View Full Version : Ending excessive police force starts with....
You have to read this one to believe it. The fail here is beyond comprehension:
Ending excessive police force starts with new rules of engagement
Recent deaths at the hands of police in Ferguson, Mo., and on Staten Island, N.Y., have rightly raised questions about illegal force and racial bias in law enforcement. But a more basic question also needs to be weighed: Should police be permitted to initiate force when confronting misdemeanors and other non-serious crimes? The answer should be no.
The existing rules of engagement for police in the United States invite violence, not just when officers act abusively but also when their conduct falls clearly within the limits of the law. There is no question that police in the United States can lawfully arrest anyone they see jaywalking or selling single cigarettes. And there is equally no question that any American who refuses a police order to come to the station can be forced by violence to comply.
But should police be permitted to initiate force in such cases?
Consider what arrests are for. An arrest is not punishment: After all, there has been no conviction at that point. The purpose of an arrest is to prevent crime and to aid in prosecution by establishing identity, gathering evidence and preventing flight. The steps taken to secure arrests therefore must, at every point, be proportional to the suspected crimes that underlie the arrests.
The current police rules of engagement violate these basic principles at every turn. Convictions for jaywalking and selling single cigarettes — the predicate offenses in Ferguson and Staten Island, respectively — effectively never carry jail sentences, and nobody thinks that they should. Fines are the proper punishments for these minor crimes.
But under current law, when the police arrest someone based on nothing more than probable cause of a minor crime, they can treat the wrongdoer more severely than the punishment that would ordinarily be imposed by a court of law, even after a full trial. We believe that the New York Police Department violated current law when Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed Eric Garner in a chokehold. But under current rules of engagement, Garner’s saying “Don’t touch me” unquestionably authorized the police to initiate the use of force — non-lethal force, but still force — to subdue him.
Cont:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ending-excessive-police-force-starts-with-new-rules-of-engagement/2014/12/25/7fa379c0-8a1e-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html
That makes my head hurt... Seriously.
That makes my head hurt... Seriously.
And when you realize it's not written by a couple of high school students, but two Yale Law profs, it's beyond comprehension. They don't even have the basic facts correct any non LEO or lawyer can spot. WTF?
This is actually a new mindset similar to communism, national socialism and things like that.
I don't have a name for it, but basically it's another entitlement mentality that believes that certain people (mostly qualified by race) have the right to engage in violent criminal activity including assault and attempted murder but retain the right to surrender without consequence at any moment if things begin to go bad for them.
Ironically, if ever there were people who should be put in camps and eliminated from society, these kinds of people should be the first ones to go.
I'd be interested in seeing the statistics around the total number of police - citizen encounters and the percentage of those where deadly force was used. I would guess that number is extremely low. I also postulate that we have a people problem, not a cop problem. Stop resisting, or worse, attacking and you won't get shot in most instances.
Facts please.
ETA: Regardless of the rules of engagement, the officers will ALWAYS have the right to defend themselves. Period, end of story.
And when you realize it's not written by a couple of high school students, but two Yale Law profs, it's beyond comprehension. They don't even have the basic facts correct any non LEO or lawyer can spot. WTF?
Well our CIC was a constitutional law professor so that doesn't really say much about SMEs in that field nowadays unfortunately...
I really want to see these know nothing's spend one day as a Law Enforcement Officer. Just want them to walk one mile in a Peace Officers shoes (preferably in the meanest, roughest getto in US), to have just a glimmer of what their actualy talking about. I am not a LEO just a Pro 2A Citizen and a lot of the time I see Officers showing amazing restraint, certainly more than I would have. Yes get rid of the bad ones, that small percentage of officers that abuse their position... Just like we should get rid of bad professors, the ones who abuse their educational position.
Mauser KAR98K
12-30-14, 18:49
I really want to see these know nothing's spend one day as a Law Enforcement Officer. Just want them to walk one mile in a Peace Officers shoes (preferably in the meanest, roughest getto in US), to have just a glimmer of what their actualy talking about. I am not a LEO just a Pro 2A Citizen and a lot of the time I see Officers showing amazing restraint, certainly more than I would have. Yes get rid of the bad ones, that small percentage of officers that abuse their position... Just like we should get rid of bad professors, the ones who abuse their educational position.
Send them to Detroit.
Averageman
12-30-14, 19:28
You have to read this one to believe it. The fail here is beyond comprehension:
Ending excessive police force starts with new rules of engagement
Recent deaths at the hands of police in Ferguson, Mo., and on Staten Island, N.Y., have rightly raised questions about illegal force and racial bias in law enforcement. But a more basic question also needs to be weighed: Should police be permitted to initiate force when confronting misdemeanors and other non-serious crimes? The answer should be no.
The existing rules of engagement for police in the United States invite violence, not just when officers act abusively but also when their conduct falls clearly within the limits of the law. There is no question that police in the United States can lawfully arrest anyone they see jaywalking or selling single cigarettes. And there is equally no question that any American who refuses a police order to come to the station can be forced by violence to comply.
But should police be permitted to initiate force in such cases?
Consider what arrests are for. An arrest is not punishment: After all, there has been no conviction at that point. The purpose of an arrest is to prevent crime and to aid in prosecution by establishing identity, gathering evidence and preventing flight. The steps taken to secure arrests therefore must, at every point, be proportional to the suspected crimes that underlie the arrests.
The current police rules of engagement violate these basic principles at every turn. Convictions for jaywalking and selling single cigarettes — the predicate offenses in Ferguson and Staten Island, respectively — effectively never carry jail sentences, and nobody thinks that they should. Fines are the proper punishments for these minor crimes.
But under current law, when the police arrest someone based on nothing more than probable cause of a minor crime, they can treat the wrongdoer more severely than the punishment that would ordinarily be imposed by a court of law, even after a full trial. We believe that the New York Police Department violated current law when Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed Eric Garner in a chokehold. But under current rules of engagement, Garner’s saying “Don’t touch me” unquestionably authorized the police to initiate the use of force — non-lethal force, but still force — to subdue him.
Cont:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ending-excessive-police-force-starts-with-new-rules-of-engagement/2014/12/25/7fa379c0-8a1e-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html
These Chuckle Heads are talking in circles.
I don't think anyone wants anymore of these kinds of incidents to take place, in order for that to happen you have two choices.
A) Make People behave and be civil but also be unwilling to make allowances for anyone regardless of race, gender, skin color or religion.
B) Be willing to go down our current path and invite anarchy.
I hope these two Mopes leave the hallowed halls of academia only to get a kick in the nads in the parking lot and have their wallets and their Prius stolen.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-30-14, 19:54
There is some stat that cops in NY have basically stopped policing.
http://nypost.com/2014/12/29/arrests-plummet-following-execution-of-two-cops/
Great time to start a career in crime.
Averageman
12-30-14, 19:56
I read that earlier, can you blame them?
Moose-Knuckle
12-31-14, 03:55
This is actually a new mindset similar to communism, national socialism and things like that.
I don't have a name for it, but basically it's another entitlement mentality that believes that certain people (mostly qualified by race) have the right to engage in violent criminal activity including assault and attempted murder but retain the right to surrender without consequence at any moment if things begin to go bad for them.
Ironically, if ever there were people who should be put in camps and eliminated from society, these kinds of people should be the first ones to go.
How about "Thugism"?
After the George Zimmerman verdict came in and Holder spoke at the NAACP national convention setting his/their sites on self-defense case law it's not hard to see where this is all going. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have the right to protect themselves and now the LEO's shouldn't have the legal means to protect themselves or the public at large. AKA the criminal culture that is so prevalent in our urban centers demand Carte Blanche to do "hood s**t" with impunity.
Sitting in the safety of their comfy university office....
I'd be interested in seeing the statistics around the total number of police - citizen encounters and the percentage of those where deadly force was used. I would guess that number is extremely low. I also postulate that we have a people problem, not a cop problem. Stop resisting, or worse, attacking and you won't get shot in most instances.
Facts please.
ETA: Regardless of the rules of engagement, the officers will ALWAYS have the right to defend themselves. Period, end of story.
Bill O'Reily had this stat on his show last month. It was less than 1/100 of a percent...
Send them to Detroit.
Or Ferguson or Berkeley Missouri
This is beyond insane or retarded.
