present raw data as relevant to his point without first sifting through that data to see where it actually bolsters his position.

That?s just flat wrong.  Again, you?re just throwing stuff out without knowing what you?re even talking about.  This is getting embarrassing.


bing_oh writes:

Hounddog might not say it, but I sure will. Statistics, by their very nature, are manipulated. Let me explain...

First, statistics are boring. . . . So, through pure presentation, statistics are manipulated.

But, the biggest problem is, even raw statistics are manipulated by inclusion and omission. Statistics take a very specific focus on one small thing. . . . The same goes for statistical evaluations of things in the real world. Nothing in the world is totally uneffected by outside forces. The statistics only look at a small portion, potentially ignoring all of the outside forces that effect it. And, it's impossible to keep statistical records of every force that effects something in the world...there's just too much interaction in real-world scenarios. So, by deciding what additional statistical data is presented or omitted, even totally accurate statistical data is manipulated.

Statistics are a tool.  They are but a representation of the truth, a tool like a microscope or a telescope to help us see what we cannot see in their absence. These ARE NOT raw data and to represent them as such is na?ve at best, dishonest at worst.  The idea behind keeping statistics about traffic flow and safety is to reveal the results rather than to enumerate all the potential forces that could possible affect such event, i.e., The Butterfly Effect.  What we then do with the information is to use it to guide our policy responses to improve our performance.  What the anti-speed cabal would have us do is to ignore the science and base our response on political needs and desires, and that is fraud. 

What the current numbers and trends show us is that the technological revolution is having a positive effect on traffic safety but that the laws and enforcement are not.  You don?t like that because it diminishes the importance of your job and your institution but I always say it is better to go with the science than follow a well-trodden path to ruin.

[the nameless one]

So what you're saying that the kids shouldn't get the money?

Trust fund they can't access til they are 40 or so.

[Raza]

Trust fund they can't access til they are 40 or so.

Another arbitrary, meaningless number set by a bureaucrat.

[bing_oh]

Statistics are a tool.  They are but a representation of the truth, a tool like a microscope or a telescope to help us see what we cannot see in their absence. These ARE NOT raw data and to represent them as such is na?ve at best, dishonest at worst.  The idea behind keeping statistics about traffic flow and safety is to reveal the results rather than to enumerate all the potential forces that could possible affect such event, i.e., The Butterfly Effect.  What we then do with the information is to use it to guide our policy responses to improve our performance.  What the anti-speed cabal would have us do is to ignore the science and base our response on political needs and desires, and that is fraud. 

What the current numbers and trends show us is that the technological revolution is having a positive effect on traffic safety but that the laws and enforcement are not. You don’t like that because it diminishes the importance of your job and your institution but I always say it is better to go with the science than follow a well-trodden path to ruin.

Sorry, but I actually chuckled about that one. Do you realize how unimportant I really am? I have very little ego left after 9 years of LE. I know that I'm, at best, a very small cog in a very big machine. I do my job because I get personal satisfaction from doing something that I think improves my society and helps others...not much (I no longer have that delusion, either), but maybe just a little bit.

As for traffic stuff, I'll be perfectly blunt with you...I ABSOLUTELY HATE DOING TRAFFIC! I hate running radar and laser. I hate handing out traffic tickets (excluding DUS and OVI, which I enjoy working). I'd be doing the Snoopy dance on the top of my doghouse if I didn't have to do most of the traffic crap I do during an average shift. But I can see that directed traffic enforcement DOES have an effect on driver behavior and, as such, an effect on crash frequency. And, what I hate even more that traffic is doing crashes. With the winter months quickly approaching, I hate crashes even more (there's nothing that puts me in a bad mood like dodging idiots on ice while I'm trying to do a crash on an unprotected roadway in mid-January when it's -20 and snowing like a MF'er).

So, if we could technologically create the ultimate safe roadway, I and my fellow LEO's would probably be the first ones to congratulate the inventors and have a beer in celebration.

[Soup DeVille]

Hounddog might not say it, but I sure will. Statistics, by their very nature, are manipulated. Let me explain...

First, statistics are boring. So, the vast majority of Americans don't pay any attention to raw statistics. They're nothing but numbers, and numbers can't keep the attention of the ADHD American public. So, through pure presentation, statistics are manipulated.

