Police are not on your side, don't ask them for help

[Wing Commander MAD]

Where the Hell do you learn about how exactly to handle being pulled over by an officer? My Driver's ed didn't cover it, luckily my mother gave her own account on what to do: stay in the car, hands on steering wheel, don't suddenly reach for anything, turn on interior lights if it's dark, kill engine.

PA at least covers it in their driver's manual and presumably in Driver' Ed. courses, though I couldn't tell you if mine did, as it's been over a decade.

Link: See pg. 78 (PDF Warning)

[Ahriman238]

I got nothing formal, but the parents were pretty clear. Stay in the car unless directed otherwise, keep your hands on the wheel in plain sight. Be polite, address the officer as "sir" or "ma'am," follow their directions and admit to nothing incriminating. Give up your license and "accidentally" give them the red-light permit in place of the vehicle registration, sheepishly fish out the registration when called on it. That last is not generally applicable, but I feel the rest is a good guideline, at least anywhere on the East Coast.

[Scrib]

Once Google Glass becomes prevalent and you can record and upload things to your Google Cloud storage in real time, shit like this can be sorted out pretty quickly.

Is this supposed to be a good thing? I find the notion that having everyone have an always-on recording device is a positive a bit shaky. You put an increasingly exhibitionist public behind said devices and a ravenous surveillance apparatus behind them and, imo, you have a recipe for disaster.

Quite frankly just the thought of having to second guess whether that dude with glasses had a legit eye problem or was just a hipster or was secretly recording the area to post to his wall of inane observations about the world seems like a terrible way to go through the day.

[Thanas]

There also is the question if the tradeoff is a legitimate one. It is not like the US police kills dozens of innocents every day so having everything under surveillance seems excessive.

[Simon_Jester]

I got nothing formal, but the parents were pretty clear. Stay in the car unless directed otherwise, keep your hands on the wheel in plain sight. Be polite, address the officer as "sir" or "ma'am," follow their directions and admit to nothing incriminating. Give up your license and "accidentally" give them the red-light permit in place of the vehicle registration, sheepishly fish out the registration when called on it. That last is not generally applicable, but I feel the rest is a good guideline, at least anywhere on the East Coast.

Yeah. You got this. I think I picked it up from somewhere too.

[For the rest of this I'm assuming you come from a middle-class background; I may be wrong and if so I apologize for the presumption]

But, even among the middle class, this knowledge is not universal. For some it's forgettable, like a lot of the things your parents try to teach you so you'll have more useful life skills to work with. For others... it's never taught at all.

And perhaps one of the reasons there is this endless, mutually hostile clash between the urban poor (mostly black) and the police is that a lot of children growing up in urban poverty do NOT learn this as their habitual reaction to police. They typically had less contact with (their very stressed and hardworking) parents growing up, they spend a lot of time around older peers, whose "bad boy" sub-demographic like to strut and boast about how they are or will grow up to be hardened criminals. People in such a community are accustomed to having to bristle and posture to shoo away random punks and casual pushing.

Which is how you get that anecdote I once read about where someone was doing word association with a three year old child, said "policeman," and the kid jumped up and shouted "I ain't afraid of no po-po!"

This is all speculation, but...

So when policemen expect deference and submission from people in such a community, then even if they bear the police no ill will they are simply not likely to show this deference. Which results in the police cracking down (as they did to the author of the blog post we were talking about). The citizens of this community in turn react with impatience, frustration, and anger, because they perceive injustice.

People from this community, not all but quite a few, see authority figures "disrespecting" them, then they get upset and are vocal about this, which would be normal for day to day interaction in the community. Then they get thrown in jail, and the injustice causes them to regard the police as an occupying army, more or less.

And what it comes down to is that the police expect deference and submission so they can maintain control of difficult situations... but that there is no systematic effort to ensure that all Americans regard this as a behavioral norm.

If someone were to try and use stand-your-ground as an excuse for shooting a cop after they got pulled over, the jury might actually buy it.

No, they wouldn't. Thanks for coming and saying something incredibly stupid though.

For better or worse, it wouldn't surprise me if some people did think that way.

I remember hearing about how in 2009 when 4 Oakland, California police officers where shot dead and a fifth wounded that some people where actually celebrating their deaths.

I personally think that's horrible, but as much bad stuff as people do hear about police now days, even if it is only a small percentage of the overall number of law enforcement in the US, I can see why some people might not consider that a bad thing.