Fact is, for jaywalking (since it was referenced) you would only be given a ticket (or more than likely a warning). However if you refuse to take that citation, or state "im not paying or showing up to court"...guess what, you will no longer be released on your own recognizance. You will be handcuffed, searched, and transported to jail to make sure you do show up to court (at least your arraignment) or pay the bond to get out. Only if you RESIST being arrested, stopped, or cited will hands be put on you. And since the author failed to mention this little factoid I'll address it with my personal mindset......If you go for my service weapon, no matter why I contacted you, you are entering a world of pain.....
These ****ing morons fail to understand that Police are not authorized to use force just for their own shits and giggles. If you break the law, and act like an asshole or an idiot, there are real repercussions for those actions. And actions will be taken to make you comply if you choose not to. (yes I know there are circumstances where Police abuse their power and act outside of their authority, and those that do should be fired and prosecuted....which is why I am totally against unions and glad im not apart of one)
I have never had to arm bar, chase, tase, or tackle someone that acted like a civilized human being and complied with my lawful justified requests. On the other hand, I have had to do that with dirtbags that acted in the opposite way....go figure right????
Lets just face it. The anarchists in this country are salivating over this situation and see it as an opportunity to begin pushing their agenda in the mainstream. They do not want the rule of law in this country and they will piggy back on any party (liberal, conservative, libertarian) that they can to further their agenda. They want anarchy because they believe some sort of utopia will come out of not have to obey any laws or rules........lol...right.
What our esteemed professors fail to realize is that the use of force is not in response to the initial violations. Instead, the force is initiated by the suspect when they begin to resist arrest and proportionally escalated by the police in response to the suspect's behavior AFTER the initial violation. In Mr. Garner's case, the choke hold (or headlock if you are so inclined) was not applied for selling onesies, but was instead applied for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer when he began slapping their hands away as they attempted to place the cuffs. As for Mr. Brown, he was not shot for the initial crimes of jaywalking or even for the strong arm robbery that he committed in the moments prior to his encounter with Officer Wilson. He was shot as he participated in the aggravated battery of a police officer which caused the officer to reasonably fear for his life/safety.
"Sir, would you kindly, please, accompany me to the police station? No? OK. Well, Thanks anyway."
Averageman
12-31-14, 11:16
It's all about options.
A) If you act decent, be polite and comply you can probobly walk away without even a ticket for what you're doing. If you do get a ticket, take the ticket and if you want to fight, fight in court.
B) If you act like an animal and scream and shout and wave your arms around like an idiot, you will get some handcuffs, a ride, some time in booking and the same ticket you might have been able to charm your way out of in the first place by being nice, polite and talking in a civil tone.
If you decide to take option B then you have left the Cop with no way out, he has to take some action. The Cop isn't handing out a judgement on your crime, he is acting upon your ability to move about safely in civil society. In third grade terms, "If you can't behave Jimmy, you'll have to stand in the corner for a while." If you decide to ride option B to it's full measure of stupid you may get a lot more pain and suffering for your efforts.
Rewriting the entire justice system for folks with and entitlement mindset, poor manners and a lack of common sense is not the way to fix this.
Eurodriver
12-31-14, 11:40
"Sir, would you kindly, please, accompany me to the police station? No? OK. Well, Thanks anyway."
You joke.
This is actually what they want.
You joke.
This is actually what they want.
I know, but said with tongue firmly in cheek. This is EXACTLY what they want.
"Sir, would you kindly, please, accompany me to the police station? No? OK. Well, Thanks anyway."
I suddenly want to watch Demolition Man. I don't know why... :)
http://youtu.be/9bOQitInC84
This is beyond insane or retarded.
Fact is, for jaywalking (since it was referenced) you would only be given a ticket (or more than likely a warning). However if you refuse to take that citation, or state "im not paying or showing up to court"...guess what, you will no longer be released on your own recognizance. You will be handcuffed, searched, and transported to jail to make sure you do show up to court (at least your arraignment) or pay the bond to get out. Only if you RESIST being arrested, stopped, or cited will hands be put on you. And since the author failed to mention this little factoid I'll address it with my personal mindset......If you go for my service weapon, no matter why I contacted you, you are entering a world of pain.....
These ****ing morons fail to understand that Police are not authorized to use force just for their own shits and giggles. If you break the law, and act like an asshole or an idiot, there are real repercussions for those actions. And actions will be taken to make you comply if you choose not to. (yes I know there are circumstances where Police abuse their power and act outside of their authority, and those that do should be fired and prosecuted....which is why I am totally against unions and glad im not apart of one)
I have never had to arm bar, chase, tase, or tackle someone that acted like a civilized human being and complied with my lawful justified requests. On the other hand, I have had to do that with dirtbags that acted in the opposite way....go figure right????
Lets just face it. The anarchists in this country are salivating over this situation and see it as an opportunity to begin pushing their agenda in the mainstream. They do not want the rule of law in this country and they will piggy back on any party (liberal, conservative, libertarian) that they can to further their agenda. They want anarchy because they believe some sort of utopia will come out of not have to obey any laws or rules........lol...right.
And if there's anarchy, who will get blamed? The police for "not doing their job."
Why are educated idiots like these attempting to destroy the very fabric of our society? Personally? I think a detailed medical evaluation of their rectal-cranial inversion is in order. :(
Averageman
12-31-14, 13:26
Why are educated idiots like these attempting to destroy the very fabric of our society? Personally? I think a detailed medical evaluation of their rectal-cranial inversion is in order. :(
Why do you need an X-Ray of my foot?
Ending excessive police force starts with.... Getting rid of stop & frisk laws? (http://7online.com/news/exclusive-bronx-man-claims-police-brutality-caught-on-camera/296032/)
While certain laws and procedures can embolden the few to act out the laws are only a small part of the problem. The fundamental problem lies with he man. In cases of REAL abuse the abuser would have done it no matter what laws are on the books. If someone is so messed up in their head a bunch of words in a ledger somewhere are pretty meaningless.
If you want to stop police abuse; we must first be honest about what is considered abuse. Miley Brown was not abuse. Gardner is questionable decision making, but I'm not 100% sure I'd call it abuse. Once we get over crying wolf at every opportunity then we can move forward. That forward movement needs to be done by the departments and the good LEO within those departments. No new laws will do shit if nobody enforces them or enforces them selectively. Good departments and officers need to retake the reigns and aggressively stomp on the few bad apples within their ranks.
Ending excessive police force starts with.... Getting rid of stop & frisk laws? (http://7online.com/news/exclusive-bronx-man-claims-police-brutality-caught-on-camera/296032/)
Not saying I am for stop and frisk or against. But from what I saw and heard it seems to be an officer issue. If that officer calls for assistance they may not know why they are using force to detain the person. The misconduct above lies with the officer who started the encounter.
Ending excessive police force starts with.... Getting rid of stop & frisk laws? (http://7online.com/news/exclusive-bronx-man-claims-police-brutality-caught-on-camera/296032/)
Where are such "stop and frisk" laws in place? Are these statutes or ordinances? State or Municipal?
And lets not be silly, the unedited version was "Ending excessive police force starts with "getting rid of laws?" right lol
Where are such "stop and frisk" laws in place? Are these statutes or ordinances? State or Municipal?
And lets not be silly, the unedited version was "Ending excessive police force starts with "getting rid of laws?" right lol
NY NY is the only place that had one, I am not 100% sure it is still around. I talked to an old NYPD who now works with me down here who said his last few there is was not really used like it was when it was first enacted.
And lets not be silly, the unedited version was "Ending excessive police force starts with "getting rid of laws?" right lol
No, but getting rid of a few of the inordinate amount of laws we have would be a start. The over criminalization of America is a reality. The original post was linking to several other recent incidents, none of the "major" ones, but I figured I wouldn't pile on so I edited them out. Here's another if you're bored. http://www.wafb.com/story/27711944/the-investigators-man-recording-brpd-actions-thrown-to-ground-arrested?autostart=true
Happy New Years to everyone! :)
No, but getting rid of a few of the inordinate amount of laws we have would be a start. The over criminalization of America is a reality. The original post was linking to several other recent incidents, none of the "major" ones, but I figured I wouldn't pile on so I edited them out. Here's another if you're bored. http://www.wafb.com/story/27711944/the-investigators-man-recording-brpd-actions-thrown-to-ground-arrested?autostart=true
Happy New Years to everyone! :)
Oh, so no info on "stop and frisk laws" then? Ok.
