Pay scale of LEOs - does it effect performance

[WalkingWolf]

Does it affect performance

NO! absolutely not, some of the most inept, corrupt departments are the highest paid. Nothing matters but what is in the heart of the officer, and the supervisors heart. Proper supervision cycles bad officers out, and keeps good officers. Proper hiring practices also goes a long way to have good police officers. No matter how much money or education a arse hole is still going to be a arse hole. If that is what the supervisors want, that is what the citizens have to endure.

If a police dept has a reputation for only hiring the best, and getting rid of the bad, only the good will apply.

 

[Grapeshot]

NO! absolutely not, some of the most inept, corrupt departments are the highest paid. Nothing matters but what is in the heart of the officer, and the supervisors heart. Proper supervision cycles bad officers out, and keeps good officers. Proper hiring practices also goes a long way to have good police officers. No matter how much money or education a arse hole is still going to be a arse hole. If that is what the supervisors want, that is what the citizens have to endure.

If a police dept has a reputation for only hiring the best, and getting rid of the bad, only the good will apply.

I believe that is true of all businesses/organizations, not so much for the short term, but surely so over an extended period of time. Of course if the business/organization is small enough, the time required to implement, set and maintain a high standard can be radically reduced.

The flow starts from the top of the heap, it radiates from there. When problems exist, the responsibility for them rests with middle and upper management. A good CEO/Chief surrounds himself with good people.

The quality, training and performance of the new recruit/trainee is the result of such conditions. Turnover and regular on-the-job training opportunities cannot be ignored.

Service industries like LEA and Fire/rescue are unique in that they are not profit oriented, although the expense to income ratio is must be considered.

 

[OC for ME]

The tone and tenor of any LEA rests upon the shoulders of the top cop. Top cop who respect liberty and values the rule of law, as demonstrated by their words and deeds, hold their officers and deputies to a very high standard. Those top cops who have only the word and lack the deed......well.....

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

The tone and tenor of any LEA rests upon the shoulders of the top cop. Top cop who respect liberty and values the rule of law, as demonstrated by their words and deeds, hold their officers and deputies to a very high standard. Those top cops who have only the word and lack the deed......well.....

I have seen a lot of management try and hold their employees to a higher standard then what they hold themselves to and it never works out very well.

 

[Citizen]

Management Upholding an Equal Standard

[video=youtube;rwEvysDpNm0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwEvysDpNm0[/video]

Save John some bandwidth, and click through to watch on youtube.

 

[Resto Guy]

"Pay scale of LEOs - does it effect performance"

Easy answer - No
Proof - Eric Holder

 

[papa bear]

to the OP pay scale is never in relationship to job performance. in other words your work ethic is what it is going to be no matter what you are paid

 

[DWCook]

I still have high respect for law enforcement, I agree that most don't get paid what they should be getting paid. Kansas City Missouri Police Department is one of the departments I wouldn't mind at all joining. There are a lot of areas where people live that don't have much crime at all and think cops are over paid for what they do. If your area has a HIGH crime rate good chance your opinion would be a lot different. For people like us who live in a nice area of town we don't see much of crime or violence. My time in the Air Force has taught me one thing, preventive maintenance! If we didn't have the law enforcement like we do today honestly crime would be sky rocketing, that's just my PERSONAL opinion! Oh when I said "preventive maintenance", I basically mean preventing future crimes and keeping safety of living top shop! Yes some of you will have different opinions on this matter and I respect that 100%. I personally have had my bad experiences too, but are glad we have them around. In short, they should be getting paid more than what they are currently!

 

[Citizen]

I still have high respect for law enforcement, I agree that most don't get paid what they should be getting paid. Kansas City Missouri Police Department is one of the departments I wouldn't mind at all joining. There are a lot of areas where people live that don't have much crime at all and think cops are over paid for what they do. If your area has a HIGH crime rate good chance your opinion would be a lot different. For people like us who live in a nice area of town we don't see much of crime or violence. My time in the Air Force has taught me one thing, preventive maintenance! If we didn't have the law enforcement like we do today honestly crime would be sky rocketing, that's just my PERSONAL opinion! Oh when I said "preventive maintenance", I basically mean preventing future crimes and keeping safety of living top shop! Yes some of you will have different opinions on this matter and I respect that 100%. I personally have had my bad experiences too, but are glad we have them around. In short, they should be getting paid more than what they are currently!

Oh, please don't come here and denounce large numbers of your fellow citizens as criminals restrained only by the threat of police. I have little tolerance for such misanthropic nonsense.

