A matter of degree. Is a person a little neurotic or highly insane. A matter of degree. IMHO

Insofar as their job is to help people, yes indeed it is noble and often times heroic. But it is certainly not unsung. Everyone considers these people heros. ER doctors and cops are compensated quite well for what they do. Nurses also make pretty good dough. Teachers, firefighters and EMT workers should make more, but society has always treasured entertainment and fraudulent math more than saving a life or enriching the soul with knowldge. It's human nature I guess.

How do you tie in a story about the murder of a woman to a cop's pesnsion and how much money an ER doctor earns? For the record both are well compensated. Plus cops get to retire after only working twnety years.

Why is what a police officer gets paid even part of the comments?

Joe ,I truly admire the work that police do ,and the risks they take to protect us all . Do you think it would be possibly to get :special police" to do the mundane work traffic control ,school duty .Perhaps non-fire arms caring police .They could be paid at a lower rate and free up our regular police (college grads) for the more hazardous work .Just a thought

"The raise in pay is reflective of the difficult work our cops do everyday" This can not be the reason why the pay of police officers has gone up over the years. First, you said that 95% of the time cops do not do difficult work. Second, the pay of loggers, fishermen, farmers, ranchers, and roofers has no gone up over recent years (because of the struggling economy), and all of these jobs are more dangerous than being a cop. Pay has gone up because your union officials are good lobbyists and politicians generally have no problem spending other people's money. This is not to say that cops should not be paid sufficiently well. I am only saying that their pay increases are not a reflection of the job's danger. Your post also references a huge problem in America today. The laws are not only difficult to decipher; they are impossible because there are so many and often times they contradict each other. Then if tack on the generally ridiculous court decisions that provide exception upon exception to the constitution and the laws already on the books, you have a genuine morass.

Yates,

Just a quick reply to a statement that is made far too often. Yes I 100% agree that the professions of loggers, fisherman, roofers etc.. are statistically classified as more dangerous than police work. However people killed in these lines of work are injured due to accidents at the workplace. Police officers, however, are the only such profession where they are MURDERED simply because they are performing their duties. Fisherman are not murdered, roofers are not ambushed while having lunch, etc.. Also injuries sustained in those professions are also accidental or due to negligence - many officers are often injured taking someone into custody who is fighting back. So while statistically yes you are correct, at the same time the nature and risk associated with law enforcement is categorically unique.

@Mgray: your point is well taken, however, it does not change the fact that officer pay increases are not a result of merely the danger associated with their job. From your post it would seem that their high pay stems from the altruistic nature of the job coupled with the slim possibility that they may be deliberately injured by others while performing that job. I have no problem granting you that.

I am KC and I am not "crying for higher wages". I was merely trying to make the point that so many people will complain (as is so easily occurring on this board) about public servants benefits while giving little consideration to the very unique, and downright scary aspects of the duties they perform.

As an added note I would like to also point out that I am not a member of any of the professions I mentioned.

Actually Denise you are not correct. I stand by my words, thank you. And I did show Pangaro respect when I differed with him. How about you showing where I did not respect him? Thank you, also.

Your story was so well written; I thought you might be a professional writer. After reading your story I asked myself the same question that was raised by Robert Yates. I hoped you would have responded to him. But instead you went into a discussion about cop’s pensions and ignored a question that was actually relevant to your story.

Brad,

Surviving the horrors of war or the horrors we see on the street is a very similar experience. Though I have never been in the military, I have worked the streets for 27 years and seen some horrific things.
I realized after a short time on the job that even though I wanted to change the world, reality teaches that we can only help individual people along the way. The injustices that were present in our society 27 years ago are still there, the fact that people still believe they can rob and steal if it suits them has not changed and random violence is still with us if not stronger than ever. These facts could lead a cop to wonder "why did I bother nothing is better". And lots of officers do ask that question. They are an idealistic lot.
I never wanted to lose my positive attitude so I had to find ways to deal with the bad things.
I have made peace with the world in which I ply my trade by accepting that helping an individual is just as important as changing the whole system. I look back over the years and the people who I have helped and take satisfaction in that. It also keeps me from being cynical. If everyone does a little bit then, over time things can get better, that is my therapy.
And thank your dad for his service. JP

Here is the thing and I know this may sound cold, but the federal government has a nice little tool called the federal reserve. It is essentially their "money tree". When they are running short on funds and can not raise it from the Chinese and can no longer pinch the tax payers anymore, they simply print money out of thin air and pay for whatever they need to pay for with newly minted greenbacks. Municipalities do not have money trees. They can only spend what they can squeeze out of the tax payers. This creates a funding problem. I agree with you that it is not a good situation when you are making arrests alone, but if there were less nanny state laws and less infringements on the 2nd Amendment, your job would be infinitely easier and safer and would not require the addition of more officers. A few examples: officers should never be wasting time at road work sites or directing traffic for private entities. This is the responsibility of private entities. Nor do officers need to monitor power plant workers as they cross the street leaving their job. These are just a few examples.

