Do police take their power too far?
970682
I have been in law enforcement for over 24 years.  I work in a major agency that handles an average of 25,000 calls for service every month.  Out of all of those calls, no one ever looks at the good we do.  \n\nI can tell you that over the years I have been involved in many violent situations.  It is not like T.V., its very hard to arrest someone that doesn't want to be arrested. Also, we are not a bunch of martial arts experts that can control someone with one fancy move.\n\nI will admit that I have seen a few real cases of police brutality over the the year.  But, 99 % of the accusations are false.
339490
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!\n\nwho polices the police? noone.
469400
ok i dont know but i have question for you \nwhy are the police people now a days are like 20 feet tall and as skinny as a broom?
542115
ABSOLUTELY.  Cops have been given entirely too much power and abuse it on a daily bases, AND they get away with it!  Most cops are those guys who were kicked around and stepped on in their school days...so they are out to get even when released into society with their shiny new badges!  Also, it doesn't matter if you are the victim or not, once they judge you, it's all over and then THE COPS victimize you one way or another!
825873
It is everyone's right not to be abused, that is the law. Sometimes the police step over the line, most often the criminals do. Still it is an officer's duty to see the scumbag gets to jail in as best shape as is humanly posssible to deliver him/her. Otherwise they will cry and kick up a fuss hoping people will forget they broke the law in the first place.
1152626
I live in Smethwick (just outside of Birmingham) and for the most part the police are brilliant, but I have seen them drive past gangs fighting on the street more than once. When my neighbour was beating up his wife it took them over an hour to respond and when I was punched in the face by a drunk at 10pm they didn't get to my house until 2am.\n\nCoppers, Bobby's, Bizzies, Pigs, The Filth, The Old Bill, Rozzers and The Fuzz
1019128
I'm guessing that you are asking this in jest, at least I hope so.  Just in the unlikely possibility that you are serious, most police work very hard to help citizens and enforce the law.  \n\nIt can be a highly stressful job in that they generally must deal with the dregs of society.  Even so, most overcome this grim environment and are pleasant and attempt to serve every call.  Often the calls they receive must be prioritized with the most serious coming first, because some times there is just not enough police staff to respond to all calls.
816673
I'm not saying that police should be able to dish out summary justice. But I do believe that in this current climate of political correctness, blame culture as well as the general break down in respect for any one, police officers are more worried about getting complaints for just doing their job. I have always said that if you don't play football you won't get sent off. I myself am an officer who does his job in the right way with integrity, who is not over zealous, but I will not be sworn at or be abused by people who think by shouting and swearing or making a complaint against me I will step back and allow them to continue to commit offences. I believe in practical policing. Yes there are some police officers who are work shy or over zealous, but 99% of the police forces across the country are getting it right.\n\nThe people who are negative towards the police are usually people who are criminals, got a ticket for speeding today, or people who simply have not got a clue what police officers really do. Yes we give out tickets but also we scrape people off the road, deliver death messages, or have to break into a house because the old lady next door hasn't been seen for a week, then having to deal with her as she has passed away. We don't want sympathy or plaudits, just a little more understanding. If you have question just ask.
1094513
Most people feel uncomfortable around the police or any authoritative figure.\nOnce I stepped outside the house with a bag full of rubbish to put in the dustbin. Standing outside was a policeman in uniform. (The next door neighbour's brother)\n'Hello' say I 'Just putting the rubbish out'. \nHow dumb.
167071
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law.  What constitutes an unreasonablee search and seizure depends on the individual's expectation of privacy.\n\nAn officer couldn't just come wandering onto your property and begin digging in your trash.  On the other hand, it would be fair game once you put the trash out near the curb for pickup.  The same thing would apply if you took it to a community dumpster in an apartment complex.  It depends on the facts of the case.
1041738
Because the political entities that control the police will not let them. And sometimes the police themselves profit from the corruption
168288
Little tough to understand exactly what you're asking here.\n\nCan someone, working for the police or not, break the law?  Of course they can.  \n\nAre certain people expected *not* to break the law?  Sure.  And informants are one of those people.  I worked in a narcotics task force for three years and worked with plenty of informants.  Did we tell them they weren't supposed to break the law?  Of course we did.  Did they turn right around and break the law anyway?  I imagine so...most of them are addicts or thieves or just plain crooks and have been most of their lives, why would they suddenly stop just because they've signed on with the home team to become a policeman's helper?\n\nI don't know of any laws on this subject per se...ours was a policy issue; we told the informant to quit screwing up.  Certainly Virginia might have a law on that subject but it seems to me (based on 19 years of policing) that it would be awfully difficult to enforce.  \n\nI'd love to know what makes you ask this question.
91597
The power to use force \n\nWhenever they are carrying out their "ordinary" function of preserving the peace, the RUC are not entitled to use force. They must act with restraint, resisting pressure rather than applying 'it. Even when controlling crowds or patrolling a procession or parade they must not apply force in an active manner. If they do so, they can be sued for assault. \n\nHowever, if the police are preventing crime or effecting a lawful arrest, they can use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances" (s.3(1) of Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967). The burden of proving that the force used was reasonable lies on the police. For example, in Wasson v Chief Constable of the RUC (1987), since the RUC could not prove that their version of how Mr Wasson came to be injured by a plastic bullet was more likely to be true than Mr Wasson's version, they were held liable to pay compensation. But it seems that, even in the absence of any proof that the police knew that the person they fired at was committing an offence (such as driving a stolen car), a judge may still regard the use of real bullets as reasonable force whenever someone drives through a vehicle checkpoint. In Magill v Ministry of Defence (1988) it was held that a soldier's act in firing at a 15-year-old driver was reasonable use of force in the prevention of crime. A police officer would probably enjoy a similar immunity in such circumstances, though much would depend on the particular features of each case. \n\nIn relation to police powers expressly conferred by the PACE (NI) Order 1989, article 88 says that the police "may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power". The term "reasonable" suggests that the force used must be in proportion to the gain the police hope to achieve through exercising the power. The term "necessary" implies that other means of exercising the power must be attempted first. This would seem to impose a stricter test than that contained in the 1967 Act, but as yet no court has ruled on how the two provisions inter-relate.
985589
Local police have the first say in dictating everything. Rule of thumb is be subordinate to official demands by first responders.Hold these people accountable for they're actions at all costs.Track they're actions and reactions up the chain of command to hold them liable. Then you might have a legitamate claim if you've been harmed(physically or monitarally).Time and patience will reveal the truth.
522055
It really depends on the structure of government of the state you're referring to. In a democratic set up, all of the branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial - exercise police power to a certain extent.  The extent of the power is legislated by the Senate and Congress. The Judiciary makes sure that the executive and the legislative branches do not abuse or step out of the bounds of the limits of that power.
1041533
Law makers make laws. Policeman enforce laws. They are not the same thing.
125927
If you really think you stopped, fight it. I think most cop cars have cameras in them, maybe they can get something from there...