I know this is really crazy, like coast to coast am nutty, but I've been on this planet 28yrs and have some how not been abused by "THA MAN". Its odd, but I usually don't find myself in bad situations, doing stupid things......weird I know......I must be an outlier in this world of mass police beatings. However its also odd that none of my friends from high school, college, or post schooling have ever been abused by "THA MAN".....again just out there CRA-CRA in the land of mass Police beatings.
Oh wait, I don't do stupid illegal things or go to places where such happenings occur, and neither do my associates. Hmmmmmmm go figure.
I think I'm going to request some numbers from my LT or Cpt. Numbers of calls for service vs. number of use of force reports. I would bet its 50:1...or 100:1.
No, but getting rid of a few of the inordinate amount of laws we have would be a start. The over criminalization of America is a reality. The original post was linking to several other recent incidents, none of the "major" ones, but I figured I wouldn't pile on so I edited them out. Here's another if you're bored. http://www.wafb.com/story/27711944/the-investigators-man-recording-brpd-actions-thrown-to-ground-arrested?autostart=true
Happy New Years to everyone! :)
The head of the kgb once said "show me the man and I will find the crime." it's getting that way in the US especially since no human being can keep track of everything that is illegal. If the cops look at you long enough they'll find something to smack you with
Oh wait, I don't do stupid illegal things or go to places where such happenings occur, and neither do my associates. Hmmmmmmm go figure.
Do you have the entire state and federal criminal code memorized? How about the entire code of federal regulations? Or the laws of every nation on the planet?
Because if the answer to any of the above is no, how exactly can you say that with certainty? And for the last example, there is a federal statute that makes you criminally liable if any plant, animal or product of same is illegal to harvest or possess any where in the world, regardless of whether yours was harvested legally. Horticulturists have done time for greenhouse grown orchids because the variety was illegal to harvest wild somewhere else. They didn't think they were criminals either till someone looked long and hard enough
MorphCross
01-01-15, 01:10
Look up the info on the authors for this article. From Yales own Faculty webpage:http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/ianayres.htm
http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/DMarkovits.htm
Classes Ian Ayres teaches at Yale:
Antitrust
Civil Rights
Commercial Law
Contracts
Corporations
Corporate Finance
Intellectual Property
Law and Economics
LGBT Litigation Seminar
Property
Quantitative Corporate Finance
Quantitative Methods
Classes Daniel Markovits teaches at Yale:
Contracts
Advanced Contracts
Federal Income Taxation
Law and Globalization
The Theory & History of Toleration
I'm pretty sure this show their level of Qualifications to speak on how police can or should do their jobs. I would be shocked if either of these schmucks had spent much time as prosecutors or defense attorneys.
LGBT litigation..... Nice..
NY NY is the only place that had one, I am not 100% sure it is still around. I talked to an old NYPD who now works with me down here who said his last few there is was not really used like it was when it was first enacted.
Sorry if I am mistaken, but it seems to me that some of the posters here don't understand the concept of stop and frisk.
The landmark Supreme Court case for 'Stop and Frisk' is 'Terry vs. Ohio. An officer named McFadden was working a pickpocket detail in downtown Cleveland when he noticed two men acting suspiciously, they met by a traffic signal on a corner and one at a time walked slowly down the block, past a dry cleaning establishment, they loitered for a moment before returning to the traffic signal once again looking at the dry cleaners as they passed. McFadden watched the men do this several times before they were joined by a third man. The three talked together for a moment then the third man walked away. Several more minutes passed, the two remaining men repeated their actions before walking off in the direction the other man had. By now McFadden is convinced he has just observed these guys casing the dry cleaners for a robbery. This was in the 1960's, he didn't have a portable radio, cell phones were not invented, he did what he could, he followed them. As they rejoined the third man in front of a store McFadden approached the three, identified himself as a police officer and asked them for their names. The three men were not forthcoming and McFadden, fearing they were armed for a stick up, grabbed Terry, spun him around and placing Terry between he and the other two patted down the outside of Terry's clothing, he found a revolver in Terry's overcoat pocket. Maintaining control of Terry he hustled the three into a store, apparently to have store personnel call the station, and stood them against a wall with their hands in the air. He removed Terry's coat and took the revolver he had felt from the pocket, he then patted down the other two and found a gun in a man named Chilton's pocket. The third man wasn't armed. They were ultimately arrested and tried for carrying concealed weapons.
Ultimately the case reached the Supreme Court. Cutting to the chase, the Warren Court found that
1) based upon articulable INDIVIDUALIZED reasonable suspicion a police officer could momentarily detain someone they suspected of criminal wrong doing in order to identify them and secure an explanation for their actions. The Court also emphasized that the test standard courts should employ is an objective one. “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate..... simple " 'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." (case cite)
2) where the officer has reason to belief he is dealing with armed subjects, the officer may, for his protection and the protection of nearby citizens, conduct a brief pat down of the outer garments solely for the discovery of weapons. The court stated that the purpose of such searches was not the discovery of evidence, fruits or instrumentalities of a crime.
Recap: Based on articulable reasonable suspicion an officer may momentarily detain a person in order to identify them and ascertain reasons for their actions; if the officer reasonably believes the subject is armed, the officer may conduct a brief pat down of the subject's clothing in order to discover weapons which may harm the officer or others. This frisk or pat down does not automatically follow the stop.
The problem is that, sorry to say, many officers can't tell you where their authority to do such things comes from, and do not understand the Constitutional ramifications of just randomly stopping folks based on profiles. That is where NYPD went wrong in my opinion. It is a training and attitude problem.
The Supreme Court noted this in their decision in Terry v. Ohio: the question was not whether the stop-and-frisk procedure was proper by itself, but whether the exclusionary rule was an appropriate deterrent of police misconduct during such encounters.
“ Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be effectively used to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime. ” — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 14–15
Do you have the entire state and federal criminal code memorized? How about the entire code of federal regulations? Or the laws of every nation on the planet?
Because if the answer to any of the above is no, how exactly can you say that with certainty? And for the last example, there is a federal statute that makes you criminally liable if any plant, animal or product of same is illegal to harvest or possess any where in the world, regardless of whether yours was harvested legally. Horticulturists have done time for greenhouse grown orchids because the variety was illegal to harvest wild somewhere else. They didn't think they were criminals either till someone looked long and hard enough
Lol you cant be serious?? Im not a horticulturists, so it sounds like I'm "good"....wow...
What our esteemed professors fail to realize is that the use of force is not in response to the initial violations. Instead, the force is initiated by the suspect when they begin to resist arrest and proportionally escalated by the police in response to the suspect's behavior AFTER the initial violation. In Mr. Garner's case, the choke hold (or headlock if you are so inclined) was not applied for selling onesies, but was instead applied for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer when he began slapping their hands away as they attempted to place the cuffs. As for Mr. Brown, he was not shot for the initial crimes of jaywalking or even for the strong arm robbery that he committed in the moments prior to his encounter with Officer Wilson. He was shot as he participated in the aggravated battery of a police officer which caused the officer to reasonably fear for his life/safety.
Thank you for making this point. I was going to address this same thing until I saw you had already done it and done it well.
I agree.
I know this is really crazy, like coast to coast am nutty, but I've been on this planet 28yrs and have some how not been abused by "THA MAN". Its odd, but I usually don't find myself in bad situations, doing stupid things......weird I know......I must be an outlier in this world of mass police beatings. However its also odd that none of my friends from high school, college, or post schooling have ever been abused by "THA MAN".....again just out there CRA-CRA in the land of mass Police beatings.
Oh wait, I don't do stupid illegal things or go to places where such happenings occur, and neither do my associates. Hmmmmmmm go figure.
I normally agree with what you have to say, and I respect your first hand, experience based contributions to the discussions that happen here on this forum. On this issue, however, I think you are off base and out of touch. I don't know what area you grew up in, or what experiences you've had, but I can tell you, first hand that there are police officers in this country that go around roughing people up and generally being grown up playground bullies WITHOUT any good cause. I have personally been the victim of this behavior multiple times and so have equally innocent friends and acquaintances in the area where I grew up. I am as white as white gets. I have no criminal record. My worst offenses were speeding tickets as a teenager, many years ago, and these beatings and intimidation did not occur during any said traffic stops for speeding.
