Law Enforcement should be a profession, just like doctors and nurses.
Formal education. Licensing with a college whose role is to protect the public. Malpractice insurance. Requirements to remain current, and eligible to practice.
It is, in most of the civilized world anyways
odd how the “civilized world” seems to have such low standards for civilization.
You just insulted ‘no place in particular’. Gj.
Thanks! I wasn’t actually, but you do have to understand what I’m talking about. ;)
Well it sounded like an insult.
In the civilized world cops get arrested when they kill civilians, they still kills civilians of course but at least they get arrested when they do it.
you are probably considering some places to be civilized when they really shouldnt
you’re probably making an assumption you probably shouldn’t
I wouldn’t necessarily call it civilized world, but yeah for basically every country that belongs to the so called “1st world” except the US it is and it takes a few years to become a police officer.
Like where?
UK, Germany, France, Ukraine, Spani, Italy, … should I go on?
Germany
deleted by creator
You don’t need to study to become a police officer in the US? OMFG! You have to study 1.5-2 years in the UK and then spend months in the field under supervision as an apprentice.
The duration of the training in the Police Academy varies for the different agencies. It usually takes about 13 to 19 weeks on average but can last up to six months.
https://golawenforcement.com/articles/how-long-does-it-take-to-become-a-police-officer/
Up to six months… Yikes.
In the software engineer industry, if you spent a year in a coding bootcamp, I still wouldn’t trust you to know what you’re doing.
There are police academics?
There should be films about them to publicise their existence.
SIX MONTHS? what’s this, theoretical physics? just give them a gun and tell them to go about their way.
hell, most of the training in police academy is probably done with pantone color charts teaching the exact skin tone where murder becomes acceptable.
Ehhhh… That’s misleading.
In many places to be eligible for the academy you’d have to have an associates or bachelors degree.
But again, location dependant.
Just two years of prior “responsible work experience” required here in Maryland.
But a degree in what because if it’s a degree in literature that’s useless. I suspect no cop has a degree in literature
Usually called a criminal justice degree, includes basic law classes, administration, stuff like that. Offered in a lot of county colleges where it’s required.
Not that it results in a better cop at all imo, just saying the timeframe of a max of 6 months throughout the US is really misleading.
Sorta, kinda, depends on the jurisdiction. This is one of those things where you almost have to treat the US as 50 separate countries rather than one big one.
There are 2 year associate degree programs for police. A full degree or masters also gets you better placement, like going plainclothes detective day one. Federal level, like FBI or Marshalls, generally require higher education. Average beat cops in some 'burb, though? May or may not require anything more than a High School degree or GED.
You just described law enforcement in most first would nations.
Ah, so not here in the US.
Law enforcement shouldn’t be a profession.
If you’re curious about the downvotes, I imagine it’s because you didn’t really state why you stand by your stance.
As really it’s a pointless comment that adds nothing to the discussion.
How would you feel about police making $200,000 {or more since they will need hazard pay} a year to drive around and or sit in a car. There is no way a city could afford to hire enough cops to patrol a city. Yes they should have to learn the laws they enforce and carry liability insurance but there is no way we should force them into doctor/nurse level education without equal pay.
How much do you think nurses make?
Hell, how much do they think doctors make? My friend is a doctor and his wife is a vet, I’m pretty sure combined they don’t make that much
They might have a ton of student loan debt (+vets don’t make much) so their after-loan income is fairly modest.
Why on earth would you assume 200k? I’ve seen a lot of misused rhetorical terms but this is a textbook strawman falicy.
Police officers make anywhere from 43k to 63k based on a quick Google, getting massive pay bumps as they are promoted up to over 100k for police chiefs, not to mention hazard pay and usually amazing benefits. Nurses make 56k to 88k, also generally with really good benefits and a lot of overtime. It would only be a 10-20k pay bump and I would love that if it meant fewer cops with much more professional training.
These are some really low numbers, probably from tiny towns with no resources. Police officers (and RNs) in cities make six figures easily.
Police especially are public servants and their pay is public. Just look it up in your area. It’s very common for regular officers to make six figures with overtime.
Teachers need a 4 year degree and a state license, and they don’t get $200,000 or hazard pay.