On the other hand, we then turn around and wonder exactly why the Oakland police department was Brutality Central when it came time to handle the Occupy Oakland protests...

Well, the citizenry they normally deal with hates their guts and literally wants them dead. So they turn into a brute squad because it's the only way to do their job- show up at a crime scene, throw their weight around, arrest people, drive off. Doing anything more like what we'd want police to do would require (surprise surprise) a citizenry that didn't want them dead.

So again, the root of the problem is that the police have been turned, in large part against their wishes, into an occupying army. The discipline-and-punish aspect of their duties takes over, at the expense of the serve-and-protect aspect.

[Batman]

I'm not sure I like the vibe I'm getting from 'be deferential and submissive'. That seems to indicate that if you aren't, you risk getting into trouble even if you haven't done anything wrong. Why should I have to be deferential and submissive? Those people are allegedly serving and protecting me. (Well not me personally obviously but you know what I mean). If to be safe I have to treat them like yet another gang there's something seriously wrong with the situation.
They're law enforcement officers, and as such are entitled to expect I'll abide by their orders as long as those orders seem reasonably...well, reasonable. They're entitled to me remaining polite as long as they do.
But the 'be deferential and submissive' attitude, at least to me, indicates US dwellers expect police to expect you to do anything they say, no questions asked, and everything else is grounds for arresting you.
Note I am not saying this is standard procedure, but it's either widespread or widely popularized enough that people apparently assume it is just to be on the safe side, and that's just not right.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not sure I like the vibe I'm getting from 'be deferential and submissive'. That seems to indicate that if you aren't, you risk getting into trouble even if you haven't done anything wrong. Why should I have to be deferential and submissive? Those people are allegedly serving and protecting me. (Well not me personally obviously but you know what I mean). If to be safe I have to treat them like yet another gang there's something seriously wrong with the situation.

I actually agree with this. My point is that the police seem to be expecting a degree of... call it "fast compliance" that translates plainly as "be deferential and submissive."

The same thing comes up in, for example, no-knock warrants. The police smash down a door, start yelling "GET DOWN ON THE GROUND" or whatever, and are so keyed up there's a real danger that they'll shoot anything that moves in any way other than 'get down on the ground.' The only way anyone could think that can work, without constantly causing disastrous and tragic accidents for innocent people, is if they honestly believe that when a bunch of guys with a battering ram bust your door down and tell you to get down, your immediate reaction should be to get down and let them handcuff you without so much as giving them lip about it.

But the 'be deferential and submissive' attitude, at least to me, indicates US dwellers expect police to expect you to do anything they say, no questions asked, and everything else is grounds for arresting you.

Honestly no, that is not the case. The reason I keep saying "deferential and submissive" is that I am trying to call attention to the fact that this is the kind of behavior the police seem to have expected of the original author, Partensky.

In short, if you stand there asking questions for too long, even if you're doing nothing else 'wrong,' or if you are simply physically in the wrong place, the police may escalate to physical force to remove you from the situation. And (this is important) they may do so fast enough that you do not realize you are about to be removed from the situation by force (and possibly detained).

Unless Partensky was grossly misrepresenting the situation, he was basically arrested for asking questions that either confused or annoyed a police officer, and for little or no other reason. Unless he was misrepresenting the amount he'd had to drink, it is highly unlikely that he was so out of it that he could not carry on a reasonable conversation and react reasonably to their instructions.

Partensky could be lying and so on. But if he's not, what it comes down to is that the officers on the scene arrested him for, well... failure to be deferential and submissive. As in, when they told him to go away he was supposed to scamper away, not attempt to converse with them or ask them questions. Things like that.

And hell yes that cuts against the grain, which is why I keep using the phrase 'deferential and submissive,' to evoke that.

[Lagmonster]

Partensky could be lying and so on. But if he's not, what it comes down to is that the officers on the scene arrested him for, well... failure to be deferential and submissive. As in, when they told him to go away he was supposed to scamper away, not attempt to converse with them or ask them questions. Things like that.

And hell yes that cuts against the grain, which is why I keep using the phrase 'deferential and submissive,' to evoke that.