Thank you for the clarification. It is good to know that tax dollars are not directly spent on these matters, but time is being spent on these matters, overtime or not. It is also important to know whether construction companies and the power plant are required to hire police officers or can they provide the services as they see fit, if at all? Like I said before, these details require an officer's time that could otherwise be used to do real police work, like arresting crimanls and investigating crimes. Let's look at the road work site oifficers a little closer too. If contractors are forced to hire police officers to be present at construciton sites and tax payers are paying the contractors to build and fix the roads, who effectively sustains the liability of paying the officer? This does assume that officers are required to be on site. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

funded by the contractor because somewhere along the way the PBA said it was a necessity and was eventually built into contracts for LEO's to put in more time.

Thank you for the information on whether or not officers are required to be at work sites. Since they are not, I revoke my previous statement regarding tax payer funded work site officers. Clearly - yet very surprisingly - this is entirely up to the contractor, as it should be. With respect to an officer's days off, are you saying that police officers do not have the option to work overtime (i.e. on their day off) for the township that employs them? I ask because I do not know, not because I am trying to be difficult. Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions too. I find it helpful to get direct insight from officers themselves. Could you address one of the matters that I brought up previously; namely do you think too many things are illegal and do you think civilians should have a broader right to defend themselves? My contention is that - if these are answered in the affirmative - it would cut down on your work. Do you agree?

before the hurricane hit and the power was out for a week, I had not seen a police officer directing traffic in years, especially at one of these work zones. Any time I pass a work zone the officer is sitting in his/her car either writing paperwork or talking on the phone while employee's of the contractor are out in the street with their flags or paddle signs and 2 way radios directing traffic.

Ripped Off- I cannot post my contract in the comments box here, but you can go to the town hall and ask to see a copy of it. An officer IS NOT eligible for overtime on a day that they are working; therefore the overtime cannot be scheduled for them. Overtime is usually scheduled at least a week in advance. If an officer calls out sick, and there is overtime that day, it has already long been filled by another officer who is off from their regularly scheduled shift that day. I hope this makes sense, I guess it is a little confusing to understand. Bottom line though, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an officer to call out sick in order to work overtime. Even if the officer wanted to do it, the system doesn't work that way. Our overtime is on a rotating list that goes by hours worked. If I worked 10hrs of overtime so far this year, and a guy below me in rank only worked 8, he will be offered the overtime before me. No one can call out sick in order to try and work an overtime shift.

This answers part of my question. So if officers can work overtime on days that they are not regularly scheduled to work, but instead decide to take a job with a contractor, isn't it partially your own fault if you are making arrests alone since an officer that could be helping you (by working overtime) is now working at a construction site? You can certainly argue (and rightly I think) that you should not have to work on your day off. But it is true that you can work overtime so that other officers do not have to make arrests alone, right? The reason I am going through this exercise is because you suggested that no time is being wasted by working constructions sites.

HOTB. May I suggest that you refere to off-duty work as "Extra Duty" and OT being only used in reference to working over your normal work hours at the PD. It seems some people are confusing the two. You're not confusing me, but some people seem to not accept or understand the difference.

Many thanks for the effort above to help us understand the overtime structure of the force. You are obviously intelligent and it would be great fun as well as beneficial I think to discuss these matters over coffee. I would love your insight on the question below though:

"Could you address one of the matters that I brought up previously; namely do you think too many things are illegal and do you think civilians should have a broader right to defend themselves? My contention is that - if these are answered in the affirmative - it would cut down on your work. Do you agree?"

The reason that I am asking is because I am trying to come up with viable ideas that will allow civilians to take more responsibility for their own safety hence assisting the police in maintaining the relatively safe nature of this township without adding more officers, which will in turn increase taxes.

Just to show Maryann that all folks - who are not in favor of adding police officers to the force - are not cockroaches, I would be happy to have coffee with HOTB and you if you'd like to join us. Name a time and place!

Isn't Home of the Brave also hiding behind a fake screen name? Clearly he has inside knowledge of the details so why hide? Where's the transparency? Thanks to everyone for the additional information. It's a real eye opener to see what is in these public sector contracts. Next time we complain about property taxes, we have two choices. Change the contracts or stop complaining about why your tax bill goes up.