But, the biggest problem is, even raw statistics are manipulated by inclusion and omission. Statistics take a very specific focus on one small thing. Think of it in car terms...statistics focus on just the rotor in the distributor of a 57 Chevy. You can probably find some interesting information about that 57 Chevy by studying that rotor...maybe you can gleen information about the distributor, the electrical system, or even the entire engine by studying that rotor...but it doesn't necessarily tell you about the car as a whole. The same goes for statistical evaluations of things in the real world. Nothing in the world is totally uneffected by outside forces. The statistics only look at a small portion, potentially ignoring all of the outside forces that effect it. And, it's impossible to keep statistical records of every force that effects something in the world...there's just too much interaction in real-world scenarios. So, by deciding what additional statistical data is presented or omitted, even totally accurate statistical data is manipulated.

So what you're basically saying is, I should just take your word for it?

[Catman]

Sorry, but I actually chuckled about that one. Do you realize how unimportant I really am? I have very little ego left after 9 years of LE. I know that I'm, at best, a very small cog in a very big machine. I do my job because I get personal satisfaction from doing something that I think improves my society and helps others...not much (I no longer have that delusion, either), but maybe just a little bit.

As for traffic stuff, I'll be perfectly blunt with you...I ABSOLUTELY HATE DOING TRAFFIC! I hate running radar and laser. I hate handing out traffic tickets (excluding DUS and OVI, which I enjoy working). I'd be doing the Snoopy dance on the top of my doghouse if I didn't have to do most of the traffic crap I do during an average shift. But I can see that directed traffic enforcement DOES have an effect on driver behavior and, as such, an effect on crash frequency. And, what I hate even more that traffic is doing crashes. With the winter months quickly approaching, I hate crashes even more (there's nothing that puts me in a bad mood like dodging idiots on ice while I'm trying to do a crash on an unprotected roadway in mid-January when it's -20 and snowing like a MF'er).

So, if we could technologically create the ultimate safe roadway, I and my fellow LEO's would probably be the first ones to congratulate the inventors and have a beer in celebration.

LOL.  Couldn't agree more with this post.  Working on the technology front for two years has been a breath of fresh air for me.  14 years in LE has made me start looking forward to retirement.  Not that I don't like being a police officer but when you start to realize the actual burden of it and the constant criticism from the public you get cynical and fatigued.  It's a good job for the younger guys but it only takes about 5 years for reality to take hold.

[Northlands]

Trust fund they can't access til they are 40 or so.

I know plenty of 40 year old that can't be trusted with holding on to even $3000 in excess funds.

It's not the age in most cases. It's the upbringing that determines the person's mental acuity in realizing foolishly spending a great deal of wealth is not in his/her best interests. 

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:

Sorry, but I actually chuckled about that one.

That would be me:  comedian to the cops.  Laughter is good for you; keep it up.

Do you realize how unimportant I really am?

Well, yes, but then y?all tell me that I?m insulting. 

As for traffic stuff, I'll be perfectly blunt with you...I ABSOLUTELY HATE DOING TRAFFIC! I hate running radar and laser. I hate handing out traffic tickets.

I don?t doubt that you and many if not most LEOs hate doing traffic.  However, that doesn?t help us as drivers because the citation from an Officer Bob, to whom a traffic stop is a near sexual epiphany, is just the same as one from the guy who hated giving it in the first place.  It is just as costly to us and still does no good.

So, if we could technologically create the ultimate safe roadway, I and my fellow LEO's would probably be the first ones to congratulate the inventors and have a beer in celebration.

Sorry, that won?t happen because the system is too large, too complex and too dynamic to ever achieve perfection.  However, the law enforcement institution is loathe to recognize the fact that traffic safety is improving without regard to anything that they do. 

Listen to guys like nameless and they?d have you believing that they are the plastic wrap that keeps all of society from sliding into anarchy, yet when we consider that the overwhelming majority of VMT are done out of sight of enforcement and that the key rates just keep dropping, we are forced to consider alternatives to the conventional institutional wisdom.

[bing_oh]

I don?t doubt that you and many if not most LEOs hate doing traffic.  However, that doesn?t help us as drivers because the citation from an Officer Bob, to whom a traffic stop is a near sexual epiphany, is just the same as one from the guy who hated giving it in the first place.  It is just as costly to us and still does no good.