You're basically admitting to using specific language to make people angrily assume the police are on a selfish power trip, trodding arrogantly over people as if they were a ruling class, which is dishonest and manipulative. And not the same as expecting full compliance with legal authority. The police have the authority to take control of emergency situations, even when citizens don't want to surrender that control. With the understanding that a) they should not abuse anyone or thing, and b) they must surrender all of their authority the nanosecond the law mandates it. It's when those conditions are broken that the police are bad.

Otherwise, yes, you should act as though the guy with the legal authority to take control of the situation has control of the situation, and not protest that you have the right to occupy whatever square foot of public terrain most suits you at that moment, or yell that 'you pay for his salary' and therefore should take orders from you, because as the police force exists, neither of those things seem to be true.

[Simon_Jester]

You're basically admitting to using specific language to make people angrily assume the police are on a selfish power trip, trodding arrogantly over people as if they were a ruling class, which is dishonest and manipulative.

Close. Not quite.

What I'm admitting to is using specific language to remind people that the police are or can sometimes be on a power trip. And that at times such as this they MAY expect a very high degree of swift obedience, higher than almost any American normally exercises or encounters in civilian life. In other words, "deference and submission."

That does not mean that at all times police are domineering bullies. The great majority of police are not domineering bullies, they are simply men and women trying to do a job. But at a crime scene, they may well interpret their job to mean things a lot of Americans ignorant of police work would not expect, and start requiring very quick compliance to instructions. No backtalk, little or no hesitation, just... deference and submission.

Now, I know why this happens. Police are first responders, and they are the 'order militant' of the first responders; it's no wonder they sometimes have to give orders in a hurry and back them up with force. Sometimes there's a real crisis on their hands and they MUST get swift compliance to basic directions.

BUT when the police expect this attitude frequently, at times when it is less than vitally necessary, there are consequences. Let's be realistic.

Most of the consequences are a result of some (many?) Americans not having direct experience with this kind of behavior by police, or not having enough experience to be knowledgeable. Some people fail to supply the expected swift compliance, not out of ill will but because they're clueless. Or they disagree with the police about the urgency of the situation. [Is there an emoticon for twirling your finger by your temple to show you think someone is crazy?]

Then these unfortunate and foolish people may well get chucked in jail, as (allegedly) did Partensky. Some people are almost certain to fail to supply the required deference for cultural reasons- they get chucked in jail several times more often than the average citizen, and this may be part of why. Which forms a reinforcing feedback cycle where the citizens learn to hate police for singling them out for arrests, and this hatred makes them even less compliant and obedient, and more likely to talk back and posture rather than obey orders swiftly... which in turn makes them more likely to get arrested.

Is there a way to avoid this? I do not know. We shouldn't pretend it's not an issue or that all Americans already know perfectly well how to behave to avoid getting arrested for disorderly conduct because they talked back to a cop, though.

But I want to call a lot of attention to the fact that in situations like the scene that started this thread, the police are expecting more, faster, quieter obedience from the average American than the average American is well prepared to give. Many Americans are sensible or informed enough to give it anyway. Some... aren't.

That's a reality of the current situation in American politics.

[Alferd Packer]

Is there a way to avoid this? I do not know. We shouldn't pretend it's not an issue or that all Americans already know perfectly well how to behave to avoid getting arrested for disorderly conduct because they talked back to a cop, though.

But I want to call a lot of attention to the fact that in situations like the scene that started this thread, the police are expecting more, faster, quieter obedience from the average American than the average American is well prepared to give. Many Americans are sensible or informed enough to give it anyway. Some... aren't.

That's a reality of the current situation in American politics.

I really think the chief takeaway is to minimize the amount of ways you can interact with a police officer. I recall seeing a video wherein some guy was going through a traffic stop or a DUI checkpoint, and with this ID he handed the cop a card that said something like:

"NO SEARCHES

I REMAIN SILENT

I WANT MY LAWYER"

At first I chortled to myself, because it seemed a little buffoonish and ham-fisted. The more thought I give to it, though, the more I see how it reduces the number of potential negative outcomes for everyone. For the officer, he knows he won't have to deal with a lippy citizen looking to give him a hard time. For the civilian, he knows his interaction with the officer will be reduced to a minimum: he will either be cited for whatever violation he was pulled over for, sent on his way, or arrested. The potential for escalation simply isn't there, and it's become a by-the-book, procedural event--assuming the person abides by the card.