Yeah but for teachers it’s not a problem for the sort of people who want that particular job to actually get it. For cops I’d rather the people who inherently want to be cops to be outcompeted by a larger applicant pool and have to get some other job.
eh, i dont think you know what youre talking about here - education recruitment is a nightmare.
I’m working with the premise of the above comment that it’s fine, to disagree with another aspect of what it says. You’re right that I don’t know anything about the state of education recruitment, but I don’t think that translates into an argument that cops don’t need to be paid much.
Meh, where I live police are paid a little bit over the median wage, and they have to get a bachelor’s degree (~3 years) in law enforcement before they can work as a police.
A friend of mine is a prison guard, in Norway, and from what I recall him telling me, a solid 6 months (out of 2 years) of the education he took to become a guard was spent studying law. It’s probably more comprehensive if you want to become a police officer.
Yeah, it’s always weird looking at all the ACAB messages when you live somewhere where cops actually have to have some form of education… It takes 3.5 years in school to become a cop around here and sure we still have issues with bad employees, but at the same level you would expect in any job…
If your police system prioritizes protecting its own over serving the public, and you choose to join it anyway, then you are a bastard, so in that sense ACAB is true. The problem is that a lot of people have started using it to claim that all police, everywhere, in every system are bastards, and that just undermines the whole movement and ensures that we’ll never have progress.
Maybe the slogan shouldn’t have been so idiotic and unnuanced. Americans seem particularly skilled at coming up with slogans that rile people up while being fundamentally shitty slogans.
Man it makes me sad to be here. I only see other, actually developed countries tackling shit at its root rather than nonstop bandaid fixes for everything.
Always gonna be ask for forgiveness not permission in the US.
But is it “any” job?
The setup is rigged so that you have to pay a lawyer to fix any issues.
Rather, it’s set up so that you can’t afford to pay a lawyer and become a slave to the system.
Police generally dont think the law should apply equally to themselves and civilians. That’s most cops; a group within that thinks they should be able to create the law on-the-fly.
Should they go to school to be better at this? Irrelevant. They have a gun and the idealogical highground.
I’d argue they also have technological high ground as well.
Yup. By now I’m pretty sure all the federal warrantless wiretap stuff probably applies to local police as well. They’re like parents and we’re like the kids, and they have access to all our phone activity.
Fucking baffling to me how the most armed country in the world doesnt train their officers. German police tends to suck ass, but to become a policeman you have to study for 3 years. And you have to pass a lot of law exams.
Where I live, the police are lazy but they are more trustworthy and are more community-oriented, unlike the American police.
At first when I heard the ACAB slogan, I thought it was rather judgemental. All cops are bad? Then I learned that the American police are hired primarily on having low IQs and receive only few weeks of training. Now I understand why Americans hate them. Not all American cops are bad, but majority of them probably are. What can we expect from hiring low IQ folks with minimal training and arm them to the teeth? No wonder the American cops are memes themselves.
ACAB as an actual term is a bit more ideological in nature, specifically, in regards to the task the police actually do, which is primarily protect the state and private property, no matter whether it’s good or bad.
If the state tells the police to disrupt a protest about climate change? Then that is their job, and if they don’t do it, they’re effectively not doing what they’re supposed to.
You’re a bit off in the ACAB definition. It’s not that the state makes them do bad things (they do, but that’s irrelevant). It’s that all cops protect bad cops, making themselves bad cops as well. If a department has 30 cops, 3 are “bad” and 27 are “good,” then the bad ones should be forced out. That doesn’t actually happen though, so you have 30 bad cops.
This system is also heavily self reinforcing. If you add a 31st good cop that tries to do something about bad cops, they are either forced out or intimidated into compliance. That still leaves you with all bad cops.
Here in the US, good cops don’t last very long. They either die suspiciously or get bullied off the force.
At first when I heard the ACAB slogan, I thought it was rather judgemental. All cops are bad? Then I learned that the American police are hired primarily on having low IQs and receive only few weeks of training. Now I understand why Americans hate them. Not all American cops are bad, but majority of them probably are. What can we expect from hiring low IQ folks with minimal training and arm them to the teeth? No wonder the American cops are memes themselves.
And when they do get things wrong, they rarely get punished.
The slogan probably wouldn’t be quite as prominent if the police that made mistakes like that were held accountable.
I wonder what it would be like if passing the Bar was required to be a police officer. There would be way less police officers, that’s for sure.