Want an example? I was pulled over and forcibly removed from my vehicle without a word one night while driving home. I was wearing regular in-offensive shorts and a t-shirt and obeying all traffic laws. I was never told to get out of the vehicle, and not a word was spoken as a man twice my size literally snatched me out of my car through the open window. As I stood handcuffed facing a wall, they searched my car without probable cause or permission. When I asked why they were doing this, I was spun around, gut punched and turned back around. I was then asked if I had any more questions. I didn't. I was scared shitless. They found a baseball bat behind my seat in a bag with several mitts and some baseballs. They very aggressively asked me why I was driving around with a weapon. I said it was for playing baseball, which it was, and was greeted with another punch to the gut. At that time a call came over the radio (a bunch of code numbers and mumbo jumbo that I didn't understand at the time...) and all but two of the cops (there were three cars and six cops by now) jumped in their cars and left. I was berated and taunted as they moved to their cars and told I was "lucky" as they left. The remaining two officers seemed less hostile and after a few minutes, I asked what this was all about. He gave me one sentence and one sentence only before uncuffing me and getting in his car and driving away. "There has been some suspected skin head activity in the area..." I was sporting a flat top at the time. And not a short recently cut flat top. No tattoos or piercings. No bumper stickers with swastikas or anything else. No black trench coat.
This is not a unique story. Many "regular" boys in my area had similar experiences with several of the local PDs. While you may have not had this issue wherever you grew up, it is a mistake to assume that all of this is made up by minority criminals with a sense of entitlement and an axe to grind with "THA MAN". There is police abuse in this country and it is right to call attention to it and stop it so that it does not undermine the good job that the VAST majority of officers, like yourself, do everyday. You may not know them, or have heard of this, but there are cops out there that go around breaking the law, abusing their power and abusing people. I view these individuals as worse than the criminals they are supposed to be policing as their crimes happen under the color of authority. Where I grew up, some of the police force was viewed as yet another "gang" presence to be avoided at all costs.
Just though you should know.
Back to the subject at hand: These two professors are either being intentionally deceptive in order to push a political agenda, or they are incredibly out of touch with reality. Possibly both.
The landmark Supreme Court case for 'Stop and Frisk' is 'Terry vs. Ohio...
"To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. There have been powerful hy- draulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has proba- bly never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up when- ever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can “seize” and “search” him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting in Terry v. Ohio (1968)
While I don't totally agree with Rand Paul's "taxes killed Eric Garner" theme, I think there is some valid points. Dems' taxes drive cigs into a profitable bootleg market which lowers the tax revenue so police are dispatched to enforce the law.
Not just cigarettes, I believe there are far too many revenue generating, populace control, ticky tack laws on the books that turn otherwise ordinary people into criminals and put police more potential needlessly violent confrontations than they should be.
Imagine if your state implemented a buck a round ammo tax?
While I've never had a negative experience with LE, haven't even been pulled over in over 15 years, I believe they're charged with enforcing too many unnecessary laws that put their lives and the ones they contact in unnecessary danger.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
While I don't totally agree with Rand Paul's "taxes killed Eric Garner" theme, I think there is some valid points. Dems' taxes drive cigs into a profitable bootleg market which lowers the tax revenue so police are dispatched to enforce the law.
Not just cigarettes, I believe there are far too many revenue generating, populace control, ticky tack laws on the books that turn otherwise ordinary people into criminals and put police more potential needlessly violent confrontations than they should be.
Imagine if your state implemented a buck a round ammo tax?
While I've never had a negative experience with LE, haven't even been pulled over in over 15 years, I believe they're charged with enforcing too many unnecessary laws that put their lives and the ones they contact in unnecessary danger.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are far too many criminal laws on the books where the only shred of harm is depriving government of unnecessarily burdensome taxes or control over it's subjects. Enforcement of those laws is primarily upon the demands of bureaucratic functionaries with no business wielding any authority over anyone. It's the enforcement of these laws that initiate the PR problems between the public and LE. Never forget that behind every pointless law is some miserable jackass who isn't happy unless everyone around him is under thumb. :(
Referencing the Staten Island choke case, I seriously doubt that police were out looking for illegal tobacco vendors. But one cop did encounter a known criminal with multiple arrests breaking the law. Once confronted, what actions did the alleged victim take? Citizens ignoring police directives set themselves up to be arrested by whatever force necessary. Now, we can expect all sorts of bullshit posturing by attention seekers and videotaping enthusiasts. I'm an old white dude with a squeaky clean background. If I'm double parked, and if the beat cop tells me to move, then I will move. If I tell him to get ****ed and continue to ignore him, then I can expect a trip to the jail house. The worst outcome of Statin Island/Ferguson incidents is widespread second guessing of police by those who weren't there and who are uninformed/misinformed. I fear that the resulting "world view" will determine public policy.
Dare I point out that one group of citizens has an inordinately high rate of confrontations with police?
Referencing the Staten Island choke case, I seriously doubt that police were out looking for illegal tobacco vendors. But one cop did encounter a known criminal with multiple arrests breaking the law...
How do you know he was breaking the law? What law was he breaking?
I do believe that a complaint was called in by the owner/manager of a store which sold cigarettes (by the pack and carton) about him selling singles in front of their store.
I've been told by NYPD retirees that while they worked for NYPD, there was a code enforcement division which was tasked with taking care of such complaints as unlicensed vendors, etc.
I do believe that a complaint was called in by the owner/manager of a store which sold cigarettes (by the pack and carton) about him selling singles in front of their store.
I've been told by NYPD retirees that while they worked for NYPD, there was a code enforcement division which was tasked with taking care of such complaints as unlicensed vendors, etc.
What is the definition of an "unlicensed vendor?" I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse but it does matter in terms of "the law." My own opinion is if someone is in possession of something they legally own then they have the right to sell it or give it away freely of their own volition. What if you bought a toaster in NJ and decided to sell it in NY?
This article brings up some very salient points (http://thedailybanter.com/2014/12/eric-garner-killed-illegally-selling-loose-cigarettes/) and includes a video of the incident that I hadn't seen elsewhere. From the article --->
Like Rand Paul said, the law Garner was accused of breaking wasn’t for selling loose cigarettes, it was for selling untaxed cigarettes. Since there’s a dispute over whether an actual purchase was observed, the only way Garner can now be considered to have broken the law is if he possessed illegal cigarettes. The police reportedly found four and-a-half packs of Newports on Garner, but those reports don’t specify if those packs were untaxed. Even if you grant that they were, like the 23 packs he had been apprehended with previously, those 90 or so Newports would still be legal under state law:
However, a use tax is not imposed if it meets one of three exceptions: 1) the cigarette tax imposed under § 471 has already been paid; 2) the cigarettes are exempt from taxation under New York State tax law; or 3) the person brought into the state four hundred cigarettes or less.
“Not that red shirt, there’s another guy in a red shirt?”
"To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. There have been powerful hy- draulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has proba- bly never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up when- ever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can “seize” and “search” him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting in Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Let's put those together and flesh out/give the issue at hand some context:
The question was not whether the stop-and-frisk procedure was proper by itself, but whether the exclusionary rule was an appropriate deterrent of police misconduct during such encounters.
“ Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be effectively used to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime. ” — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 14–15
"To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. There have been powerful hy- draulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has proba- bly never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up when- ever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can “seize” and “search” him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting in Terry v. Ohio (1968)
The exclusionary rule which the first quote addresses was initially enacted to bar evidence obtained by illegal searches and illegal interrogation from use in Federal Court. In 1961 in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rules applied to all state courts.
In Terry the decision was to weigh whether the fruits of the search which McFadden made would be denied under the exclusionary rule. In Terry, the Court crafted an exemption to the exclusionary rule which gave officers the authority, based upon articulable reasonable suspicion, not a mere whim, to temporarily detain a person whom they had reasonable suspicion was involved in criminal activity; in conjunction with this they also gave officers the authority to conduct a brief external search of the subject's clothing to determine if there was a weapon present. This search (called a 'pat down' or 'frisk') is not an automatic extension of the stop, rather the officer must, once again, be able to articulate the totality of circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to belief a weapon may be present. Almost universally, any other items seized during pat downs are not admissible as evidence. An example of an exception would be when an illegal weapon is found and the person is arrested, anything found during the search incident to arrest would be admissible, assuming that reasonable suspicion existed for the stop and the subsequent 'frisk' which discovered the weapon.