@Patricia: it is not easy to change contracts. The committeemen can negotiate until the cows come home, but they are hamstrung by state law. If the committee and the police union can not come to an agreement, the matter is essentially taken out of their hands and submitted to some type of binding state arbitration board. Once a decision comes down from this board, the committee is stuck with that decision I think. Perhaps they have the ability to appeal, but that costs time and money and would probably not be worth the aggravation. The committeemen who just ran for reelection plainly told me that it is very difficult to obtain anything but nominal concessions and if anything substantial is proposed, a stalemate will ensue and the matter will likely be taken out of their hands as stated above.

I understand that Robert. I am simply suggesting there should be greater transparency to contracts and what is contained in them and if voters don't care then they should stop complaining because the majority of our taxes are compensation/benefit related.

I have heard similar stories but in the big picture that's an excuse same as saying "its always done this way". We either have a property tax problem or we don't

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I certainly do not want to make excuses for politicians. Generally speaking they are a worthless bunch. And while I am all in favor of cutting local government, property taxes are largely driven by the education system, which is an unequivocal black hole. This is a whole other conversation though I suppose.

That is true Robert that school expenses are the lion's share but inside that budget is 70% plus for payroll same as local and county governments so that all discussions about reducing property taxes should be uniform and apply to all contracts and in a transparent manner.

Thank god, Kelley that you don't have pre-formed opinions about police officers because nothing anyone can say to you will help change your opinion. I don't think that cops are underpaid for the job that they do. I know many of them retire after 20 years and then by taking advantage of their governmental contacts they take another governmental job which will entitle them to a second governmental pension.

Well said HOTB.

"I don't know of any laws that restrict you from reasonably defending yourself or others" I apologize; I should have been more clear about what I meant. Other than perhaps California, NJ has the most pervasive gun laws in the country. It is effectively impossible for me to get a carry license in this state. I would consider this a law that restricts me from reasonably defending myself, especially since my job often times takes me into Camden, Newark, Jersey City, Trenton and other places. This restriction is even more startling considering the fact the Supreme Court has decided time and time again that police officers do not have a legal duty to protect citizens from crime. What are your thoughts on this?

If studies show that criminals fear concealed weapons, then it would follow that citizens carrying concealed weapons act as a deterrent. Deterred crime means less work for you guys. Violent crime rates are considerably lower in any region that allows it's citizens to carry concealed. You're right though. NJ and Washington do NOT care and they will continue to erode our rights. Quick follow up question: If the constitution (and I would argue - the natural law) protects my right to defend myself, how is it morally permissible for police offers to enforce laws that violate my rights? Not only is an armed society a polite society, an armed society is a free society. Unfortunately, the opposite corollary applies as well.

if it was ever really about safety, the cops would take a 50% pay cut and hire twice as many police officers......but no its about getting those 25 years in, grabbing that pension, preferably disabilty which is tax free and then getting another public job and starting the ponzi scam all over again (and get this they actually tell the taxpayers they are "helping" them because they do not need to be health insurance on the new job......i must admit, its the greatest scam ever.....Bravo)

Chief; 50% is a big cut but your concept is pretty much right on, we just went through this in Brick a couple years back.

In the military, is it not true that you have a legal obligation to refuse to execute an illegal order? Congress and NJ have given you an illegal order to violate the Second Amendment. Why don't you have an obligation to refuse to execute that order? I understand the different roles of the different branches of government, but the only way Congress gets away with their transgressions is if they have someone to enforce those transgressions. With respect to your advice, when was the last time a politician with valid points and practical ideas was elected into office? People elect politicians who promise them stuff, not ones that promise to take that stuff away.

As I said to HOTB, I understand the different roles of the branches of government, but....Congress has passed many laws that violate the Constitution; the President executes those laws and the judicial branch says they are a-okay. Now what? What is your solution? Do we just defer to them even though they just told us that a shape with 4 sides is a circle?

If the judicial branch determines that the laws do not violate the Constitution, than the laws do not violate the Constitution. Supreme Court has the final say. Simple as that.

That news to me. Could you please direct me to the clause in the constitution that gives the SC final say on whether or not a law is constitutional?

It is not explicitly in the Constitution, but covered in the Federalist papers, and well established. The Constitution is, after all, a set of laws. The Supreme Court is the final word on what is constitutional and what is not. You might not agree with how they rule, but there is nothing you can do about it. I don't know if NJ gun laws have ever been challenged in court, but they are the law in Nj. As an final thought, would you want to live in a place where the police interpret and enforce the laws as they see fit.

