And this is the Mindset of Some of NY's officers

[youngjordan23]

"This got me thinking...and this is what I came up with...

How to bring down crime in NYC while saving millions of dollars...

Pass a law stating...from this day forward all convicted felons are ineligible for public assistance ex. Welfare, Public housing, Food stamps, etc. All felonsconvicted before the day the law is passed are exempt. Anyone found housing a convicted felon who was found guilty after this day is to lose all Benefitsimmediately and is subject to arrest. Any felon that was originally exempt who commits another crime loses all benefits. And finally...parents will beresponsible for their children's actions. Parents will be subject to the same punishment for the crime that their child receive. In other words...yourchild commits a robbery, you both are now charged with a robbery."



got this from http://forums.officer.com/forums while studying for my court officer exam. and just decided tostart browsing the forum and the ignorance on this board is disgusting. Most people on this forum are either officers or becoming officers and a largepercentage and this statement just goes to show the mindset they come into the job with. Their is also a post on sean bell where people are bashinghim

 

[zeen1ne]

ur wildin

 

[r0yalty]

Originally Posted by ZEEN1NE

ur wildin

That's not what he wrote. It's from another forum. did you even bother reading?

 

[russ tha g]

Everything except for the part about charging the parents the same sounds fair. I mean, you don't become a felon by making a small misstep. It's not asif they didn't know what they did was wrong--the laws have been stated explicitly for years! Typically, when people do something wrong, they are punished.That's what this is.

Personally, I think every form of government assistance--Welfare, Medicaid, Financial Aid, Food Stamps, etc--should be handled like a probation. Thatis, you have to be actively trying to get a job, not be doing drugs, not getting arrested, etc.

This country makes it so easy for the poor to get help, that it doesn't screen them at all. In the meantime, we have middle class families not qualifyingfor anything, but hardly are able to make ends meet. Cut some of the funding to these criminals and lazy people, and we may be able to help those who areactually trying but still need assistance.

 

[warmachine]

This isn't new. I bunked with 18-24 year old marines for 2 nights who were about to be shipped off and they were even more $#%+ up in the head than you canimagine. You must live a comfortable life.

 

[Master Zik]

This won't bring down crime. It'll cause a riots in NYC.

There's no logical way this could be enforced effectively and no way every case would be without error. This aint some fantasy future where the cops areall machines. Laws like this would just cause more corruption.

This suggestion just sounds like you're turning free society in to a prison.

There's a difference between accountability/consequences for your actions and unjust punishment.

 

[wawaweewa]

Police reject candidate for being too intelligent
A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.

But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

He said: "This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else."

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.


When you give power to idiots bad things happen.

 

[russ tha g]

There's a difference between accountability/consequences for your actions and unjust punishment.

Considering most people are willing to do anything if they don't think the punishment is that bad, I think we need to make the punishment for feloniesworse--if for no other reason than to discourage the behavior. Thus, possibly making the streets safer. If these monsters are still comfortable committingfelonies even with the punishment made more severe, then they undoubtedly deserve the harsher punishment, too.

I don't quite understand how somebody can truly feel passionate about bending over backwards to help out felons. You do realize they had to do somethingpretty bad to earn that title, right? There are honest, hardworking people out there that don't even qualify for the type of assistance that these scumreceive, and they could really use it.

 

[produccionfrescos]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Police reject candidate for being too intelligent
A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.

But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

He said: "This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else."

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

When you give power to idiots bad things happen.

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]It's so crazy you posted this article. A few months ago aftercontinuously seeing the cops on the train talking %%*% instead of looking for criminals, I asked myself "I wonder how easy it must be to become acop."[/color] [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]How do you reject someone because they're too smart? Probablybecause they'll see two sides to everything, aren't ignorant, and will make logical decisions when a problem arises?

My respect for the police force has just declined a bit more.[/color]

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

There's a difference between accountability/consequences for your actions and unjust punishment.

Considering most people are willing to do anything if they don't think the punishment is that bad, I think we need to make the punishment for felonies worse--if for no other reason than to discourage the behavior. Thus, possibly making the streets safer. If these monsters are still comfortable committing felonies even with the punishment made more severe, then they undoubtedly deserve the harsher punishment, too.

I don't quite understand how somebody can truly feel passionate about bending over backwards to help out felons. You do realize they had to do something pretty bad to earn that title, right? There are honest, hardworking people out there that don't even qualify for the type of assistance that these scum receive, and they could really use it.
Grand theft is a felony and in most states you cna be charged with it for stealing something worth $1000.
In many states embezzlement is not a felony unless the amount in question is over 100k.

Do you see the disconnect?

 

[youngjordan23]

Im really not getting your logic here. If someone commits a felony they are punished by being sent to jail that should be enough. Now your saying theyshould recieve further punishment after release, being kicked from their housing projects, having all welfare and healthcare stripped ( im assuming you approveof the ideas this officer has stated).