Justice Douglas makes good points, however, this statement 'if the police can pick him up when- ever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can “seize” and “search” him in their discretion, we enter a new regime' substantially overstates the authority which the Terry decision gave officers.
The problem is that many officers are either not adequately trained in Constitutional Law, or choose to ignore their training. I've spent the better part of my adult life training police officers, and I guarantee you that officers leaving our facility have been exposed to Constitutional Law and relevant Supreme Court decisions, they have been tested on the training and have demonstrated the ability to apply the standards in practical exercises. As a staff, we pretty much are consistent in the belief that the 4th, 5th, 1st and 2nd, are the most precious Amendments.
My experiences lead me to believe that other jurisdictions do not train as extensively in this area as our state does. I recently attended several instructor level courses on 'Bias-Free Policing,' a subject of which I am a strong proponent. I disagreed with the way the training was presented, but most distressing were the numerous Constitutional violations which their training videos (primarily patrol car video) contained. I was proud, when at one point, one of the officers attending, who I had helped train about 5 years prior, raised his hand and said, 'So which do you feel is more important in this example, the Constitutional violation or the fact that the officer displayed some bias?' The presenters were surprised by this, one of them a Lt from a large metro agency, said 'what violation?' The other a Phd in Sociology, obviously had no clue. After the officer pretty concisely pointed out the impropriety of the search, the PHd commented, 'we've shown that all over the country, and no one has ever brought that up.'
The problem is that people are fallible and there are people involved in LE.
Let's put those together and flesh out/give the issue at hand some context...
I appreciate your well thought out response, and this may be a topic for another thread, but I think it's interesting stuff. I thought this was an interesting article (http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/2009%20Butler.pdf) and would like to read your thoughts on the following which is copied from it:
The prosecutors argued that the Fourth Amendment, which regulates government searches and seizures, did not apply be- cause Mr. Terry had not been searched and seized within the meaning of the Amendment. The Supreme Court
...emphatically reject[ed] this notion. . . . It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a “search.” Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a “petty indignity.” It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly.
Since the Court found that Mr. Terry had been seized and searched, Fourth Amendment precedent required that police have “probable cause.”89 The Court, however, declined to apply this (relatively) high standard, stating that “we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct–necessarily swift action predi- cated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat–which . . . as a practical matter could not be . . . subjected to the warrant procedure.”90 It held that the Fourth Amend- ment simply required the police conduct to be reasonable, which could be determined by balancing the government interest (in- vestigating crime and officer safety) against the individual in- terest (privacy).91 The Court specifically noted that it was not abandoning the jurisprudence that a search is presumptively unconstitutional if there is no probable cause, but simply creat- ing a limited exception...
He noted that the Court had “always used the language of ‘probable cause’” to access the constitutionality of warrantless seizures of persons.105 Douglas quoted Supreme Court precedent that described the probable cause requirement as having “roots that are deep in our history.”106 In United States v. Henry, the Court stated, “as early American decisions both before and im- mediately after [the Fourth Amendment’s adoption] show, common rumor or report, suspicion or even ‘strong reason to suspect’ was not adequate to support a warrant for arrest. And that principle has survived to this day.”107
That the principle did not survive past the summer day in 1967 that Terry was decided troubled Douglas not only for its practical consequences, but also as a matter of jurisprudence. Douglas noted that there might be a perceived need to give the police more power to “cope with modern forms of lawlessness.”108 The process of changing the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, however, was not up to the Supreme Court; rather “it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a con- stitutional amendment.”109
Mr. Terry was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. The problem is that the police did not find out that he was carrying a concealed weapon until they had seized him, without probable cause, and searched him, without probable cause. The most salient fact for Douglas is that if, prior to the arrest, the police had gone to a magistrate and sought a warrant to search Mr. Terry for a concealed weapon, they wouldn’t have gotten it because here was no probable cause. Now, however, as a result of the Court’s decision, the police could search for a weapon without a warrant and without probable cause. To Douglas this meant that the Terry decision gave the police more power than a magistrate.110
Forget it.
It was a very informative post, read it in my email, and really contributed to the topic at hand. I think you should've kept it posted.
If you PM it to me, I'll put it up.
I'm no legal scholar.
Why are we discussing the legal efficacy and constitutionality of stop and frisk when what the NYPD was a total perversion of it and became something else entirely?
If you PM it to me, I'll put it up.
I'm no legal scholar.
I'll skip the middle man. ;)
From the article that Irish posted:
"The problem is that the police did not find out that he was carrying a concealed weapon until they had seized him, without probable cause, and searched him, without probable cause.[/B]"
The author, and Douglas, make great points, and impassioned arguments. The final quote, which Irish bolded, both highlights the author's and Douglas's argument, and misses the point at the same time.
The Terry majority struggled with the same issue and concern as the dissent, but instead asked whether or not Det. McFadden's search was reasonable (from a Constitutional standpoint), not whether or not the frisk is a search (they agreed that it was). The Court concluded that it was, so long as it was limited in time and scope, limited to weapons, and (even veteran LEO/scholars miss this) based on further suspicion that the person is armed and *presents a threat to the LEO and the nearby public*. The Court also questioned whether or not the exclusionary rule applied to a search done for safety and not for the discovery or evidence.
While the Court did not want to base the officer's stop and frisk on "good faith", a frisk must still be based on a genuine, reasonable and articulable belief that the frisked person is dangerous. The articulation of danger can't be done with a nod and a wink, a broad stroke assertion that because we get a stop we get a frisk, or with blanket "based on my training and experience..." sentences in official reports. In fact, Det. McFadden's considerable experience as a police officer, and specifically his experience in interdicting street crimes, was part of the basis for whether or not he could assert that a crime was about to occur, and that the suspects were a threat to him and others.
Officers who graduate from academies that truly try to impart a respect for the responsibilities that are granted to us by the public and SCOTUS get this, and are frustrated by officers and organizations that don't. 26 Inf's example from his academy is unfortunately not unheard of.
So much for my New Years resolution of not posting in LE threads.
Lol you cant be serious?? Im not a horticulturists, so it sounds like I'm "good"....wow...
I'm totally serious. There are similar laws in other areas as well, not just horticulture, so whether you're "good" or not is still up in the air. As I said before, seeing how complex the totality of state, federal and international law is, there is no possible way for the average human being to know whether their actions are criminal or not, which is to say, a problem.
My ultimate point being that the "problem" with interactions between the police and citizenry at large does not stem from the police, it stems from our political overlords. 99.99% of the time, the police are doing their job of enforcing the law appropriately, the problem is that many times laws they're enforcing are absolutely asinine.
The "I can't breathe" guy in NY was being arrested for selling loose cigarettes. The police did exactly what they were supposed to in arresting him and subduing him when he resisted but at the same time "selling loose cigarettes" should never have been something the police could arrest for anyway. No asinine law, no arrest, no altercation, nobody dead. Murder, rape, robbery, etc, sure beat the crap out of 'em and get 'em behind bars but wtf makes "loose cigarettes" a prime target for police action?
At the end of the day, the police being able to find a violation with enough examination if a feature of the huge, omnipresent state that so many around here, myself included, hate. You can't control people if the threat of force is not constantly hanging over their head.
The_War_Wagon
01-01-15, 22:33
Do flowers fit in tazers? :rolleyes:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6240/6329599867_f868eeb776_z.jpg
Is better "singing" going to be a new requirement for recruits at the police academy? :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ib-Qiyklq-Q
Very well said Nova3930
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Irish in response to your question let me start by saying that the Terry decision was made in the era before the Supreme Court began operating by deciding how the majority wanted to rule and then work out a convoluted legal path to make the decision they wanted to make.
My interest is not that of a legal scholar, rather that of a teacher/practitioner who feels it is essential that officers have a firm understanding of the legal system under which they work. So, I do not know if this is true, and I haven't checked, but my feel is that this is the first time the Supreme Court had determined that contact initiated by the police was a seizure under the 4th; they are then faced with the search which McFadden made.
Thinking this through, they must have realised the shaky ground upon which they were treading 4th Amendment-wise in making this decision. I think they saw no other way to allow police to effectively function as guardians of public safety. Remember, they had to grant the case certiorari in order for it to be heard, so they obviously thought the issue had 4th Amendment issues meriting review. If they had ruled otherwise in the case the implications for law enforcement's continued effectiveness in preventing and solving crime would have been severely curtailed. See a guy at 2:00 in the morning, walking in the alley behind a drug store, who ducks into the shadows as you spotlight the alley? If they had decided as Justice Douglas desired, the officer would make a note of the incident, try to get a good description of the guy and wave a good morning as the man went on his way.
