• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Raising the Salary of Police, Firefighters, and Servicemen

I have no thoughts on the salary of officers, but the tying of funding of police departments to items seized during drug busts needs to be changed. In general, the whole commercialization and businessification of police needs to go. It is a public service, not a profit generator for the county, state, or district, and certainly not a tool of the private prison industry. The law enforcement system has very much lost its way.
 
Paschendale said:
I have no thoughts on the salary of officers, but the tying of funding of police departments to items seized during drug busts needs to be changed. In general, the whole commercialization and businessification of police needs to go. It is a public service, not a profit generator for the county, state, or district, and certainly not a tool of the private prison industry. The law enforcement system has very much lost its way.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, police departments are not funded by items seized by drug busts. Well, I guess you could say their new toys and equipment sometimes is purchased that way, but salaries and standard equipment are in the BUDGET. Drug bust money is not accounted for in the BUDGET.


How much do you actually know about how police departments are run outside of weird youtube videos?
 
braymoore said:
So why don't we raise the salary of police officers, firefighters, and servicemen?? They are out there putting their lives on the line each and everyday. They are protecting us and our rights! Doing much more than lots of other jobs that make much more than them. You think that this is just? Would their be any problems with raising their salaries? I think that they deserve more than what they are making today for what they do each and everyday.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the decision of each city to raise or keep their salaries within reason. The military is the responsibility of the Federal gov't. While you're at it, why don't you ask for each Police and Fire dept. be equipped with an Abhram's M1A tank, and napalm carrying armored cars to mow down and/or incinerate Americans deemed terrorists by Obama.
 
Caine said:
As far as I am aware, police departments are not funded by items seized by drug busts. Well, I guess you could say their new toys and equipment sometimes is purchased that way, but salaries and standard equipment are in the BUDGET. Drug bust money is not accounted for in the BUDGET.


How much do you actually know about how police departments are run outside of weird youtube videos?
Click to expand...
Actually they are, and the levels are increasing as more and more depts are relying much more on SWAT operations.....and the more they do, the higher the operating costs become, requiring larger numbers of busts.


Under the policy of civil asset forfeiture, the government can seize any cash, cars, houses, or other property that law enforcement can reasonably connect to a crime -- usually a drug crime. The owner of the property must then go to court to show that he legitimately earned or owns it. Often the owner is never actually charged with a crime. And often, these seizures are made against people suspected of low-level crimes, so the value of the property seized can be less than the costs and hassle of hiring an attorney and going to court to win it back.

If the owner doesn't try to get his assets back, or if the court rules against him, asset forfeiture proceeds go to the police department that made the seizure. Critics say the policy creates perverse incentives for police to find drug connections that may not exist. But the policy has been lucrative for police agencies, and has been a huge contributor to the growth and use of SWAT teams to serve drug warrants. SWAT teams can be expensive to maintain. Instead of reserving them only for genuinely dangerous situations, asset forfeiture (along with Byrne grants) creates a strong incentive to send them on drug raids. A number of states have tried to curb forfeiture abuses by requiring that proceeds from seizures go to schools, or to a general fund. But under the Justice Department's equitable sharing program, a local police agency simply needs to ask the DEA for assistance with a raid. The operation then becomes federal, and is governed by federal law. The DOJ takes a cut of the assets, then sends a large percentage back to the local police agency, effectively getting around those state laws.

Under Obama, forfeiture has flourished. According to a 2012 report from the General Accounting Office, the Justice Department's forfeiture fund swelled to $1.8 billion in 2011, the largest ever. That same year, equitable sharing payouts to local police agencies topped $445 million, also a record.

Obama has fought for broad asset forfeiture powers in court, even for local governments. In the 2009 case Alvarez v. Smith, the Obama administration defended a provision of Illinois' asset forfeiture law that allows police to seize property they believe is connected to drug activity with little evidence, then hold it for up to six months before the owner gets an opportunity to win it back in court. It's one of the harshest such laws in the country.

7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America | Cato Institute
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Actually they are, and the levels are increasing as more and more depts are relying much more on SWAT operations.....and the more they do, the higher the operating costs become, requiring larger numbers of busts.