Why are you whining to us, though? MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT!!! POLICE DON'T MAKE THE LAWS! If you don't like the laws, then vote someone into office who will change them for you. Send letters to your state representatives. If your argumants are so damn persuasive, then you shouldn't have any problem getting the politicians that you vote for every few years to change the laws for you. Stop busting the chops of the officers who enforce those laws...we have as much control over what is law as you do. Officers each have one vote, just like you do. Whatever law is enacted, we enforce...that's part of that oath I took when I became a LEO.

Sorry, that won?t happen because the system is too large, too complex and too dynamic to ever achieve perfection.  However, the law enforcement institution is loathe to recognize the fact that traffic safety is improving without regard to anything that they do.

Same as above. Has nothing to do with "the law enforcement institution" (whatever the hell that is).

Listen to guys like nameless and they?d have you believing that they are the plastic wrap that keeps all of society from sliding into anarchy, yet when we consider that the overwhelming majority of VMT are done out of sight of enforcement and that the key rates just keep dropping, we are forced to consider alternatives to the conventional institutional wisdom.

Actually, law enforcement does go a long way to protecting society from anarchy. I'm not sure what this has to do with traffic laws, but since you brought it up let's discuss it. How many members of American society do YOU think can take care of criminal issues on their own? We're breeding a society of victims. It's gotten so bad, with people not even knowing their neighbors and calling LE to solve every little dispute they get into, that I wonder what an average size city would do without government intervention like LE. I suspect we'd see something like LA during the riots, with most people cowering in their homes and a small number running the streets like animals. It's not that most people are inherently evil and that society would tear itself apart without people to keep the peace, it's more like the average person has become so used to the government providing specialized services for them that they wouldn't know how to cope without those services.

[dazzleman]

Actually, law enforcement does go a long way to protecting society from anarchy. I'm not sure what this has to do with traffic laws, but since you brought it up let's discuss it. How many members of American society do YOU think can take care of criminal issues on their own? We're breeding a society of victims. It's gotten so bad, with people not even knowing their neighbors and calling LE to solve every little dispute they get into, that I wonder what an average size city would do without government intervention like LE. I suspect we'd see something like LA during the riots, with most people cowering in their homes and a small number running the streets like animals. It's not that most people are inherently evil and that society would tear itself apart without people to keep the peace, it's more like the average person has become so used to the government providing specialized services for them that they wouldn't know how to cope without those services.

I'm afraid you're on to something with that last paragraph (above).

[J86]

well fuck, cut 'em all an let darwin take the course for a couple years...

[Eye of the Tiger]

well fuck, cut 'em all an let darwin take the course for a couple years...

You have a great point there. In our society today, we have effectively eliminated the process of natural selection. As a species, it is now quite unlikely that humans will ever evolve past the point we are at now.

[bing_oh]

You have a great point there. In our society today, we have effectively eliminated the process of natural selection. As a species, it is now quite unlikely that humans will ever evolve past the point we are at now.

We stopped evolving on a biological level when we created advanced society. Our brains have, for the most part, eliminated biological evolution by humans because we have created ways to alter our environment to suit our own needs. And, since evolution requires adaptation to hardship, we've stopped evolving in many major ways. I'd guess that the only major evolutionary jumps we're going to see will be in relation to the human brain. That, plus the fact that we have found ways to slow or even cure disease without the adaptation of human biology, and that we actually protect biological defects through modern medical science, means that humans are much less likely to eliminate our own weaknesses through natural selection.

[Catman]

We stopped evolving on a biological level when we created advanced society. Our brains have, for the most part, eliminated biological evolution by humans because we have created ways to alter our environment to suit our own needs. And, since evolution requires adaptation to hardship, we've stopped evolving in many major ways. I'd guess that the only major evolutionary jumps we're going to see will be in relation to the human brain. That, plus the fact that we have found ways to slow or even cure disease without the adaptation of human biology, and that we actually protect biological defects through modern medical science, means that humans are much less likely to eliminate our own weaknesses through natural selection.

We are continuing to evolve into a fatter species.

[JYODER240]

Trust fund they can't access til they are 40 or so.

It's not the goverments place to decide how to raise children.

[The Pirate]

It's not the goverments place to decide how to raise children.