Nah, there would probably be fewer.
someone graduated from grammar nazi school with honors
The only good Nazi is a Grammar Nazi
While not harmful, they are still wrong, most of the time.
Both. Since native english speakers use both in a regular manner, both versions are correct.
There would be almost none. If you are capable of being a lawyer and have the education to be one, you wouldn’t choose to be a cop.
Unless it pays well and you recognize the need for law enforcement on some level, and don’t have to worry about the corrupt system because it’s already been gutted by this change.
Not true. There are quite a few cops with law degrees. It tends to get you right in the door at a higher level.
Typical lawyer pay also isn’t as good as you might think. There’s a few partners at major firms who make bank, but they’re sitting on a pile of kids a few years out of school and struggling to make their student loan payments. Pay varies wildly by practice, too. Want to get involved in civil rights organizations? That’s great and all, but you’re not going to be paid well.
Why not? If you needed to pass the bar (or similar exam) and you had to complete police training we’d have to pay police a pretty good salary. They would be comparable with doctors in terms of qualifications and career investment.
Not to shit on my own profession (about this–there are plenty of other reasons for that), but lawyer education is nowhere near doctor education.
To paraphrase one of my professors, “Ever wonder why in the legal profession you can get a terminal degree after only three years without having to write a dissertation?” [Answer: It’s because lawyers control their own profession, along with the government that controls how professions are regulated.]
On the OP, I don’t think police should be required to pass the bar exam. The reason is that the bar exam, and by extension law school, covers much more material than police should ever realistically need to know, even being generous. Cops don’t need to know which agents owe their principals fiduciary duties, for example. They don’t need to be able to articulate contract remedies or determine when a party might have a prevailing argument against personal jurisdiction.
They should, however, have to pass a version of the UBE that covers criminal law and procedure in their jurisdiction, and they should have continuing education requirements. [And in many if not most or all US jurisdictions, they already do. --they do in mine, at least.] More importantly, they need to carry a bond.
In order for any of this to matter, however, first a court has to hold that the police owe a duty not only to the public at large but also directly to those in immediate need. In the US, the state of the law with respect to police and other state actors vis-a-vis victims of the torts and crimes of others is reprehensible. Take a look at Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (“Poor Joshua!”), and Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981). And if you like podcasts, Radiolab has covered this.
In short, the police need to be bound by a legal duty to rescue, and members of the public need a private right of action against agencies (police and others, including agencies like DCS) to whom private remedies have been surrendered when those agencies fail to perform their duties as required. It would require an upending of the American “system” in favor of something closer to civil law jurisprudence (e.g., the European continent). And it’s desperately needed and long overdue.
that would drastically reduce the numbers, a better alternative would be an easier exam with regular re-evaluations, so they keep updated on current regulations
also that would leave a nice groundwork for sueability, since they are supposed to know the laws they didn’t enforce correctly
I once asked an elementary teacher what was to stop cops from breaking the law whenever they wanted and she told me that any cop breaking the law would receive double the normal punishment. I nodded my head as that made complete, reasonable sense to me. Then, as an adult, I learned THAT ISNT TRUE AT ALL! Not only do cops NOT automatically receive double the punishment, but 99% of the time the entire system will rally around to protect them if they commit a crime.
Police is the executive, not the legislative power of the power devision.
But yes they need proper training. (Dangerouse half knowledge ahead) not the few weeks/days training they get in the USA and then they are done
attorneys aren’t legislative, they are judiciary.
legislative = make law judiciary = judge law executive = execute law
Prosecutors are executive branch and they are required to be attorneys. Attorneys have to go to law school
Bro law and order explains this to five year olds, you should know how dumb that argument is.
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.
Implying that the executive doesn’t need to know law is crazy, every branch of government utilizes the law but one can only make law and the other can only enforce it.
Ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse from the law unless you work for the government and then reasonable mistakes are somehow reasonable to make. Ie. The government can get away with ignorant criminality and use it as a defense but you and I cannot, that’s not ok.
In the case of cops, not knowing the law is actually a benefit. They’ve been allowed to enforce what they believe is law, and if they find something actually illegal in the course of enforcing imaginary law, then it’s still valid.
It’s a benefit for the government not the people, they get to extract more from people who don’t know better, it’s abusive. It may exist but I don’t enjoy it.