The decision they made was reasonable (in my view) based on what had taken place in the context of the 4th Amendment and society's overriding interest in public safety. The limitations and safeguards they put into place in making the decision all safeguard the individual's rights and limit the scope of police authority.
The Court also got it right in Garner and in Graham vs. Connor.
IMHO they screwed the pooch in Minnesota vs. Dickerson (plain feel doctrine) and most recently in Heien v. North Carolina (an officer doesn't really need to know or follow state statute when developing reasonable suspicion to stop cars)
I have to give you a paragraph from the Heien decision:
Because Fourth Amendment jurisprudence turns on the question of reasonableness, governing officials have traditionally been allowed leeway to enforce the law for the community’s protection. As long as the mistake of fact or law in question was reasonable, the Fourth Amendment does not hold such mistakes to be incompatible with the concept of reasonable suspicion. However, the Court also held that those mistakes must be objectively reasonable; an officer cannot gain the benefits of Fourth Amendment reasonableness through a sloppy or incomplete knowledge of the law.
Which just what the officer did - he parlayed a stop that he didn't actually have a legal basis to make into a consent search.
How's that for some convoluted thinking? I'm with Red Sonia on this one.
[QUOTE=The_War_Wagon;2054672]Do flowers fit in tazers? :rolleyes:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6240/6329599867_f868eeb776_z.jpg
No, the electricity wilts the flowers.
I've always thought it was kind of ironic that a bunch of guys who were in the Reserves/Guard to avoid serving in Viet Nam opened fire on anti-war demonstrators.
Eurodriver
01-02-15, 07:21
No, the electricity wilts the flowers.
I've always thought it was kind of ironic that a bunch of guys who were in the Reserves/Guard to avoid serving in Viet Nam opened fire on anti-war demonstrators.
Job security.
Eurodriver
01-02-15, 07:24
While I've never had a negative experience with LE, haven't even been pulled over in over 15 years, I believe they're charged with enforcing too many unnecessary laws that put their lives and the ones they contact in unnecessary danger.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can get on board with this line of thought.
I'm totally serious. There are similar laws in other areas as well, not just horticulture, so whether you're "good" or not is still up in the air. As I said before, seeing how complex the totality of state, federal and international law is, there is no possible way for the average human being to know whether their actions are criminal or not, which is to say, a problem.
My ultimate point being that the "problem" with interactions between the police and citizenry at large does not stem from the police, it stems from our political overlords. 99.99% of the time, the police are doing their job of enforcing the law appropriately, the problem is that many times laws they're enforcing are absolutely asinine.
The "I can't breathe" guy in NY was being arrested for selling loose cigarettes. The police did exactly what they were supposed to in arresting him and subduing him when he resisted but at the same time "selling loose cigarettes" should never have been something the police could arrest for anyway. No asinine law, no arrest, no altercation, nobody dead. Murder, rape, robbery, etc, sure beat the crap out of 'em and get 'em behind bars but wtf makes "loose cigarettes" a prime target for police action?
At the end of the day, the police being able to find a violation with enough examination if a feature of the huge, omnipresent state that so many around here, myself included, hate. You can't control people if the threat of force is not constantly hanging over their head.
Well in your utopia people don't need any laws for peace/love/bartering do they?
So what you're telling me is that you have an issue with the tax and penal code? So go to your local, state, and federal representatives and get shit changed. I know, I know, "THA MAN" is keeping you down and the fix is in and nobody will listen to your anarchy utopian ideas...bummer.
Fact is, I act like a civilized human being when approached by Police. I don't run, fight, resist lawful detention, or in general act like an asshat. And guess what???? I've never been beaten down by "THA MAN", which is odd since you and Irish believe that Police beat the shit out of everyone they meet on every call they take.
I'll leave you with this. I'm sorry. I'm truly sorry that you hate Police simply because of the job they do. I apologize from the bottom of my jaded heart for the fact that you have to abide by rules and laws.
Mauser KAR98K
01-02-15, 09:24
Well in your utopia people don't need any laws for peace/love/bartering do they?
So what you're telling me is that you have an issue with the tax and penal code? So go to your local, state, and federal representatives and get shit changed. I know, I know, "THA MAN" is keeping you down and the fix is in and nobody will listen to your anarchy utopian ideas...bummer.
Fact is, I act like a civilized human being when approached by Police. I don't run, fight, resist lawful detention, or in general act like an asshat. And guess what???? I've never been beaten down by "THA MAN", which is odd since you and Irish believe that Police beat the shit out of everyone they meet on every call they take.
I'll leave you with this. I'm sorry. I'm truly sorry that you hate Police simply because of the job they do. I apologize from the bottom of my jaded heart for the fact that you have to abide by rules and laws.
I didn't see anywhere in his post that he said he hated the police. He is going after the ever present police state due to a number of left wing politician using the police to effect their agenda.
Well in your utopia people don't need any laws for peace/love/bartering do they?
You're arguing a straw man. No where did I suggest there should be no laws. Don't read things into what I'm saying that are not there. There are plenty of areas where laws are appropriate. The categories of "contract law" and "harming others" pretty much cover the entirety of "peace/love/bartering" without trampling people.
So what you're telling me is that you have an issue with the tax and penal code?
At least here you get it. Yes. Both should be simple enough that an average human being can know whether they're on the right side of the law or not.
So go to your local, state, and federal representatives and get shit changed. I know, I know, "THA MAN" is keeping you down and the fix is in and nobody will listen to your anarchy utopian ideas...bummer.
Reading in things again. The only person bringing up anarchy is you. Taking a very limited view of the role of gov't does not equate to anarchy. And there is no "tha man" keeping anyone down as much as you want to bring up yet another ridiculous straw man. The problem is the political class and the people who elect them, who's first thought about anything they don't like is "there oughta be a law" regardless of whether it's a legitimate area for the excercise of gov't power or not.
Assuming that "more laws are good" and that we should just defer to the electorate is a dangerous trap to fall into. That is the stuff that despots and dictatorships are made out of....
Fact is, I act like a civilized human being when approached by Police. I don't run, fight, resist lawful detention, or in general act like an asshat. And guess what???? I've never been beaten down by "THA MAN", which is odd since you and Irish believe that Police beat the shit out of everyone they meet on every call they take.
I'll leave you with this. I'm sorry. I'm truly sorry that you hate Police simply because of the job they do. I apologize from the bottom of my jaded heart for the fact that you have to abide by rules and laws.
4 paragraphs and 4 instances of reading in things that I never wrote. I'd think you were a far left wing liberal the way you read in straw men to fit your argument. Did you miss the part where I said "99.99% of the time the police are doing their jobs appropriately"? I'd love an explanation for how that equates to "hating the police" and "the police beat the shit out of people continuously." The vast majority of the time police enforce the laws they're given just like they're supposed to. The laws they're given are the ultimate problem.
I'll leave you with this, fix this politically by reforming the criminal code, and there's less opportunity for the police to interact with people, less cause, justified or not, for people to feel as if they're being targeted/oppressed, less danger to the police due to fewer interactions, more opportunity to pursue the most dangerous criminals and get them off the streets and overall everyone will be happier.
I didn't see anywhere in his post that he said he hated the police. He is going after the ever present police state due to a number of left wing politician using the police to effect their agenda.
This man has good reading comprehension. :cool:
ETA
Several years ago the federal criminal code had an estimated 4500 crimes in it. 4500! Anybody here want to state with certainty they're not a criminal?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703749504576172714184601654
The code of federal regulations stood at 175,000 pages at the end of 2013. 70k! I'm sure that number is pushing 200k with Barack running things. Again, anyone want to say with certainty that they're not a criminal?
https://cei.org/blog/new-data-code-federal-regulations-expanding-faster-pace-under-obama
And we haven't even started talking about state laws and regulations yet, much less international, which by statute are widely enforced under federal law.
Irish in response to your question let me start by saying... How's that for some convoluted thinking? I'm with Red Sonia on this one.
Thanks for your take on things. I can get on board with what you're saying... Heien is another ball of wax unto itself worthy of a long conversation.