Now you leave that felon who in most instances isnt going to be highly educated, with no means of healthcare, food, or money what do you think that Felon isgoing to do to survive..... the same exact crime he just got out of jail for or worse. It's not like he has a fair chance at getting a job with a felony onhis record so that leads him right back to the life he was living before jail.

 

[-Red-]

Originally Posted by youngjordan23


Im really not getting your logic here. If someone commits a felony they are punished by being sent to jail that should be enough. Now your saying they should recieve further punishment after release, being kicked from their housing projects, having all welfare and healthcare stripped ( im assuming you approve of the ideas this officer has stated).

Now you leave that felon who in most instances isnt going to be highly educated, with no means of healthcare, food, or money what do you think that Felon is going to do to survive..... the same exact crime he just got out of jail for or worse. It's not like he has a fair chance at getting a job with a felony on his record so that leads him right back to the life he was living before jail.

Exactly.

This is what happens when people with no sense of how social institutions interact and affect people's lives think that they know how to make an effectivesocial policy.

First of all, I highly doubt there are many ex-offenders receiving public assistance. The vast majority of these individuals are single men, who are the leastlikely population to be receiving government assistance. Either the individual who wrote this "idea" is completely ignorant to that fact or he issimply looking for any way to continue punishing ex-convicts and their families long after they complete their sentences. Actually, I think it's safe toassume both in this case given the absolute idiocy and hostile tone of the "proposal."

Second of all, this person is proposing to make it illegal for anyone receiving government assistance to house an ex-offender. Are you serious? Where doesthis person expect people released from prison to go after their release? I guess being that they were convicted of a crime and come from a poor family, theyshouldn't have the "privilege" of living with their family, in most cases their only form of a support network. How are people supposed tore-assimilate into the mainstream when their homeless? Forget that, how are they supposed to live?

Then the guy goes on to argue that parents should receive sentences for their children's actions. I don't know whether to laugh or be upset with thatassertion. It's not even worth addressing.

What people fail to realize is that you are going to pay one way or another. That is the price we pay to live in asociety. If we don't pay for health care for everyone, we will pay for emergency room visits and hospitalizations for the uninsured. If we don'tinvest in education and youth development, we will pay to needlessly keep millions of people incarcerated. If we don't provide food stamps, we will payfor the medical conditions that come with the increases in malnourishment and obesity. There are no shortcuts. Theironic part about it for "fiscal conservatives" is that paying on the front end to prevent these problems is almost always cheaper than paying on theback end. So either these people are too stupid to compute this, or they just want to maliciously make other people's lives as miserable as possible. Either way, stupidity or evil, I can't respect it.

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by Russ tha G

There's a difference between accountability/consequences for your actions and unjust punishment.

Considering most people are willing to do anything if they don't think the punishment is that bad, I think we need to make the punishment for felonies worse--if for no other reason than to discourage the behavior. Thus, possibly making the streets safer. If these monsters are still comfortable committing felonies even with the punishment made more severe, then they undoubtedly deserve the harsher punishment, too.

I don't quite understand how somebody can truly feel passionate about bending over backwards to help out felons. You do realize they had to do something pretty bad to earn that title, right? There are honest, hardworking people out there that don't even qualify for the type of assistance that these scum receive, and they could really use it.

Grand theft is a felony and in most states you cna be charged with it for stealing something worth $1000.
In many states embezzlement is not a felony unless the amount in question is over 100k.

Do you see the disconnect?

Thank you. Yet another way to disproportionately punish the poor.

Also all of the criminological research on the subject has proven that harsher penalties are not effective deterrentsof criminal behavior.

 

[slanguage]

wow

 

[octobersfinest]

Originally Posted by youngjordan23

"This got me thinking...and this is what I came up with...

How to bring down crime in NYC while saving millions of dollars...

Pass a law stating...from this day forward all convicted felons are ineligible for public assistance ex. Welfare, Public housing, Food stamps, etc. All felons convicted before the day the law is passed are exempt. Anyone found housing a convicted felon who was found guilty after this day is to lose all Benefits immediately and is subject to arrest. Any felon that was originally exempt who commits another crime loses all benefits. And finally...parents will be responsible for their children's actions. Parents will be subject to the same punishment for the crime that their child receive. In other words...your child commits a robbery, you both are now charged with a robbery."



got this from http://forums.officer.com/forums while studying for my court officer exam. and just decided to start browsing the forum and the ignorance on this board is disgusting. Most people on this forum are either officers or becoming officers and a large percentage and this statement just goes to show the mindset they come into the job with. Their is also a post on sean bell where people are bashing him

1. 
   1
   Use there when referring to a place, whether concrete ("over there by the building") or more abstract ("it must be difficult to live there").
   