Implying that the executive doesn’t need to know law is crazy
Its not entirely crazy.
Police exist to follow a very particular set of orders from their commanders (not unlike soldiers in the military). They get told “Keep people away from this building” or “Point this radar gun down the highway and don’t come back to the office until you’ve cited at least 10 people over the speed limit” or “Keep anyone who looks suspicious out of this neighborhood” and they’re graded on that task, not on the overarching capacity to enforce all laws.
In the same way you don’t need to give a guard dog a chemistry degree, you don’t need to give a cop a law license.
The guard dog isn’t expected to do chemistry, it is however expected to know it’s job ie. Where it is and isn’t supposed to be and to be fair if a guard dog kills the sheep the dog don’t survive the night. Probably not a good example on your part.
to be fair if a guard dog kills the sheep the dog don’t survive the night
Thanks @KristiNoeme for your input.
But I more meant to say that a dog doesn’t have to explain how smells work or why the thing it smells is illegal. Its job is to point and bark.
Street cops aren’t expected to analyze the legal angles of their orders. They’re just expected to follow orders. Hell, your admission to the police force is often predicated on underperforming intelligence tests.
You’ve clearly never owned a guard dog or worked ag. Stop pearl clutching shot that’s been done since the dawn of domestication.
They don’t, they do however have to know what they’re doing what smell is good, what is bad, what is uncertain and react accordingly and suffer consequences from bad choices. You’re argument is for more specialization in policing which I’m for but I don’t think you actually know your arguing for it.
No one is asking them to, but when like 70% of officers do not know thev4th amendment, how it applies and when it does not. Yes, they’re willfully stupid, we get that, it isn’t however something to accept it’s something to change.
Give power of life and death over others in an environment were they de facto are judged less strictly and punished less strongly than other people, to people with 3 weeks training.
What could possibly go wrong???
If only it was a question of “3 weeks training”. The real brain rot of being a police officer happens as you’re jumped into the street gang that is your local sheriff’s deputy division.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs
Its a real Learn By Doing situation. And what cops learn over time is that they are utterly unaccountable save to their immediate superiors, who all have their own political and financial agendas that diverge starkly from the ostensible job of policing.
3 weeks? It’s more like 20 weeks, which yes, is low compared to other countries. I have two friends who are cops and they went through 20-25 weeks of training before they ever went on patrol, and then it was with an experienced partner. I’m not sure what academy is doing 3 weeks of training, but yikes.
If any one would hear that in my country it would be the fiasco of the century. (we have had one) You aren’t even allowed to go near the studying line if you have any criminal record. When the police make an mistake in my country, there will be an investigation. And the investigation is done by a party not in the normie police force, which can and does lead to convictions of the members police force.
Instead, Americans: here is your gun, go shoot and kill anything that moves, you are unimpeachable.
Also, in my country, if a member of police force fires a weapon, this alone means there will be an investigation to determine if the action was really necessary. The police cannot fire weapons without paper work, and are thus reluctant to do so.
Where is that utopian country and whats its name?
Sweden.
Oh, Sweden, how’s your problem of gangsters with explosives (and thus explosions) going on? We have had some, but those have been mostly directed towards tincan cops. (i.e. traffic cameras, fuck those.)
I don’t know why you’re downvoted. Unfortunately explosions and gun violence have increased exponentially. Now the news frequently talk of police officers befriending criminals or criminals joining the police force. It’s a shithole.
Finland. You can punch a cop in the face, and the only repercussions is that your are a violent moron with an pricey after math. You can avoid the pricey after math, if you give up before punching the cop in the face. :) (It’s temporary jail time in both cases)
The kid knows what’s up. Still, to better explain to them, a good analogy IMO would be that cashiers don’t necessarily study finance.
That’s because cops aren’t here to protect you, sweetie. They’re here to protect property, now go to bed.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales for anyone curious about the SCOTUS opinion that says cops only have a duty to protect property.
And for those interested in is police really have to protect and serve, look up “Police duty to protect” online and feel free to start on the wiki. It’s astonishing how little police actually have to do. As someone trying to become a cop, this is one of my biggest issues with the field outside of blatant racism.
Teach them that law school is about finding loopholes, studying court precedent, and writing legal correspondence
Just because it’s always been that way doesn’t mean it’s not incredibly dumb.
Platon designed a system. We never listened him.