@Josh: you are wrong that the SC is the final say. Maybe judicial review is found in the Federalist (I haven't read them in a while), but I am sure it was refuted in the anti-federalist papers. In either event, it is a political position that you may be willing to accept. I am not; the matter is certainly up for argument as this country has a long history of nullifying unjust laws. You do bring up a good point when you ask who should be the final say. It could be the state, perhaps the municipality, or maybe even the individual. I doubt a Lacey Police officer could do much worse than the US Supreme Court in protecting the rights set forth in the bill of rights.

RY, Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Supreme Court is the ultimate and final word on what is constitutional. They are the highest appellate court in the land so once they rule there is no higher place to appeal to. That is not to say that they don't ever change their mind, as they do. That justices on the SC are appointed for life so they do are freed from political pressure. That is why these appointments matter so much. Your idea that the individual should be able to decide on what is constitutional would lead to anarchy as everyone could decide which laws they want to follow.

Yates - first off stop with the @ sign this isnt twitter JAckson. Second of all - you must be kidding me. Of course the supreme court decides what is constitutional or not.

Article III Section II :"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

Pretty much states right there that the Courts have the ultimate say.

@Josh: if you are content deferring to the SC because the SC has ordained themselves as the final arbiters of a law's constitutionality (even though they are pretty bad at protecting rights as history has proven), that's cool. I would just ask you to consider that there are alternative solutions to judicial tyranny.
@PH: the little @ sign is a good tool to direct your comment at an individual poster when the string is running in the reply column. Sorry if it annoys you. On the other stuff, feel free to make an argument, but your mere say so adds nothing to the conversation.
@HOTB: the part of the constitution that you cited gives the SC the authority to decide certain cases. Nowhere does that clause state that this decision is supreme. Marbury v. Madison established the concept as a matter of law (falsely I believe and many thinkers and states rejected this rationale). See John Calhoun; his writings are very instructive on the concept of nullification.

@Josh: the suggestion that SC appointees are not political is as naive as it is wrong. Why do you think that the SC always ends up voting in favor of the lunacy that is regularly put before them by congress. Robert's opinion in the recent healthcare decision was one of the most incoherent and rationally absurd rulings that I have ever wasted time reading. You sound like perhaps you might be in law school. Wait until you get to Scalia and Thomas and Renquist's interpretations of the 4th Amendment and executive power. They are serving the people who appointed them and or the popular flavor of the day. Very rare is the judge who is ideologically consistent and even rarer is the judge that has no sold out a million times in order to get appointed.

RY, I said that SC nominees are free from political pressure, not that the appointees are not political. Once on the Supreme Court, they never face the electorate and never fear for their job. They are free to rule as they see fit. They need no favors so they need not compromise their beliefs.
Your refusal to accept that SC is the final arbiter on the constution baffles me as you fail to explain who is the final arbiter? Who has the last word on whether a law is constitutional or not?

I will grant you that there is not suppose to be political pressure, but there is both before the appointments and after. What could possibly explain Robert's ruling on the heath care law otherwise? I have already answered your question on who should have the final say. I am not sure that there should be a single entity that has final say. In the past, certain citizens were content with the state having final say. This has been the main way in which nullification has occurred. But maybe it's the municipality. If they proceed to violate fundamental rights, maybe its the individual. One of the best tools citizens had in earlier day was the concept of jury nullification. A quick example would be this: I am walking my dog at midnight and I am stopped and frisked and the officers finds me carrying a gun. Because this is technically illegal in NJ (even though that law violates my rights) I am arrested and tried. Now, the judge will tell the jury that if they believe that I was carrying a gun, then they must find me guilty because that's the law and these are the facts. Back then, the jury knew that they could determine the facts and the law. If they felt the law violated the person's rights, they voted to exonerate and the court could do nothing about this. This was a great check on overweening government and ridiculous laws that infringe on our rights. This tool is still available to jurors today only it is gravely frowned upon by judges because it lessens their power.

HOTB: The second amendment protects my right to "keep and bear Arms." According to the language of the amendment, this protection is not confined to my home, my car or the range. You know that it is impossible to get a license to carry in this state. This is a violation of the constitution - even if 9 judges can find some way to say that it is not. You know that I know your argument is accurately representing the law, technically speaking. I am trying to get you to justify the substance of the position, and to not simply retreat into the "well, it's legal" or the "supreme court says we can do it" US citizens have a God-given right (enshrined in the 2nd Amendment) to defend themselves. NJ violates this right. The kicker is (from your past posts) I think you agree with me, yet you need to find someway to justify how its okay for you to assist in this violation. An unjust law is not made just simply because the government says it is. I think it is indisputable that the SC has a pretty poor record of defending the constitution.