Trust funds can be set up by a parent or guardian, and stipulations of said trust fund controlled by their wishes as well.  There's no gov't  involvement.

As far as it not being the government's place to decide how to raise children, I generally agree.

[James Young]

bing_oh writes:

Why are you whining to us, though? MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT!!! POLICE DON'T MAKE THE LAWS!

Hello?  Police lobby for or against laws, propose laws, testify before legislative committees and are afforded a much greater access to legislators than citizens ever can have and they do it all with public money.  Please do not condescend us by hiding behind that tired old mantra.  Pointing out malfeasance, incompetence and hypocrisy is hardly ?whining.?

If you don't like the laws, then vote someone into office who will change them for you. Send letters to your state representatives. If your argumants are so damn persuasive, then you shouldn't have any problem getting the politicians that you vote for every few years to change the laws for you.

Actually, we have gotten laws changed.  We got NMSL rescinded, anti-impeding laws placed and have successfully fought RLC in some places.   We have had a positive effect.  Driving productivity and safety performance are ever increasing.  You?re welcome.

It is hopelessly na?ve to believe that politicians have any interest in rational, science-based laws, when a solid majority of them still believe in creationism instead of science.  They are interested in what gets them re-elected or in what would prevent their re-election.  Virtually none of them know the 85th percentile concept and just pull a limit out of their ass, based on little more than what they can do that is politically safe.

More than once and in more than one state, I?ve been told outright that a state rep would not see me because I did not contribute to his campaign.  Just think if the police only responded to calls where the caller had contributed to the PBA. 

Has nothing to do with "the law enforcement institution" (whatever the hell that is).

?Institution? in this case refers to the social mechanism that drives the behavior of members of that institution, particularly protection of the institution first and foremost, without regard to the original purpose of the organization or its current status.  Think of the Catholic Church.  Think about the response of the Church hierarchy to the rampant pedophilia in the priesthood.  That?s institutional behavior aimed at protecting and perpetuating the Church, all without regard to the original purpose of the church or the wisdom of its continuation.

NYPD, LAPD, the FBI and BATF are all institutions and all are subunits of the larger institution of ?law enforcement,? which has taken on a life of its own, regardless of its original purpose or the wisdom of its effort now.  Members protect it first and foremost, swarming around accused and often guilty officers or blindly denying misbehavior in the face of overwhelming evidence.  Think about the obsession with justifying Ruby Ridge, Waco and Rodney King. Law enforcement would be better served without some of these guys but the need to protect the organization overwhelms reason and even long-term benefits.

You're not doing it, but others have confused "institutional behavior" with mental illness and the institutions that deal with them.  The "institutionalism" of which I speak has nothing to do with mental illness or mental hospitals.

I suspect we'd see something like LA during the riots, with most people cowering in their homes and a small number running the streets like animals.

Do you mean when I was in charge of a hotel and we were called three times in a row with the message that they were ?gonna burn down your building??  Do you mean when we called 911 and they (presumably LAPD) told us they were too busy, that we were on our own? [That's cleaned up from what they told my operator.]  Do you mean when we were hit with a Molotov-cocktail but we took care of it ourselves and had no injuries to guests or employees?  Do you mean when LAPD disappeared during the riots?  Do you when LAPD created the situation in the first place by abusing minorities for 20+ years, refusing to respond honestly?  Do you mean when LAPD tried to cite ?resisting arrest? only to find that they had been videotaped?  Do you mean when LAPD found out we had some major CBS executives (network, not LA) in house, their whole tune changed and they couldn?t get there fast enough?

Are those the riots you?re talking about? 

[the nameless one]

It's not the goverments place to decide how to raise children.

The question was asked, that was MY solution. On the other hand though, if you are spitting out kids left and right and then coming to society with your hand out looking for money, society SHOULD be dictating the terms of that aid..stuff like you getting sterilized so you don't produce any more kids you cannot support, the kids you DO have going into foster care til you can support them w/out society paying the dime, etc. Once again, thats MY solution.

[Soup DeVille]

The question was asked, that was MY solution. On the other hand though, if you are spitting out kids left and right and then coming to society with your hand out looking for money, society SHOULD be dictating the terms of that aid..stuff like you getting sterilized so you don't produce any more kids you cannot support, the kids you DO have going into foster care til you can support them w/out society paying the dime, etc. Once again, thats MY solution.