Police didn't exist at all until about 1840 when Sir Robert (bobby) Peel got them going in London. Then, the same idea was tried here in a couple large cities like (New York? Boston?). Across time they infested the rest of the country. This country did fine for sixty years before police came along.

 

[eye95]

Actually, he is right on that one.

Some people do the right thing because they have grown morally and they legitimately don't want to harm others. Some only develop to the point of applying the Golden Rule--a moderate level of self-centeredness. Still others remain so self-centered as to only regulate their behavior for the most selfish of reasons: to avoid consequences. Yet others do not regulate their behavior at all and can only physically be stopped from harming others by being incarcerated or killed. If society were made up solely of people in the first two categories, no police would be needed. Because of the dirtbags in the last two categories, we need folks to enforce the laws.

 

[Grapeshot]

Police -1780 and before

England:
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Policing.jsp

Overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police

Law enforcement in our country:

Main article: Law enforcement in the United States

In British North America, policing was initially provided by local elected officials. For instance, the New York Sheriff's Office was founded in 1626, and the Albany County Sheriff's Department in the 1660s. In the colonial period, policing was provided by elected sheriffs and local militias.

In 1789 the US Marshals Service was established, followed by other federal services such as the US Parks Police (1791) and US Mint Police (1792). The first city police services were established in Philadelphia in 1751, Richmond, Virginia in 1807, Boston in 1838, and New York in 1845. The US Secret Service was founded in 1865 and was for some time the main investigative body for the federal government.

In the American Old West, policing was often of very poor quality. The Army often provided some policing alongside poorly resourced sheriffs and temporarily organized posses. Public organizations were supplemented by private contractors, notably the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, which was hired by individuals, businessmen, local governments and the federal government. At its height, the Pinkerton Agency's numbers exceeded those of the standing army of the United States

 

[Citizen]

I wonder if the citers will also:

Illustrate the distinctions between the powers and limitations of modern police vs old time constables and elected sheriffs.

Treat us to an in-depth look at the destruction of the 4th Amendment and the amount of rights violations (more accurately characterized as crime) committed by police.

Maybe link us to Dr. Roger Root's white paper on the constitutionality of police?



You know, so people can maybe draw their own conclusion based on the totality of the picture? No probably not. No point in exposing the deterioration of liberty and the rise in official repression.

 

[Citizen]

Actually, he is right on that one.

Some people do the right thing because they have grown morally and they legitimately don't want to harm others. Some only develop to the point of applying the Golden Rule--a moderate level of self-centeredness. Still others remain so self-centered as to only regulate their behavior for the most selfish of reasons: to avoid consequences. Yet others do not regulate their behavior at all and can only physically be stopped from harming others by being incarcerated or killed. If society were made up solely of people in the first two categories, no police would be needed. Because of the dirtbags in the last two categories, we need folks to enforce the laws.

He didn't merely say police were needed. He said crime would be skyrocketing.

 

[eye95]

It is quite reasonable to assume that, absent police, people in that last two categories would commit more crimes, both because they had no fear of serious challenge and were much less likely to have been incarcerated or killed.

"Skyrocket" is at most a bit hyperbolic. IMO, it is an apt description of the increase in crime if the police were not enforcing the laws.

Oh, and regarding your previous post, isn't it a bit arrogant to assign homework. GS clearly laid out the case that policing has been going on for hundreds of years. If you posit that there is a significant difference in the nature of that policing, make that argument. Don't sit on a mountaintop, implying that GS's opinion is lacking because he hasn't studied what you have.

Right now, his argument has tremendous weight. Yours, not so much.

 

[Citizen]

It is quite reasonable to assume that, absent police, people in that last two categories would commit more crimes, both because they had no fear of serious challenge and were much less likely to have been incarcerated or killed.

"Skyrocket" is at most a bit hyperbolic. IMO, it is an apt description of the increase in crime if the police were not enforcing the laws.

Oh, and regarding your previous post, isn't it a bit arrogant to assign homework. GS clearly laid out the case that policing has been going on for hundreds of years. If you posit that there is a significant difference in the nature of that policing, make that argument. Don't sit on a mountaintop, implying that GS's opinion is lacking because he hasn't studied what you have.

Right now, his argument has tremendous weight. Yours, not so much.

I didn't say that the police powers of the state were not being exercised in centuries past. I said the infestation of police officers started roughly 1840.

