Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="laurii2" data-source="post: 2960476" data-attributes="member: 93709">Not too sure what you want from me, I am referring to police having to be very soft with various folk dud to potential repercussions, such as potential legal action as in the case at hand, as a result of such actions the police have to get softer.&nbsp; I disagree, I don’t think its wrong for police to push people around before they even know if their criminals. I am not saying that innocent people should get battered, but I don’t see anything wrong with the police being rough with folk, if they have not done anything wrong then they will be released and also have negative memories of the police, thus in future they are less likely to want to be in such a position, I think it’s a good deterrent. I’m not saying anything about retroactive laws, I’m just saying that IMO it is beneficial to public safety if the police are heavy handed.&nbsp; &nbsp; Not too sure if get your point. From what you say, I don’t see how informing the citizen for the reasons for the search and having two female officers present makes the search any less effective. What I was referring to was that IMO, it is enough to have a suspicious feeling/hunch about an individual in order to instigate a search. I don’t think the police should have to declare why they are searching an individual. I think this is a whole different issue, or maybe I’m just not seeing the connection. I have views on how prisoners should be treated and rehabilitated but of what relevance is this to the matter at hand. Just to add, I think the perfect, or best police force in terms of effectiveness is in Singapore, consequently they have a very low crime rate. I use them as my ideal model of a police force and their prison/rehabilitation services are pretty good too. Kindly give me an example so that I can see exactly what you mean by &quot;my style of wording&quot;. &nbsp;LOL… ahh ok… yeah the cops in my box are the roughest around..&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; You know what they say about assumptions…&nbsp;&nbsp; This is true..</blockquote>

[QUOTE="laurii2, post: 2960476, member: 93709"] Not too sure what you want from me, I am referring to police having to be very soft with various folk dud to potential repercussions, such as potential legal action as in the case at hand, as a result of such actions the police have to get softer. I disagree, I don’t think its wrong for police to push people around before they even know if their criminals. I am not saying that innocent people should get battered, but I don’t see anything wrong with the police being rough with folk, if they have not done anything wrong then they will be released and also have negative memories of the police, thus in future they are less likely to want to be in such a position, I think it’s a good deterrent. I’m not saying anything about retroactive laws, I’m just saying that IMO it is beneficial to public safety if the police are heavy handed. Not too sure if get your point. From what you say, I don’t see how informing the citizen for the reasons for the search and having two female officers present makes the search any less effective. What I was referring to was that IMO, it is enough to have a suspicious feeling/hunch about an individual in order to instigate a search. I don’t think the police should have to declare why they are searching an individual. I think this is a whole different issue, or maybe I’m just not seeing the connection. I have views on how prisoners should be treated and rehabilitated but of what relevance is this to the matter at hand. Just to add, I think the perfect, or best police force in terms of effectiveness is in Singapore, consequently they have a very low crime rate. I use them as my ideal model of a police force and their prison/rehabilitation services are pretty good too. Kindly give me an example so that I can see exactly what you mean by "my style of wording". LOL… ahh ok… yeah the cops in my box are the roughest around.. You know what they say about assumptions… This is true.. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…