Under the policy of civil asset forfeiture, the government can seize any cash, cars, houses, or other property that law enforcement can reasonably connect to a crime -- usually a drug crime. The owner of the property must then go to court to show that he legitimately earned or owns it. Often the owner is never actually charged with a crime. And often, these seizures are made against people suspected of low-level crimes, so the value of the property seized can be less than the costs and hassle of hiring an attorney and going to court to win it back.

If the owner doesn't try to get his assets back, or if the court rules against him, asset forfeiture proceeds go to the police department that made the seizure. Critics say the policy creates perverse incentives for police to find drug connections that may not exist. But the policy has been lucrative for police agencies, and has been a huge contributor to the growth and use of SWAT teams to serve drug warrants. SWAT teams can be expensive to maintain. Instead of reserving them only for genuinely dangerous situations, asset forfeiture (along with Byrne grants) creates a strong incentive to send them on drug raids. A number of states have tried to curb forfeiture abuses by requiring that proceeds from seizures go to schools, or to a general fund. But under the Justice Department's equitable sharing program, a local police agency simply needs to ask the DEA for assistance with a raid. The operation then becomes federal, and is governed by federal law. The DOJ takes a cut of the assets, then sends a large percentage back to the local police agency, effectively getting around those state laws.

Under Obama, forfeiture has flourished. According to a 2012 report from the General Accounting Office, the Justice Department's forfeiture fund swelled to $1.8 billion in 2011, the largest ever. That same year, equitable sharing payouts to local police agencies topped $445 million, also a record.

Obama has fought for broad asset forfeiture powers in court, even for local governments. In the 2009 case Alvarez v. Smith, the Obama administration defended a provision of Illinois' asset forfeiture law that allows police to seize property they believe is connected to drug activity with little evidence, then hold it for up to six months before the owner gets an opportunity to win it back in court. It's one of the harshest such laws in the country.

7 Ways The Obama Administration Has Accelerated Police Militarization

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America | Cato Institute
Click to expand...

Which ignored everything I said after the first sentence.......

You show me where asset forfeiture is in the budget for the paying of basic requirements like salaries and regular patrol vehicle maintenance......

Money from asset forfeiture used to buy new protective equipment for swat and other special teams, or for new toys and gadgets... sure..... not for the basic necessities.
 
Caine said:
Which ignored everything I said after the first sentence.......

You show me where asset forfeiture is in the budget for the paying of basic requirements like salaries and regular patrol vehicle maintenance......

Money from asset forfeiture used to buy new protective equipment for swat and other special teams, or for new toys and gadgets... sure..... not for the basic necessities.
Click to expand...
Funding within a dept is fungible, and the "standard equipment" would not be purchased if the dept was funding SWAT/Military items.

Not mentioned is the vast amount of weaponry donated by the federal govt, from automatic weapons to personnel carriers.

The point made, which I am supporting, is that local LE has become a system more and more dependent upon seizure activities to fund their militarization. This would not be happening with just "standard funding".
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Funding within a dept is fungible, and the "standard equipment" would not be purchased if the dept was funding SWAT/Military items.

Not mentioned is the vast amount of weaponry donated by the federal govt, from automatic weapons to personnel carriers.

The point made, which I am supporting, is that local LE has become a system more and more dependent upon seizure activities to fund their militarization. This would not be happening with just "standard funding".
Click to expand...

And I have no problem with that....


When cops routinely show up on regular ass suspicious person and domestic calls with rifles in slings and helmets and vests on, kicking your door in...... then your "militarization" complaint has merit.

Until then, stop with the paranoid delusional bull****.

Or would you rather an officer face a violent rioting mob with a hat and a ****ing smile?
 
Caine said:
And I have no problem with that....
Click to expand...
Meaning....you are OK with escalating militarization of local LE?


When cops routinely show up on regular ass suspicious person and domestic calls with rifles in slings and helmets and vests on, kicking your door in...... then your "militarization" complaint has merit.

Until then, stop with the paranoid delusional bull****.

Or would you rather an officer face a violent rioting mob with a hat and a ****ing smile?
Click to expand...
Um, this creep of escalating response is already happening. Do you think a rave would require a massive SWAT response?
 