Don't try to minimize his comment about skyrocketing crime. Also, your underlying premise is that if police are not covering the police function, then nobody else will. The current situation in Chigago directly belies your premise. Neighborhood watch groups and so forth are springing up. Right now.

 

[Grapeshot]

I didn't say that the police powers of the state were not being exercised in centuries past. I said the infestation of police officers started roughly 1840.
--snipped--.

Nope -do not see where you said that at all.

What you actually said was "Police didn't exist at all until about 1840 when Sir Robert (bobby) Peel got them going in London."

Bolding and underlining is mine to emphasize the time line error.

The Metropolitan Police were around prior to 1840 also:
http://The Metropolitan Police Act 1829 defined the original Metropolitan Police District as an area of about seven miles radius from Charing Cross. Within the next year seventeen police divisions were set up and centred on the following areas:

The City of London Police Records Office, 26 Old Jewry, London EC2R 8OJ possesses registers listing every member of the force since warrant numbers were introduced on 9 April 1832 together with personal files on 95% of officers who have served since that date.
http://www.met.police.uk/history/records.htm

Alphabetical Reg. of the Metropolitan Police Force
Description: Alphabetical Reg. of the Metropolitan Police Force
Date: 1829-1836
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C1357311

The Development of a Police Force
The first policemen, known as 'Peelers' or 'Bobbies', were set up in London in 1829 by Robert Peel, the then Home Secretary, after 'The Metropolitan Police Act' of 1829.
http://vcp.e2bn.org/justice/page11377-the-development-of-a-police-force.html

 

[OC for ME]

It is quite reasonable to assume that, absent police, people in that last two categories would commit more crimes, both because they had no fear of serious challenge and were much less likely to have been incarcerated or killed.

"Skyrocket" is at most a bit hyperbolic. IMO, it is an apt description of the increase in crime if the police were not enforcing the laws. <snip>

I disagree.

I contend that crime levels would remain the same at worst, or decline, when the fear of state retribution for a law abiding citizen defending home and health via physical force is removed. These "reasonable" self defense acts will dwindle the number of criminals in a given area.

Now, could a criminal's "kin" start a Hatfield & McCoy" vendetta situation? Possibly. But there are far far more good guys than there are bad guys.

When a community of citizens wishes to make their community safe for themselves and the state is not around to second guess otherwise reasonable acts then criminals will move to more friendly environs or be eliminated.

I believe that the vast majority of our fellow citizens reside in your first two categories, some number in the third category. Getting dead is a very severe consequence.

The last category of citizen, the true criminals, is what the citizenry will eliminate if the criminals do not move on to more friendlier environs.

There is a place for peace officers. Unfortunately we have allowed our peace officers to morph into law enforcers.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I disagree.

I contend that crime levels would remain the same at worst, or decline, when the fear of state retribution for a law abiding citizen defending home and health via physical force is removed. These "reasonable" self defense acts will dwindle the number of criminals in a given area.

Now, could a criminal's "kin" start a Hatfield & McCoy" vendetta situation? Possibly. But there are far far more good guys than there are bad guys.

When a community of citizens wishes to make their community safe for themselves and the state is not around to second guess otherwise reasonable acts then criminals will move to more friendly environs or be eliminated.

I believe that the vast majority of our fellow citizens reside in your first two categories, some number in the third category. Getting dead is a very severe consequence.

The last category of citizen, the true criminals, is what the citizenry will eliminate if the criminals do not move on to more friendlier environs.

There is a place for peace officers. Unfortunately we have allowed our peace officers to morph into law enforcers.

Keep in mind that the Hatfield and McCoy vendetta was exasperated by the family members of both sides acting as police, and one member acting as a judge. Using law, and acting as law enforcement validated the vendetta from both sides, which probably made it worse. And the legitimate law did little to protect either side.

 

[MAC702]

...I contend that crime levels would remain the same at worst, or decline, when the fear of state retribution for a law abiding citizen defending home and health via physical force is removed. ...

I agree with this.

Also, absent police, people will very quickly learn to protect themselves and it won't be very long before they (and everyone else) realizes how much more effective they are at it, creating a positive feedback loop of less crime.

 

[OC for ME]

Keep in mind that the Hatfield and McCoy vendetta was exasperated by the family members of both sides acting as police, and one member acting as a judge. Using law, and acting as law enforcement validated the vendetta from both sides, which probably made it worse. And the legitimate law did little to protect either side.

Excellent observation, well done Sir. However, there is a place for peace officers. Society, via the "state", has a vested interest in mitigating another Hatfield and McCoy scenario.