I usually consider it beneath me to call people Nazis, but when they bring up eugenics, I take exception to that rule.

[bing_oh]

Hello?  Police lobby for or against laws, propose laws, testify before legislative committees and are afforded a much greater access to legislators than citizens ever can have and they do it all with public money.  Please do not condescend us by hiding behind that tired old mantra.  Pointing out malfeasance, incompetence and hypocrisy is hardly ?whining.?

Malfeasance, incompetence, and hypocricy?!?! Why the fuck do I even bother responding to you, James? I try to hold a civil discussion and you accuse me and all other police of being narrow-minded, criminal idiots.

Actually, we have gotten laws changed.  We got NMSL rescinded, anti-impeding laws placed and have successfully fought RLC in some places.   We have had a positive effect.  Driving productivity and safety performance are ever increasing.  You?re welcome.

Bravo. You figured out how to operate within the system. Why are you still on a message board bitching instead of continuing your lobbying to the politicos?

It is hopelessly na?ve to believe that politicians have any interest in rational, science-based laws, when a solid majority of them still believe in creationism instead of science.  They are interested in what gets them re-elected or in what would prevent their re-election.  Virtually none of them know the 85th percentile concept and just pull a limit out of their ass, based on little more than what they can do that is politically safe.

Politicians just want to be re-elected?!?! You kidding me!

More than once and in more than one state, I?ve been told outright that a state rep would not see me because I did not contribute to his campaign.  Just think if the police only responded to calls where the caller had contributed to the PBA.

I'm glad you consider us one step above politicians...

?Institution? in this case refers to the social mechanism that drives the behavior of members of that institution, particularly protection of the institution first and foremost, without regard to the original purpose of the organization or its current status.  Think of the Catholic Church.  Think about the response of the Church hierarchy to the rampant pedophilia in the priesthood.  That?s institutional behavior aimed at protecting and perpetuating the Church, all without regard to the original purpose of the church or the wisdom of its continuation.

NYPD, LAPD, the FBI and BATF are all institutions and all are subunits of the larger institution of ?law enforcement,? which has taken on a life of its own, regardless of its original purpose or the wisdom of its effort now.  Members protect it first and foremost, swarming around accused and often guilty officers or blindly denying misbehavior in the face of overwhelming evidence.  Think about the obsession with justifying Ruby Ridge, Waco and Rodney King. Law enforcement would be better served without some of these guys but the need to protect the organization overwhelms reason and even long-term benefits.

You're not doing it, but others have confused "institutional behavior" with mental illness and the institutions that deal with them.  The "institutionalism" of which I speak has nothing to do with mental illness or mental hospitals.

Do you mean when I was in charge of a hotel and we were called three times in a row with the message that they were ?gonna burn down your building??  Do you mean when we called 911 and they (presumably LAPD) told us they were too busy, that we were on our own? [That's cleaned up from what they told my operator.]  Do you mean when we were hit with a Molotov-cocktail but we took care of it ourselves and had no injuries to guests or employees?  Do you mean when LAPD disappeared during the riots?  Do you when LAPD created the situation in the first place by abusing minorities for 20+ years, refusing to respond honestly?  Do you mean when LAPD tried to cite ?resisting arrest? only to find that they had been videotaped?  Do you mean when LAPD found out we had some major CBS executives (network, not LA) in house, their whole tune changed and they couldn?t get there fast enough?

Are those the riots you?re talking about?

Let's argue Waco, Rodney King, and the LA Riots shall we? Oh yea...I'd absolutely LOVE to get into discussions of those with you! During my academy traning, both Waco and Rodney King were subjects of intense discussion.

I got to watch some of the video footage from Rodney King that the media never thought was good enough for public dissemination. I got to hear the reports from the first officer on the scene, a female, who almost SHOT King before her supervisor showed up on the scene. I watched the "beating" and compaired it to the training for the PR24 baton, realizing that the officers were poorly trained on that particular weapon, were using it incorrectly and contrary to its proper use, and were using it on a man with high levels of cocaine in his system. I got to watch video of Rodney King STANDING UP WITH 6 OFFICERS ON HIS BACK!!! Rodney king was the biggest bunch of media-induced, whitewashed bullshit of the 20th century! Rodney King, a very large violent crack addict, should have been shot when the first officer arrived on the scene.