Papa bull said:
That's right. Americans think that it's a bad idea to let the majority vote to raise taxes only on a very, very small minority because democracy isn't working very well when people can vote to raise taxes only on "other people" in order to pay for the things they want the government to do.
Click to expand...

Uhh a regular citizen cant vote to raise taxes. This is why we have a representative democracy not a direct democracy.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, this creep of escalating response is already happening. Do you think a rave would require a massive SWAT response?
Click to expand...

Depends on the Intel acquired............ A little factoid many people ignore when they jump to conclusions about police responses before having any knowledge of what information that law enforcement had prior to their actions.
 
braymoore said:
So why don't we raise the salary of police officers, firefighters, and servicemen?? They are out there putting their lives on the line each and everyday. They are protecting us and our rights! Doing much more than lots of other jobs that make much more than them. You think that this is just? Would their be any problems with raising their salaries? I think that they deserve more than what they are making today for what they do each and everyday.
Click to expand...

So what should their salaries be, and how does this compare to where they are now?
 
ReformCollege said:
So what should their salaries be, and how does this compare to where they are now?
Click to expand...

This question has already been asked to me in earlier posts but I will answer it again. I think giving them an extra 20K a year is a just raise. And salaries vary city to city.
 
braymoore said:
This question has already been asked to me in earlier posts but I will answer it again. I think giving them an extra 20K a year is a just raise. And salaries vary city to city.
Click to expand...

That is kind of high........

And this is coming from an ex-cop.
 
Caine said:
That is kind of high........

And this is coming from an ex-cop.
Click to expand...

I just think they deserve more for what they do each and everyday. You were putting your life on the line for those in your city. Sports players or celebrities aren't putting their lives on the life for anyone and look how much they make.
 
braymoore said:
I just think they deserve more for what they do each and everyday. You were putting your life on the line for those in your city. Sports players or celebrities aren't putting their lives on the life for anyone and look how much they make.
Click to expand...

I dunno......

Dale Earnhart Sr died entertaining his fans......
 
Caine said:
I dunno......

Dale Earnhart Sr died entertaining his fans......
Click to expand...

Oh come on! Sports players don't die as often as police officers. When was the last time a sports player died while playing?? And how long ago was it that a police officer was killed??
 
braymoore said:
Oh come on! Sports players don't die as often as police officers. When was the last time a sports player died while playing?? And how long ago was it that a police officer was killed??
Click to expand...

It was sarcasm dude.... Im aware how often LEOs are killed or die in the line of duty.

There have been 53 nationwide so far this year, and 120 last year.
 
Caine said:
It was sarcasm dude.... Im aware how often LEOs are killed or die in the line of duty.

There have been 53 nationwide so far this year, and 120 last year.
Click to expand...

Everyone has a different opinion on this subject but I think it's not fair to them or their families having to put their lives on the line everyday and not make the salary they should.
 
Yes, police and firemen should each make $500,000 per year. Who cares whether or not locals who pay their salaries via property taxes can afford it!
 
braymoore said:
Look I'm just saying I think it's stupid that other jobs get paid tons more than these good people who are putting their lives on the line.
Click to expand...

Who says they're good people? A lot of them are quite the opposite.
 
The Man said:
Who says they're good people? A lot of them are quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Yeah I guess you're right. That was something I have seen in my own experience that I probably shouldn't have said. But at least the ones I know and have had interaction with have been fairly nice to me. I hope it stays that way.
 
Anybody who wants to raise the salary of their local police, fire department and teachers can vote to raise their sales or property taxes to do that themselves and not expect everybody else in the country who actually do pay taxes to pay for your decision.
 
The Man said:
Who says they're good people? A lot of them are quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Only viewed like that by people who ARE quite the opposite.
 
Caine said:
Only viewed like that by people who ARE quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

No, just that a lot of them really aren't good people. What a person does for a living has nothing to do with and says nothing about what kind of person they are. There's a lot of douchebag cops and firemen just like there are a lot of douchebag accountants, doctors, janitors, assembly line workers, lawyers, pro athletes, Hollywood actors, etc., etc.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the whole "noble profession" BS. No one is special simply because of what they do for a living.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom