BARRY LEVINSON’S TAKE ON POLICE UNIONS IN AMERICA


Barry Levinson

Barry Levinson

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Ring’s comments below about police brutality as demonstrated by the brutal beating death of Kelly Thomas. In that case it was the police who instigated the suspect’s reasonable reaction to flee based on a physical threat of violence against him.

However, I do not agree with Mr. Ring’s assessment of the increased militarization of the police as basically necessary in the face of greater criminal threats and fire power.

Former NYC Police Chief Bernard Kerik made a very scary statement in my opinion on the Megyn Kelly show a few days ago. He said any citizen that does not comply with a police command to be handcuffed for arrest no matter what the alleged crime should get the same physical response from the police. So if you are jay walking, selling individual cigarettes or some other minor infraction, the police should respond to that person the same way when they are trying to arrest a serial murderer for instance.

I could not believe the total lack of common sense by the former police commissioner to state that a single approach by the police is proper no matter the set of circumstances. This attitude by the police which seems to be getting more prevalent smacks of a police state where the citizens are the potential enemy of the police, rather than the people they have been sworn to serve and protect. This is the real danger in my opinion to the increased militarization of police departments. It is not simply the increased fire power, military style uniforms and equipment that they now possess but more importantly the growing police mindset that they are in a war zone with every person in the community a potential enemy. This attitude more than anything else has resulted in too many unnecessary deaths at the hands of law enforcement. Couple this with the lack of will by prosecutors and grand juries to hold those police officers responsible for their actions and we have the sad situation we are too often witnessing today.

The first thing we have to understand is that without the law, we have nothing. It turns into a situation of savage against barbarian, of the powerful against the powerless. It turns into a situation of dog eat dog, unrestricted, without restraints or consideration of anybody’s humanity. – Dr. Harry Edwards, POPSspot Sports Radio Interview, August 22, 2014 Police union spokespersons often suggest that media coverage of police actions is invariably negative. Where are the reporters when a cop performs a good deed? Whether or not the media is truly biased against members of law enforcement is debatable, of course, but as noted sociologist Harry Edwards points out, “without the law, we have nothing.” Given the penchant for many professional social commentators and activists to jump onto the latest anti-police brutality bandwagon with unequivocal pronouncements, Dr. Edwards’ measured response is helpful. There are a lot of reasons that common criticisms of […]
It is now eight months since I wrote the above column.  Since that time, we have had more horrific cases involving bad police actions including an officer who shot an unarmed man in the back, killing/murdering him.  When did serve and protect become, judge, jury and executioner?
Why is it that there are too many officers willing to use deadly force when it is 100% not called for?  Some say that these officers are very small in number.  I say to all police union presidents and police chiefs, how many dangerous officers are acceptable?   Could it be that the California Police Officers Bill of Rights (POBOR) and similar laws that hides criminal activity by on-duty officers from the public be a major problem?  There are good officers but they need to start speaking out against the bad officers and the associated corruption.  Those officers who remain silent in these instances are unfortunately part of the problem.
Here is another very real problem.  How does the unsuspecting public know when coming into contact with an officer if he/she is getting one of the good ones or dangerous ones?  The answer is we will never know until POBOR is repealed.
How many times have we heard a politician or a police chief after another ugly incident involving an officer then state that their officers need more training?  Ladies and gentlemen all the training in the world will not make up for police officers with a lack of common sense, self-control, intelligence and a bad attitude about performing their job.  Finally, for those few officers who chose law enforcement because they like to hurt people please explain how training will protect us from those bad apples?  Please tell me police chiefs, police union presidents, city managers and city council members, how many sadistic police officers are acceptable to you and why are you doing precious little to get ride of those police officers?  I know if you would be kind enough to respond you would probably belittle my last comment.  Yet how many of you have spoken out against the many problems the public has with POBOR?
I report, you decide.
  1. #1 by Roger on December 13, 2014 - 5:45 pm

    Mr. Levinson’s point is well taken. My concern over the years has been the continued taxpayer funded acquisitions of military surplus hardware. No one buys things unless they plan on using them. Most departments feel the need to eventually try out some of these new “toys” on us. I am also concerned with the continued reference to us as “civilians”.

    • #2 by war zone? on December 13, 2014 - 7:30 pm

      I did not know that taxpayers were “buying” the surplus. I did not know they were referring to residents as “civilian.” This is way out of control. Are our streets now a potential war zone????

      I would not trust any of these cops.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9
(will not be published)


Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!