Averageman
01-02-15, 09:47
4500 Laws on the Books? Perhaps this is a problem of our own making then?
We hire Lawyers to help write Laws that Lobbyists influence and former Lawyer now as Politicians bring forward to be considered as Laws.
That poor country Lawyer moves forward starting at the local level and feathers his nest all the way to the top. How much is enough?
This might explain how a guy like Harry Reid gets rich over the years.
It's up to us to take a place in what happens in our elections, our Laws and just who represents us.
But; fighting the Cops out on the street will never turn out good for you, you will win the stupid prize. I have no issue with what happened to Garner the second after he resisted arrest. You might thing somewhere around the 25th to 30th time he might have gotten good at it.
...Irish believe that Police beat the shit out of everyone they meet on every call they take.
Your accusation is the furthest thing I've read from the truth in a long time. I have similar conversations, like the one with in this thread with 26 Inf, on a pretty consistent basis, and you're the only one who makes that stretch. Notice the tone, content and discourse that he's using versus ranting about "THE MAN" or any other silly tangents that you go off on, on a consistent basis.
26 Inf is attempting to bridge the gap, along with many other officers here, and have a conversation about things you're obviously uncomfortable discussing at any length. Your posts drip with vitriol, contempt and pettiness rather than intelligent discourse and it's tiring. At this point I'll put you back on "ignore" and keep on moving on.
Be safe in 2015.
4500 Laws on the Books? Perhaps this is a problem of our own making then?
I'd point out 4500 is just an estimate. Attempts have been made over the last 30 years to count them, and they've all failed due to the complexity of the federal criminal code. There are many areas where it's uncertain whether a statute institutes one or several crimial offenses. Some estimates peg the number of federal crimes at over 5000....
I'd point out 4500 is just an estimate. Attempts have been made over the last 30 years to count them, and they've all failed due to the complexity of the federal criminal code. There are many areas where it's uncertain whether a statute institutes one or several crimial offenses. Some estimates peg the number of federal crimes at over 5000....
I've been saying for nearly two decades that we need to be vetting candidates for elected office on how many laws they're willing to REPEAL. At what point do we say "OK, we've been making laws for nearly 250 years now, I think we've finally have enough..."? :confused:
I've been saying for nearly two decades that we need to be vetting candidates for elected office on how many laws they're willing to REPEAL. At what point do we say "OK, we've been making laws for nearly 250 years now, I think we've finally have enough..."? :confused:
When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Politicians only tool is laws so invariably every issue needs a law in their eyes....
Averageman
01-02-15, 12:24
Its a way they see to measure their effectiveness in office.
It is very difficult to reach the people who vote to you under a "I'm going to repeal a bunch of Laws on the books" platform.When 50% of the folks out there are depending on the .gov to finance their lifestyles. The first thing that comes to mind is "He's gonna take my EBT card." kind of thing and the Left will promote that line of thinking.
There are many ways to streamline our Government and make it less intrusive to its citizens, it's just getting the message out there in a way that is true and unopposed by those who depend upon big government to line their pockets and feed the FSA.
I'm sure if you look at the whole issue and how this came about you will find a couple of things to be true.
1) If you look at the Martin, Brown, Garner cases we have people here who regardless of the Law fail to think the law pertains to them and they have behavior issues where violence trumps the rights of others.
2) I would suspect they were raised, or were living in homes that depend on .gov handouts to provide the basic necessities.
3) The folks demonstrating, be that the "Occupy Movement", the people in Ferguson or New York or Florida for the most part have an agenda that has little to do with the deaths of Martin, Brown or Garner and more with Social Change.
4) The College Professors who made these statements are promoting this idea of how to deal with aggressive Police tactics may be jaded academics, but their opinion is being used to justify further social change.
If the above statements are true and this is the direction we are currently going with this is going to lead to either a complete surrender to the Left by the American population or more violence in the name of Social Change, or even a further combination of both.
That's a slippery slope we're headed down and as much as I would like to quote law and the Constitution, I don't think it matters anymore to the Average American. Common sense, good manners, the Law and truth mean nothing anymore.
The answer they will give you is "Shut up, can I now get back to my bread and circus?"
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/01/brilliant-leftists-lay-out-six-ideas-for-cop-free-world/
Unarmed but trained people, often formerly violent offenders themselves, patrolling their neighborhoods to curb violence right where it starts. This is real and it exists in cities from Detroit to Los Angeles.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/12/31/malik-shabazz-to-black-panthers-2015-time-to-build-army-go-to-gun-range/
ck Power Radio,” the former national chairman of the New Black Panther Party and current national president of Black Lawyers for Justice, Malik Zulu Shabazz said 2015 is the time to “build up that army” and go “to the gun range.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/01/occupy-gets-recycled-and-so-does-its-anger/
If you’ve seen videos of any of the recent protests in New York City, they probably look familiar. Crowds of young progressives marching through the streets, waving signs, and chanting short repetitive slogans. Some of the signs, like the ones created by theANSWER Coalition, show the same groups are involved, only the message has changed.
This is some of their message.
I'll leave you with this, fix this politically by reforming the criminal code, and there's less opportunity for the police to interact with people, less cause, justified or not, for people to feel as if they're being targeted/oppressed, less danger to the police due to fewer interactions, more opportunity to pursue the most dangerous criminals and get them off the streets and overall everyone will be happier.
And there we have it, a small glimpse of how you actually think. While you may have a problem with the laws (that you stress is the true root of the issue at hand), you're real issue is with those who enforce the laws. As show in the bolded section of your "straw man" laden reply.
The less police "interact with people" the better? Really? Because I'd say 75-80% of my interactions with people are friendly, and productive. Only a small portion are those that require force or end with unpleasantries. Why is it you don't want Police to have interactions with "people"? Are we that dangerous???
Its nice how you tag on "more opportunity to pursue the most dangerous criminals and get them off the streets". How do you think most "dangerous criminals" are contacted? Do you think they have neon signs above them that say "MOST DANGEROUS CRIMINAL"? Well they don't. They usually are caught on traffic stops, field interviews, every day run of the mill encounters and situations.
Just what are some of these outrageous laws do you want "off the books"? I would love to see some examples. I assume you're going to cite a bunch of Federal laws that are enforced by such agencies as the DEA, FBI. Then I'm sure you're going to throw in some EPA bullshit laws as you did with your horticulture garbage. Which is your own straw man argument as 99.9% of Local LE's don't enforce such laws...ever.
You can claim that there are "soooo many laws on the books that you don't even know if you're breaking a law", however that's ridiculous, and you know it. Should some laws be done away with? Hell ya, id say start with the war on drugs. But to say you have no idea you're breaking a law is insane.
And there we have it, a small glimpse of how you actually think. While you may have a problem with the laws (that you stress is the true root of the issue at hand), you're real issue is with those who enforce the laws. As show in the bolded section of your "straw man" laden reply.
The less police "interact with people" the better? Really? Because I'd say 75-80% of my interactions with people are friendly, and productive. Only a small portion are those that require force or end with unpleasantries. Why is it you don't want Police to have interactions with "people"? Are we that dangerous???
Its nice how you tag on "more opportunity to pursue the most dangerous criminals and get them off the streets". How do you think most "dangerous criminals" are contacted? Do you think they have neon signs above them that say "MOST DANGEROUS CRIMINAL"? Well they don't. They usually are caught on traffic stops, field interviews, every day run of the mill encounters and situations.
Just what are some of these outrageous laws do you want "off the books"? I would love to see some examples. I assume you're going to cite a bunch of Federal laws that are enforced by such agencies as the DEA, FBI. Then I'm sure you're going to throw in some EPA bullshit laws as you did with your horticulture garbage. Which is your own straw man argument as 99.9% of Local LE's don't enforce such laws...ever.
You can claim that there are "soooo many laws on the books that you don't even know if you're breaking a law", however that's ridiculous, and you know it.
So what you're saying is that in order to catch the truly dangerous criminals, you need criminal codes that make as many people as possible in violation so you have PC to contact them?
I know that's not what you intended to infer, but it's an obvious correlation. The "untaxed cigarette sales" crime that Garner violated is a perfect example of a BS criminal code that WAS being enforced by local LE. I'd wager that every jurisdiciton in America has something silly on the books that MAY be enforced. Those are the ones that wind up being enforced selectively, based on who wants what done about something they don't like.