   • There is an antique store on Camden Avenue.
   • The science textbooks are over there on the floor.
   • There are many documents that are used in investigations
2. 
   2
   Use their to indicate possession. It is a possessive adjective and indicates that a particular noun belongs to them.
   
   • My friends have lost their tickets.
   • Their things were strewn about the office haphazardly

 

[the yes guy]

I do think welfare needs to be reformed, but not like this.

 

[justhotkicks]

Originally Posted by youngjordan23

"This got me thinking...and this is what I came up with...

How to bring down crime in NYC while saving millions of dollars...

Pass a law stating...from this day forward all convicted felons are ineligible for public assistance ex. Welfare, Public housing, Food stamps, etc. All felons convicted before the day the law is passed are exempt. Anyone found housing a convicted felon who was found guilty after this day is to lose all Benefits immediately and is subject to arrest. Any felon that was originally exempt who commits another crime loses all benefits. And finally...parents will be responsible for their children's actions. Parents will be subject to the same punishment for the crime that their child receive. In other words...your child commits a robbery, you both are now charged with a robbery."



got this from http://forums.officer.com/forums while studying for my court officer exam. and just decided to start browsing the forum and the ignorance on this board is disgusting. Most people on this forum are either officers or becoming officers and a large percentage and this statement just goes to show the mindset they come into the job with. Their is also a post on sean bell where people are bashing him

This will lead to one thing: MORE CRIME.

 

[coolnificent]

^^ that's ALL you got out of what he posted OctobersFinest

 

[luckyp90]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Police reject candidate for being too intelligent
A US man has been rejected in his bid to become a police officer for scoring too high on an intelligence test.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.

But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Mr Jordan launched a federal lawsuit against the city, but lost.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Mr Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

He said: "This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class. I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else."

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action and has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.

The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

When you give power to idiots bad things happen.

?

But it said above average?

 

[conv3rge]

Originally Posted by OctobersFinest

Originally Posted by youngjordan23

"This got me thinking...and this is what I came up with...

How to bring down crime in NYC while saving millions of dollars...

Pass a law stating...from this day forward all convicted felons are ineligible for public assistance ex. Welfare, Public housing, Food stamps, etc. All felons convicted before the day the law is passed are exempt. Anyone found housing a convicted felon who was found guilty after this day is to lose all Benefits immediately and is subject to arrest. Any felon that was originally exempt who commits another crime loses all benefits. And finally...parents will be responsible for their children's actions. Parents will be subject to the same punishment for the crime that their child receive. In other words...your child commits a robbery, you both are now charged with a robbery."



got this from http://forums.officer.com/forums while studying for my court officer exam. and just decided to start browsing the forum and the ignorance on this board is disgusting. Most people on this forum are either officers or becoming officers and a large percentage and this statement just goes to show the mindset they come into the job with. Their is also a post on sean bell where people are bashing him

1. 
   1
   Use there when referring to a place, whether concrete ("over there by the building") or more abstract ("it must be difficult to live there").
   
   • There is an antique store on Camden Avenue.
   • The science textbooks are over there on the floor.
   • There are many documents that are used in investigations
2. 
   2
   Use their to indicate possession. It is a possessive adjective and indicates that a particular noun belongs to them.
   
   • My friends have lost their tickets.
   • Their things were strewn about the office haphazardly

you're really going that hard because he did it once? shut up

 

[octobersfinest]

Originally Posted by conv3rge

Originally Posted by OctobersFinest

Originally Posted by youngjordan23

"This got me thinking...and this is what I came up with...

How to bring down crime in NYC while saving millions of dollars...

Pass a law stating...from this day forward all convicted felons are ineligible for public assistance ex. Welfare, Public housing, Food stamps, etc. All felons convicted before the day the law is passed are exempt. Anyone found housing a convicted felon who was found guilty after this day is to lose all Benefits immediately and is subject to arrest. Any felon that was originally exempt who commits another crime loses all benefits. And finally...parents will be responsible for their children's actions. Parents will be subject to the same punishment for the crime that their child receive. In other words...your child commits a robbery, you both are now charged with a robbery."



got this from http://forums.officer.com/forums while studying for my court officer exam. and just decided to start browsing the forum and the ignorance on this board is disgusting. Most people on this forum are either officers or becoming officers and a large percentage and this statement just goes to show the mindset they come into the job with. Their is also a post on sean bell where people are bashing him

1. 
   1
   Use there when referring to a place, whether concrete ("over there by the building") or more abstract ("it must be difficult to live there").
   
   • There is an antique store on Camden Avenue.
   • The science textbooks are over there on the floor.
   • There are many documents that are used in investigations
2. 
   2
   Use their to indicate possession. It is a possessive adjective and indicates that a particular noun belongs to them.
   
   • My friends have lost their tickets.
   • Their things were strewn about the office haphazardly

you're really going that hard because he did it once? shut up

Maybe others will learn something new too. shut up