|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 4, 2022 17:37:41 GMT -5
Not quite a trope, but a mistake that constantly puts my teeth on edge. Police officer working for a local jurisdiction needs to leave for some reason and they've "requested a transfer" or are "trying to transfer out."
No. That's not how that works. You aren't transferring anything. You're attempting to get a job from a completely different employer.
This was precipitated by a re-read of Batman Year One. Sarah Essen and Jim Gordon are breaking off their affair and Gordon narrates, "She's requested a transfer. She's leaving Gotham City." NO! Gotham P.D. doesn't exist anywhere else for her to transfer to.
I see this a lot. And it bugs the living crap out of me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2022 19:22:02 GMT -5
Not quite a trope, but a mistake that constantly puts my teeth on edge. Police officer working for a local jurisdiction needs to leave for some reason and they've "requested a transfer" or are "trying to transfer out." No. That's not how that works. You aren't transferring anything. You're attempting to get a job from a completely different employer. This was precipitated by a re-read of Batman Year One. Sarah Essen and Jim Gordon are breaking off their affair and Gordon narrates, "She's requested a transfer. She's leaving Gotham City." NO! Gotham P.D. doesn't exist anywhere else for her to transfer to. I see this a lot. And it bugs the living crap out of me. Yes. Good point. I worked for Birmingham City Council many years ago. Colleague of mine got married and moved down south to Devon County Council. Not once did he mention the word “transfer”. It was a different employer. And because it was a different job, he took a pay cut as he was a lower grade in Devon. Completely different employer like you say.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Nov 4, 2022 19:44:16 GMT -5
Not quite a trope, but a mistake that constantly puts my teeth on edge. Police officer working for a local jurisdiction needs to leave for some reason and they've "requested a transfer" or are "trying to transfer out." No. That's not how that works. You aren't transferring anything. You're attempting to get a job from a completely different employer. This was precipitated by a re-read of Batman Year One. Sarah Essen and Jim Gordon are breaking off their affair and Gordon narrates, "She's requested a transfer. She's leaving Gotham City." NO! Gotham P.D. doesn't exist anywhere else for her to transfer to. I see this a lot. And it bugs the living crap out of me. In Australia it would make sense, because each state and territory has its own police force force that covers the entire state. So an officer moving from one command to another within the state is transferring as they are all part of the same force.
The balkanization of law enforcement in the US, with every jurisdiction being a law unto itself (if you'll pardon the pun), is another one of those things that looks very odd to those of us outside of it.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Nov 5, 2022 4:48:54 GMT -5
(...)
The balkanization of law enforcement in the US, with every jurisdiction being a law unto itself (if you'll pardon the pun), is another one of those things that looks very odd to those of us outside of it.
Tell me about it. I didn't think about it much when I was still living in the US, but it became apparent to me how needlessly messy law enforcement in the US is. And it's not just the balkanization that you mentioned, but also the multiple layers and agencies with overlapping jurisdictions, so at the federal level you have FBI, US marshals and specialized agencies like the DEA, ATF, ICE or the Secret Service (who famously tend to disdain each other and often don't coordinate their operations), then at the level of individual states there's, say, highway patrols and also state bureaus of investigation modeled after the FBI (although not every state has one of those, or they're called something else, like the Texas Rangers), and then lower down there's county sheriff departments and city/municipal police departments. That's far from a comprehensive list, but it gives you an idea of how ridiculous it is.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Nov 5, 2022 5:24:17 GMT -5
It did annoy me when Shang-Chi kept getting mugged early in his series but apart from that, isn't this just how adventure comics work? Or adventure series in any media?
I actually didn't like that thing in Doctor Who... I felt it was something that didn't need to be explained. To be honest I'm not fond of the whole "sentient TARDIS" idea.
This was a trope that bothered me as a kid watching The Incredible Hulk. "Why does everyone, mostly complete strangers, pick on Banner every episode?" One, it was to either tease a transformation, or building to one at some point in the future. It also served--quite successfully--to establish a contrast between a very good man with unimaginable power (never consciously trying to use it), and that part of Banner's personality made him a target to those who viewed his behavior as a weakness.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 5, 2022 5:55:06 GMT -5
(...)
The balkanization of law enforcement in the US, with every jurisdiction being a law unto itself (if you'll pardon the pun), is another one of those things that looks very odd to those of us outside of it.