Robert,
"US citizens have a God-given right (enshrined in the 2nd Amendment)"? Where is gods or any gods name used in the second amendment? Since I donot believe in a made up supreme being is it still my right also? Or I am left out because I donot believe in your god?

Robert- NJ allows you to defend yourself, as does every other state. NJ just doesn't allow certain people to carry a gun around with them 24/7. I happen to agree with you regarding the fact that you should be allowed to concealed carry, but that still doesn't mean that NJ is violating one of your God given rights by not allowing you to carry a gun in public. Washington DC violated peoples 2nd Amendment Rights (see DC vs. Heller), but NJ allows you to own handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. The Founders were big on States Rights and not allowing the Federal Government to interfere. The way I see it Robert, you can either stand on a soapbox and rally the people to your cause, or you can complain in internet forums about not being allowed to carry a gun. Only one of those two options even gives you a minuscule of a chance at making a difference. Go be loud!

@BM: I am sorry you are offended by my assertion that the bill of rights are God-given. These rights are also provided by the laws of nature and common sense. In either event, they apply to everyone. I don't remember ever suggesting that they do not.
@HOTB: you have been very forthright through out this conversation, but the suggestion that NJ allows you to defend yourself is simply not true. NJ does not allow anyone (save the select few who can get a superior court judge to deem that they are in imminent danger of losing life or limb) to carry a loaded firearms outside of their home. You know this is true and this is a violation of the constitution, the laws of nature and the laws of common sense. Again, if you are content deferring to the SC because of their self ordained authority, then okay. But there are other ways. Also, isn't complaining on an internet site a way of rallying people to a cause (perhaps not the most effective one). Certainly there are other ways as well to convince people, but at this point, this is really all I have time for and really I don't even have that. After all I have to work almost an entire half a year to pay the taxes that politicians use to violate my rights and those of others. It is great fun though to have these discussions and I thank all who took the time.

Chief: You have a lot to say, some of which is helpful but why are you so mean and condescending to the people on here? You constantly call them fools, sheep etc. What exactly do you do that makes you so much smarter than everyone on here?

i READ AND LEARN thats exactly what i do to make me smarter and i do not believe what i am told by those who benefit by the lies.........it is not time, to be nice any more.....you must wake up NOW.....sorry if it offends you.....believe it or not, my words will help you more than any politician who talks nice to you and tells you what you want to hear ......i may be rude (on purpose) but they make you to do things at the threat of force.....so who is really the mean one ????????????

The declaration of war against public employee unions and public employee salaries and benefits is disgraceful period. Again, I am not a public employee.

There is no such thing as a public war against present or retired public employees or in your case police officers. But there is a disgraceful public war being waged by present and retired public and governmental employees including police officers against overtaxed taxpayers. If the present and retired government and public employees and police officers feel they are being underpaid well then find a real job working for private employers. No one is begging you to stay working for the government. Really.
KC, do you dream of being a dramatic actor? You sure sound like a wannabe. And try being honest about who you really are. Again, you are not honest.

It's odd that the largest expenses in the state budget are all payroll related same as towns, counties and schools yet public employees are not responsible.

This is a case of the 1-2% public workers in NJ getting paid for by the other 98% at expense of themselves.

In 14, expect even more pressure on taxes as the state has to pay more for pensions which will probably come at the expense of state aid. It's not like the Feds where NJ can just print money and kick the can.

Imagine if instead of pensions, that 1.7 B could go to property tax relief?

Pension Battles

The biggest single funding increase in the FY14 budget is the estimated $690 million hike in the cost of state pension payments from $1.06 billion this year to almost $1.7 billion next year.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/02/03/analysis-christie-s-fiscal-cliff-3-billion-and-counting/

Joe T. It is actually much worse. There are 800, 000 public leeches active and retired being paid by 8,000,000 NJ citizens. Then when you subtract the many in NJ who pay no taxes , it probably drops to below 6,000,000 tax paying hosts paying to support 800,000 leeches. And this is just on local and state level. When you start to include the federal level. The middle class taxpayer does not have a chance to make a honest living and support this Ponzi. The math just does not allow it.

Nuclear Power Plant

Thanks. Lacey benefits more than the rest because of this business which keeps taxes low there. Good for them. Doesn't mean everyone else isn't screwed by high property taxes.