Let's talk about the LA Riots. Yea, that was all about Rodney King and pent-up racial discord. No better way to show your outrage over racial mistreatment than to BURN NEIGHBORHOODS COMPRISED MOSTLY OF MINORITY RESIDENTS, right? Yea, nothing says "we want better treatment" than stealing TV's. Want to know why the LAPD didn't respond to your calls during the riots? BECAUSE THEY WERE OVERWHELMED WITH TRYING TO CONTROL RIOTS!!!! Even the largest police forces in the nation are miniscule compaired to the number of people that they police.

Let's talk about Waco. Let's talk about the officers and federal agents who were shot and killed that day (that nobody even talks about). Let's talk about the truth, that the Branch Davidians committed mass suicide after firing on federal law enforcement officers attempting to serve a LEGAL WARRANT. Don't spout off the conspiracy theory bullshit...I'm not swallowing it.

I'm done with your crap, James. I'm done pounding my head into the wall. I'm done with taking your snide comments and your insults. Argue with somebody else.

[the nameless one]

I usually consider it beneath me to call people Nazis, but when they bring up eugenics, I take exception to that rule.

If people cannot afford the kids they are having and ask society for help, then society should be able to set some ground rules for giving that aid. Want public aid? Fine; we'll make sure you don't add any more mouths to the welfare rolls beyond what we already have to support because you don't want to work.

If you want to call that eugenics, thats your call. I call it being fiscally responsible when too many people in this country think they are entitled to perpetually stick their hand out looking for the next handout with zero responsibility on their part.

[Soup DeVille]

If people cannot afford the kids they are having and ask society for help, then society should be able to set some ground rules for giving that aid. Want public aid? Fine; we'll make sure you don't add any more mouths to the welfare rolls beyond what we already have to support because you don't want to work.

If you want to call that eugenics, thats your call. I call it being fiscally responsible when too many people in this country think they are entitled to perpetually stick their hand out looking for the next handout with zero responsibility on their part.

When I think about people like you holding a badge and a gun, I throw up in my mouth a little.

[hounddog]

When I think about people like you holding a badge and a gun, I throw up in my mouth a little.

What an immature thing to say. 

People in America are allowed to have their own opinions.  A police officers opinions are just as much allowed as yours.  Walk a mile in anothers shoes before you cast judgement.  Or in the case of some here, even 39 feet would be helpful to open their closed eyes.

[Soup DeVille]

What an immature thing to say. 

People in America are allowed to have their own opinions.  A police officers opinions are just as much allowed as yours.  Walk a mile in anothers shoes before you cast judgement.  Or in the case of some here, even 39 feet would be helpful to open their closed eyes.

Read a history book. Find out what the word "eugenics" means. Find out about the sterilization programs in Nazi Germany and Communist China, and realize that that is exactly what nameless is proposing here.

And then tell me how immature my response is.

A cop, any cop should have at least a basic understanding of what basic human rights are.

"Poor people should be sterilized" is not a valid opinion worthy of me considering.

[hounddog]

Read a history book. Find out what the word "eugenics" means. Find out about the sterilization programs in Nazi Germany and Communist China, and realize that that is exactly what nameless is proposing here.

And then tell me how immature my response is.

A cop, any cop should have at least a basic understanding of what basic human rights are.

"Poor people should be sterilized" is not a valid opinion worthy of me considering.

It is still an immature post.  And, I think I understand what the term means.  Thanks for inferring I am an idiot. 

I am also certain he is very well aware of what peoples rights are.    
He is probably far more aware of what peoples rights actually are than you are, as is the case most of the time.  People very rarely actually know what their rights are, but think they know. 

What I am most certain of, are his right as a person and citizen of the United States to those beliefs he may have. 

You have never served your country in anyway other than to go to work.  I do not even know if you have never been in jail, so I can not say that you have tried to serve by obeying the law.  Those of us who have spent our entire adult lives serving have a much different perspective on where this country is going, or already has become. 

Althought I do not agree with the forced sterilization idea, I do believe that licenses should be required to have children outside of wedlock, or if on welfare or any other form of government subsidy.  If the government is forced to pay for these kids, which we are, the government should have some say into how they are raised and how many more are produced.