Tell me about it. I didn't think about it much when I was still living in the US, but it became apparent to me how needlessly messy law enforcement in the US is. And it's not just the balkanization that you mentioned, but also the multiple layers and agencies with overlapping jurisdictions, so at the federal level you have FBI, US marshals and specialized agencies like the DEA, ATF, ICE or the Secret Service (who famously tend to disdain each other and often don't coordinate their operations), then at the level of individual states there's, say, highway patrols and also state bureaus of investigation modeled after the FBI (although not every state has one of those, or they're called something else, like the Texas Rangers), and then lower down there's county sheriff departments and city/municipal police departments. That's far from a comprehensive list, but it gives you an idea of how ridiculous it is. ...and just try to get those jurisdictions to cooperate. When I was with the Washington State Attorney General's Office, I briefly worked on the design of the national offenders' database (can't recall the acronym: CODIS or AFIS or some damn thing) and getting them to A) agree on a common set of data to track, and B) conincing them iy would only work if they actally entered each case's data in a timely manner as infuriatingly difficult. I left the AGO before it got very far but I know it drove my friends who stayed with the project up the proverbial wall.
Cei-U! I summon the bureaucratic intaransigence!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2022 5:59:03 GMT -5
(...)
The balkanization of law enforcement in the US, with every jurisdiction being a law unto itself (if you'll pardon the pun), is another one of those things that looks very odd to those of us outside of it.
Tell me about it. I didn't think about it much when I was still living in the US, but it became apparent to me how needlessly messy law enforcement in the US is. And it's not just the balkanization that you mentioned, but also the multiple layers and agencies with overlapping jurisdictions, so at the federal level you have FBI, US marshals and specialized agencies like the DEA, ATF, ICE or the Secret Service (who famously tend to disdain each other and often don't coordinate their operations), then at the level of individual states there's, say, highway patrols and also state bureaus of investigation modeled after the FBI (although not every state has one of those, or they're called something else, like the Texas Rangers), and then lower down there's county sheriff departments and city/municipal police departments. That's far from a comprehensive list, but it gives you an idea of how ridiculous it is. Do you think there really is disdain between law enforcement agencies? I’m sure there is at times (they’re only human), but I do remember the FBI once putting out a statement about how fiction misrepresents them - and that they don’t stifle colleagues, hog the glory, trample over jurisdictions, etc. Is it mostly a fictional trope? On the Balkanization of US law enforcement, I sort of agree and disagree with you. Here in the UK, there are occasional suggestions that we should have a national police force. I don’t want that. We do have some national forces that are specialist, such as British Transport Police (railways), Ministry of Defence Police (protecting MOD land/assets), and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (protection of civilian nuclear infrastructure). But we have county forces, although Scotland does have Police Scotland. My concern is that a national force would be commanded by a chief constable who would be remote. He/she would probably be based in London - and while he/she would have regional commanders and deputies, I don’t like the thought of a national police chief setting priorities and planning for the entire country, what would he/she really know about cities and counties hundreds of miles away? I feel that our model keeps things accountable. My force area is the West Midlands Police, policing Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton, plus some other areas. I’d rather we had city forces, but at least the West Midlands Police does, in theory, know its patch and understand it. At least our chief constable - like hopefully any other chief constable or commissioner - understands his patch. The last thing I want is my county’s policing priorities/plans decided by a national chief hundreds of miles away. As an outsider looking in to the US, I thought that at least the Balkanization, to use your term, keeps things accountable, so NYPD is accountable to New Yorkers, county sheriffs are accountable to county residents, I presume unincorporated areas are covered, too. That said, I can see and understand some of your viewpoints. I learnt once that there’s a New York City Sheriff’s Office, who, if Wikipedia is accurate, deal with civil law enforcement, and a lot of financial stuff, e.g. cigarette tax enforcement. Fine, I get the distinction between them and the NYPD, but couldn’t the NYPD or an existing agency be handling such things? The federal agencies also get a tad confusing to this outsider. I used to wonder, when watching movies, why the FBI couldn’t handle alcohol, tobacco, firearms and drugs. Why the need for the ATF and DEA? I believe this forum’s Cody did explain some of that, but there are other times I think about duplication. I saw a documentary about the United States Postal Inspection Service, dealing with postal issues such as mail fraud and protecting postal assets. That’s commendable, and I’m sure the men and women who serve do a good job (sounds very important), but, again, after watching that documentary, I did wonder why protecting postal assets couldn’t just fall to an existing agency. The formation of the Department of Homeland Security confused me, too. Wikipedia states its functions are anti-terrorism, border security, immigration and customs, cyber security, and disaster prevention and management. Those are important, but prior to the DHS’s formation, surely those functions were being done by other agencies? I would presume anti-terrorism might be an FBI remit, while border security might fall to Customs and Border Protection. As far as one knows, the UK has three intelligence agencies, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, all with specific and wide-ranging functions, but I once read a newspaper piece (this may have been 10-12 years ago), which stated the US had 9 intelligence agencies. Would there be duplication there? This is all me “thinking out loud” without anything other than cursory knowledge. And a lot of assumptions. A more knowledgeable person, who is American, probably can inform me as to why the DHS is necessary, or why a specific agency needs to exist. There could be historical reasons or pragmatic reasons. It’s just that from my ignorant perspective, which is no doubt lacking in context/knowledge, it does seem there’s a lot of duplication. I’ll have to search out Cody’s old post. And if someone can tell me why the Secret Service deals with counterfeit currency issues, I’m all ears…
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Nov 5, 2022 6:25:16 GMT -5
And if someone can tell me why the Secret Service deals with counterfeit currency issues, I’m all ears… Because that was it's original function. It was set up in 1865, when a reported one third of the currency in circulation was counterfeit. As the minting of currency is a federal responsibility, it required a federal law enforcement agency to deal with it. It was given the Presidential protection remit after McKinley was assassinated in 1901.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2022 7:56:40 GMT -5
Thanks. Glad I know that now, I just presumed they’d been founded to protect presidents.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Nov 5, 2022 8:10:33 GMT -5
Thanks. Glad I know that now, I just presumed they’d been founded to protect presidents. A really good movie that focuses on the investigative aspects of the Secret Service's mission is the 1980s noir film To Live & Die in LA - the plot involves a notorious and ruthless counterfeiter being tracked down by two agents (who are no angels themselves).
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Nov 5, 2022 8:18:40 GMT -5
(...) As an outsider looking in to the US, I thought that at least the Balkanization, to use your term, keeps things accountable, so NYPD is accountable to New Yorkers, county sheriffs are accountable to county residents, I presume unincorporated areas are covered, too. (...) I'm sure Slam_Bradley has thoughts on this, and at the risk of taking this discussion too far into political waters, I have to say that I find the notion that any law enforcement agency or department in the US is accountable rather quaint.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2022 8:26:16 GMT -5
I don’t think it’s political to discuss law enforcement. I certainly won’t mention politicians or parties.
Quaint? You could be right. I mean, I’m thinking more in a theoretical sense. Strictly on paper, here in the UK, we have police and crime commissioners, civilians who oversee our police forces (unhelpful terminology, given that the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police have commissioners, but those are police ranks). So in theory, I hope there are forces in this world who are accountable, whether it be to a mayor or some entity, but I know in reality that quaint notion can fall far short.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 5, 2022 11:28:35 GMT -5
(...) As an outsider looking in to the US, I thought that at least the Balkanization, to use your term, keeps things accountable, so NYPD is accountable to New Yorkers, county sheriffs are accountable to county residents, I presume unincorporated areas are covered, too. (...) I'm sure Slam_Bradley has thoughts on this, and at the risk of taking this discussion too far into political waters, I have to say that I find the notion that any law enforcement agency or department in the US is accountable rather quaint. The problem is that it varies from state to state. In most of the western US you’ll have state police that patrol the highways and interstates, but also have statewide jurisdiction. Most local municipalities have city police forces that work within those city limits, though some contract with other agencies. And the county sheriffs have jurisdiction over unincorporated areas in the county. But my understanding is that in a number of the eastern states the county sheriff is barely law enforcement and mostly does process serving and some Court security. So there’s no one size fits all answer in the US.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Nov 6, 2022 10:53:14 GMT -5
Are we still seeing the whole "villain explains his evil plan to temporarily incapacitated heroes" trope in 2022 comics?
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Nov 7, 2022 15:28:49 GMT -5
This was a trope that bothered me as a kid watching The Incredible Hulk. "Why does everyone, mostly complete strangers, pick on Banner every episode?" One, it was to either tease a transformation, or building to one at some point in the future. It also served--quite successfully--to establish a contrast between a very good man with unimaginable power (never consciously trying to use it), and that part of Banner's personality made him a target to those who viewed his behavior as a weakness. Ha Ha - Yeah I figured it out over the next 4 decades.
|
|