If anything, I'd modify the card to first state, "I WILL COMPLY WITH ALL LAWFUL REQUESTS" just to further put the cop at ease, as well as further minimize the amount of communication required. Ideally, the only things the civilian would say is hello and goodbye to the officer. I can think of no situation, except for an emergency of some variety(car accident, crime in progress, etc.), where it is in any way beneficial to the civilian to communicate with a police officer.

[Thanas]

To build a rapport? If you live in a small village you might find it better to get along with the local cops. IN the case where I come from I went to school with the current cops, so of course I get along with them whenever I visit.

A positive relationship between the local community and the cops can only be beneficial IMO.

[General Zod]

You're basically admitting to using specific language to make people angrily assume the police are on a selfish power trip, trodding arrogantly over people as if they were a ruling class, which is dishonest and manipulative.

Close. Not quite.

What I'm admitting to is using specific language to remind people that the police are or can sometimes be on a power trip. And that at times such as this they MAY expect a very high degree of swift obedience, higher than almost any American normally exercises or encounters in civilian life. In other words, "deference and submission."

That does not mean that at all times police are domineering bullies. The great majority of police are not domineering bullies, they are simply men and women trying to do a job. But at a crime scene, they may well interpret their job to mean things a lot of Americans ignorant of police work would not expect, and start requiring very quick compliance to instructions. No backtalk, little or no hesitation, just... deference and submission.

Now, I know why this happens. Police are first responders, and they are the 'order militant' of the first responders; it's no wonder they sometimes have to give orders in a hurry and back them up with force. Sometimes there's a real crisis on their hands and they MUST get swift compliance to basic directions.

BUT when the police expect this attitude frequently, at times when it is less than vitally necessary, there are consequences. Let's be realistic.

Most of the consequences are a result of some (many?) Americans not having direct experience with this kind of behavior by police, or not having enough experience to be knowledgeable. Some people fail to supply the expected swift compliance, not out of ill will but because they're clueless. Or they disagree with the police about the urgency of the situation. [Is there an emoticon for twirling your finger by your temple to show you think someone is crazy?]

Then these unfortunate and foolish people may well get chucked in jail, as (allegedly) did Partensky. Some people are almost certain to fail to supply the required deference for cultural reasons- they get chucked in jail several times more often than the average citizen, and this may be part of why. Which forms a reinforcing feedback cycle where the citizens learn to hate police for singling them out for arrests, and this hatred makes them even less compliant and obedient, and more likely to talk back and posture rather than obey orders swiftly... which in turn makes them more likely to get arrested.

Is there a way to avoid this? I do not know. We shouldn't pretend it's not an issue or that all Americans already know perfectly well how to behave to avoid getting arrested for disorderly conduct because they talked back to a cop, though.

But I want to call a lot of attention to the fact that in situations like the scene that started this thread, the police are expecting more, faster, quieter obedience from the average American than the average American is well prepared to give. Many Americans are sensible or informed enough to give it anyway. Some... aren't.

That's a reality of the current situation in American politics.

If a cop is going on a power trip and being a general belligerent asshole, no amount of "training" you give people is going to be worth fuck all.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, if the cop is a basically responsible person who's just had a long shift, and who routinely has to deal with ridiculous crap from random delinquents and criminals...

Then in that case, making sure civilians are clear on the basic expectations for dealing with police might just avoid a needless misunderstanding.

[Ahriman238]

Umm... most of the cops I know are pretty decent people, when they're not being harassed on the job or have to take some kind of semi-adversarial role (like writing a ticket or controlling a scene.) There's actually quite a lot of benefit to interacting with the police in a friendly manner. Just be polite, understand that not every situation is a good one for socializing, and that there are assholes in every group numbering more than five people.

[Alferd Packer]

To build a rapport? If you live in a small village you might find it better to get along with the local cops. IN the case where I come from I went to school with the current cops, so of course I get along with them whenever I visit.

A positive relationship between the local community and the cops can only be beneficial IMO.

I don't disagree with you, but I feel like doing so, in the modern world of militarized police, has too much potential to backfire. Literally everything you say to a police officer in any context at any time can be used against you. It cannot be used to help you. You can never talk your way out of being arrested. You can never exculpate yourself in an interview room. You may be able to talk your way out of a traffic ticket, but that depends purely on the cop's mood, not the actual words you speak.

Because there are so many legal avenues a police officer can pursue to negatively impact a civilian's life, I feel the risk of exposing oneself to them by building a rapport outweighs the benefits. When interaction is unavoidable, it should be minimized because that minimizes the risk to the civilian and the police officer. And I think that sucks. You should be comfortable being friend with members of your local P.D. But I just don't think it's worth the risk.

[Thanas]

I never met German and Italian and Dutch police that was anything but sensible and friendly.

[Batman]

I never met German and Italian and Dutch police that was anything but sensible and friendly.

But we're not talking about german or italian or dutch police, we're talking about the US. And if Alferd Packer's comment is anything to go by, there's something seriously wrong with the way the US populace at large and the police force tasked with protecting them percieve each other.

[Mr. Coffee]

KS, and the rest of the SDN LEO community...

Sorry, but y'all motherfuckas earned this shit. Think I'm wrong? Then police y'alls shit, fool.


As the Great Negro Poet Ice Cube said....



No, I'm dead serious. Fuck the police. As far as I'm concerned, you assholes are wrong until a jury proves you fuckers right. There's a goddamn nation of people distrustful of you fuckers for a reason. You come off ll reasonable here, but shit still happens which tells me reasonable isn't part of your culture.

So fuck the police.

Get your CCW, learn your rights, and cops are not your friend, ever. EVER.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why Mr. Coffee are we not friends anymore?

You know. You get the police force you ask for. For example, a couple years back an officer on my department was found unjustified by the DA in a shooting where he seriously injured a car thief. He was terminated by the PD but the DA refused to prosecute him and explained that it would cost too much.

There was no public rage against the DA for making excuses for not doing his job. The DA is an elected government official yet he was re-elected. So yeah. If you want to hold officers accountable you better start holding politicians accountable.

[Themightytom]

I'm not sure I like the vibe I'm getting from 'be deferential and submissive'. That seems to indicate that if you aren't, you risk getting into trouble even if you haven't done anything wrong. Why should I have to be deferential and submissive?

I don't disagree philosophically, but practically, you should take the conservative approach and let them be in charge because the risk of getting in trouble while cooperating is less than the risk when you are not being deferential and submissive. The law usually favors it's enforcers so if you want to change the dynamic by all means work to do so... but I really would not recommend it if you are around an officer on the job. There are plenty of programs like the Explorers, and the Police Athletic league which work to strengthen ties between police and community, but there's a time and a place for standing your ground, it's not usually when your facing a police officer.

[Akhlut]

And perhaps one of the reasons there is this endless, mutually hostile clash between the urban poor (mostly black) and the police is that a lot of children growing up in urban poverty do NOT learn this as their habitual reaction to police. They typically had less contact with (their very stressed and hardworking) parents growing up, they spend a lot of time around older peers, whose "bad boy" sub-demographic like to strut and boast about how they are or will grow up to be hardened criminals. People in such a community are accustomed to having to bristle and posture to shoo away random punks and casual pushing.

Which is how you get that anecdote I once read about where someone was doing word association with a three year old child, said "policeman," and the kid jumped up and shouted "I ain't afraid of no po-po!"

It certainly isn't because of the historical and present-day oppression that police forces use against minorities in the US, could it? :V

http://www.thenation.com/blog/175732/en ... ing-racism

http://www.thenation.com/article/173027 ... ty-chicago#

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... SN20120328

Yeah, no reason at all for minorities in the US to be distrustful of the police and to cultivate a general attitude of contempt for them. :V

[Simon_Jester]

I overstated, or rather left something out.

I know damn well there's a history of the police harassing minorities. It would be more accurate to say that this preexisting problem (and the negative feelings it causes the minorities to have for police) are made more significant by the perceived injustice of police arresting blacks for "obstructing an officer" or whatever... in cases where the arrested person thinks they 'weren't doing nothing' and where the police officer sincerely thinks they were harassing, interfering with, or trying to intimidate a cop.

For that matter, some of the police harassment of minorities may itself be police thinking that inner-city minorities are unusually aggressive and disrespectful in day-to-day life, and therefore distrusting them... When in fact said minorities are being relatively mild-mannered by local standards of behavior for young adult males, which includes a lot of tough-guy bullshit on a regular basis.

So there's a big potential for misunderstanding here, and for a failure to have meeting of the minds, which makes all the other stuff going on worse.

[Mr. Coffee]

Why Mr. Coffee are we not friends anymore?

You're one of the few cops I've interacted with that is actually reasonable. We're cool. Your profession as a whole though, yeah, in person and in uniform I don't care how reasonable you appear, I still won't trust you simply because one good cop means exactly shit when dealing with the Police as an organization.

You know. You get the police force you ask for. For example, a couple years back an officer on my department was found unjustified by the DA in a shooting where he seriously injured a car thief. He was terminated by the PD but the DA refused to prosecute him and explained that it would cost too much.

There was no public rage against the DA for making excuses for not doing his job. The DA is an elected government official yet he was re-elected. So yeah. If you want to hold officers accountable you better start holding politicians accountable.

Don't blame the DA, man. I bet not a single swinging dick in your entire department was willing to step up and say "Hey, maybe we should have some integrity and apply the same laws we're supposed to uphold to Officer McFuckup". I'm also willing to bet that the biggest reason why there was no outcry was because no one, either in your DA's office or your own department said anything.

Shit, the very fact you tried to pass the buck on to the civilians you're supposed to watch over tells me integrity and your department haven't been on speaking terms for a loooooong time.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You're one of the few cops I've interacted with that is actually reasonable. We're cool. Your profession as a whole though, yeah, in person and in uniform I don't care how reasonable you appear, I still won't trust you simply because one good cop means exactly shit when dealing with the Police as an organization.

Don't blame the DA, man. I bet not a single swinging dick in your entire department was willing to step up and say "Hey, maybe we should have some integrity and apply the same laws we're supposed to uphold to Officer McFuckup". I'm also willing to bet that the biggest reason why there was no outcry was because no one, either in your DA's office or your own department said anything.

I appreciate the compliment.

There were only a couple officers next to this officer that were in a position to see what happened. Each of them, when interviewed by the DA, told the DA that the officer was not in any danger and basically stepped out to meet the car thief as he was exiting the trailer park and thereby placing himself in the path of an incoming vehicle which said officer then used as justification to open fire.

The DA is the only one with the power to actually official charge someone with a felony.

Shit, the very fact you tried to pass the buck on to the civilians you're supposed to watch over tells me integrity and your department haven't been on speaking terms for a loooooong time.

If you really want change then you need to start from the top down and not the bottom up. The mayor can fire and hire police chiefs. The police chief can fire and hire his subordinates. If the public feels that something isn't being done then they should hold the mayor or the state governor accountable.

It's absolutely true that officers in police departments protect each other but this is not true about all cops. It is also true that the public has the power to make change but they don't even despite this "nation of people distrustful of you fuckers for a reason".

To reiterate I'm not passing the buck to the civilians because I still want us held accountable for our actions but when that isn't possible due to lazy politicians who end up getting re-elected well then I start looking at the voters.

[Mr. Coffee]

There were only a couple officers next to this officer that were in a position to see what happened. Each of them, when interviewed by the DA, told the DA that the officer was not in any danger and basically stepped out to meet the car thief as he was exiting the trailer park and thereby placing himself in the path of an incoming vehicle which said officer then used as justification to open fire.

The DA is the only one with the power to actually official charge someone with a felony.

Any bets on how it would turned out had it been a civilian shooting the car thief and not a cop?

If you really want change then you need to start from the top down and not the bottom up. The mayor can fire and hire police chiefs. The police chief can fire and hire his subordinates. If the public feels that something isn't being done then they should hold the mayor or the state governor accountable.

Dude, you get to carry a gun and have a badge and nifty uniform that grunts you a hell of a lot of fucking authority over other citizens. Holding you to a higher standard than the average shlub is not unreasonable. I shouldn't have to start at the top and work down. You and your fellow officers should take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your fellow officers.

It's absolutely true that officers in police departments protect each other but this is not true about all cops.

Its true enough to damned near count as a statistically validated stereotype, dude.

It is also true that the public has the power to make change but they don't even despite this "nation of people distrustful of you fuckers for a reason".

Seriously, is expecting people granted the authority and responsibility you've been given to exercise integrity really that unreasonable? If you see a problem do you wait until there's a public outcry or do you bring attention to the problem and try to solve it?

To reiterate I'm not passing the buck to the civilians because I still want us held accountable for our actions but when that isn't possible due to lazy politicians who end up getting re-elected well then I start looking at the voters.

Yeah, I'll grant you that voter apathy is a motherfucker. But still, if change can't be made at the voter end, then you and yours handling things at your end becomes all the more important.