Care to tell us what the most trivial law you've ever made contact with a citizen over is? Was there a complainant, or did you initiate contact on your own? What was the result?
BTW, why should you care if politicians removed criminal ordinances and laws from the books? Don't you just enforce the laws on the books? Why would you care if there were more or less?
Just got back driving through the once beautiful community of Ferguson. 25 years ago it was a pleasant place before the cancer really spread. It's pretty much a s**t hole now. It will take a while to get it only as bad as what it was before the riots, if it ever does at all.
So what you're saying is that in order to catch the truly dangerous criminals, you need criminal codes that make as many people as possible in violation so you have PC to contact them?
I know that's not what you intended to infer, but it's an obvious correlation. The "untaxed cigarette sales" crime that Garner violated is a perfect example of a BS criminal code that WAS being enforced by local LE. I'd wager that every jurisdiciton in America has something silly on the books that MAY be enforced. Those are the ones that wind up being enforced selectively, based on who wants what done about something they don't like.
Care to tell us what the most trivial law you've ever made contact with a citizen over is? Was there a complainant, or did you initiate contact on your own? What was the result?
BTW, why should you care if politicians removed criminal ordinances and laws from the books? Don't you just enforce the laws on the books? Why would you care if there were more or less?
Well I'd say the silliest contacts don't even come from people breaking the law. It usually comes from retarded people bitching about some civil issue, or someone breaking an imaginary law (usually child custody, whore wife/husband is driving the other spouse's vehicle...which is NOT vehicle theft, some other various civil issue that grown adults need to hashout together or in court, someone legally parking on the street in front of old man river's house, etc, etc). But I'd say one trivial city ordinance is curfew. I've contacted several juveniles out after curfew that were DUA, DUI parked, high, shoplifting, etc. just because they appeared to be under 18. Do I really give a shit if they are out past 0100 hours? Nope. I usually tell them to go home and roll out if they are on the up and up.
And you're right, I don't really honestly care about what "laws are on the books". Because I have discretion, and I use it.
Also Im not saying that "in order to catch the truly dangerous criminals, you need criminal codes that make as many people as possible in violation so you have PC to contact them?" But you know that, so whatever. I was simply making a statement concerning his "have more time to go get the real criminals" bullshit. You know the same line every red light running asshole gives when they get a ticket (however they'd sing a different tune if they T-boned a family of 4 blowing the same red light.....but its not a legitimate law of course)
[sarcasm]
Look I get it. Police use excessive force on just about everyone they contact. We need to repeal 99% of laws, so we can then get rid of the evil Police. Police then wont have to contact people....because of course that is dangerous (the real danger mind you). The avg. citizen has no idea that he breaks on average 800 laws a day and could at anytime be beaten to death by the Police. [sarcasm]
If you honestly believe the garbage linked in the OP, seek help....please.
Well I'd say the silliest contacts don't even come from people breaking the law. It usually comes from retarded people bitching about some civil issue, or someone breaking an imaginary law (usually child custody, whore wife/husband is driving the other spouse's vehicle...which is NOT vehicle theft, some other various civil issue that grown adults need to hashout together or in court, someone legally parking on the street in front of old man river's house, etc, etc). But I'd say one trivial city ordinance is curfew. I've contacted several juveniles out after curfew that were DUA, DUI parked, high, shoplifting, etc. just because they appeared to be under 18. Do I really give a shit if they are out past 0100 hours? Nope. I usually tell them to go home and roll out if they are on the up and up.
And you're right, I don't really honestly care about what "laws are on the books". Because I have discretion, and I use it.
Also Im not saying that "in order to catch the truly dangerous criminals, you need criminal codes that make as many people as possible in violation so you have PC to contact them?" But you know that, so whatever. I was simply making a statement concerning his "have more time to go get the real criminals" bullshit. You know the same line every red light running asshole gives when they get a ticket (however they'd sing a different tune if they T-boned a family of 4 blowing the same red light.....but its not a legitimate law of course)
[sarcasm]
Look I get it. Police use excessive force on just about everyone they contact. We need to repeal 99% of laws, so we can then get rid of the evil Police. Police then wont have to contact people....because of course that is dangerous (the real danger mind you). The avg. citizen has no idea that he breaks on average 800 laws a day and could at anytime be beaten to death by the Police. [sarcasm]
If you honestly believe the garbage linked in the OP, seek help....please.
You know I don't agree with the WaPo article premise. You don't initiate force due to the initial call, you initiate force in response to the subject's failure to comply with your lawful commands. However, you know perfectly well that the criminal codes on the books in the United States are bloated and excessive to the point of being perverse. Non-enforcement is not a justifiable defense for having all these needless mala prohibita laws. If just one dumb or a-hole officer decides to pursue a citizen when 99.999% of officers realize it's ridiculous, it's too much. Citizens shouldn't have to go to court to press a nullification case regarding offensive laws.
You keep pointing out that you have discretion, well yay for you. You know perfectly well that more than a statistically insignificant number of officers don't. If you honestly don't believe that, then perhaps you should be the one seeking help. :(
Well I'd say the silliest contacts don't even come from people breaking the law. It usually comes from retarded people bitching about some civil issue, or someone breaking an imaginary law (usually child custody, whore wife/husband is driving the other spouse's vehicle...which is NOT vehicle theft, some other various civil issue that grown adults need to hashout together or in court, someone legally parking on the street in front of old man river's house, etc, etc). But I'd say one trivial city ordinance is curfew. I've contacted several juveniles out after curfew that were DUA, DUI parked, high, shoplifting, etc. just because they appeared to be under 18. Do I really give a shit if they are out past 0100 hours? Nope. I usually tell them to go home and roll out if they are on the up and up.
And you're right, I don't really honestly care about what "laws are on the books". Because I have discretion, and I use it.
.
It seems to me it's getting more difficult for LE to use discretion, and likely to only get worse.
You know I don't agree with the WaPo article premise. You don't initiate force due to the initial call, you initiate force in response to the subject's failure to comply with your lawful commands. However, you know perfectly well that the criminal codes on the books in the United States are bloated and excessive to the point of being perverse. Non-enforcement is not a justifiable defense for having all these needless mala prohibita laws. If just one dumb or a-hole officer decides to pursue a citizen when 99.999% of officers realize it's ridiculous, it's too much. Citizens shouldn't have to go to court to press a nullification case regarding offensive laws.
I think that we should stop for a minute and be specific about which laws we are talking about. If you are talking about Section 18 U.S. Criminal Code and various other non-criminal but equally threatening federal regulations (think EPA, DOT, etc.), then I'm all with ya. Those books have gotten way too thick. Federal laws are especially incidious since that often target small segments of the population who have little recourse since their vote is diluted by the nation's massive population.
However, the Garner case and all of the stop and frisk cases were not born of federal regulations run amuck. Instead, these are cases where an individual was being targeted for violating local and state laws - statues that often enjoy immense popularity in their jurisdictions. In theory, these laws are the most just since there is much more direct representation and accountability to the elected official who passed the laws or allow them to remain on the books. Thus, I'm less worried about these laws since they are well within the intent of our Founding Fathers who only envisioned the Bill of Rights to be a restriction on the Federal Government's power. Keep in mind that it was Madison who wrote that power of the Federal government should be finite and small while the States power is infinite.
I think that we should stop for a minute and be specific about which laws we are talking about. If you are talking about Section 18 U.S. Criminal Code and various other non-criminal but equally threatening federal regulations (think EPA, DOT, etc.), then I'm all with ya. Those books have gotten way too thick. Federal laws are especially incidious since that often target small segments of the population who have little recourse since their vote is diluted by the nation's massive population.
However, the Garner case and all of the stop and frisk cases were not born of federal regulations run amuck. Instead, these are cases where an individual was being targeted for violating local and state laws - statues that often enjoy immense popularity in their jurisdictions. In theory, these laws are the most just since there is much more direct representation and accountability to the elected official who passed the laws or allow them to remain on the books. Thus, I'm less worried about these laws since they are well within the intent of our Founding Fathers who only envisioned the Bill of Rights to be a restriction on the Federal Government's power. Keep in mind that it was Madison who wrote that power of the Federal government should be finite and small while the States power is infinite.
While federal laws and regs are the most bloated, you must not be familiar with just how bad local laws and ordinances can get This is often due to dirty politics. They are some of the worst offenders. As for places like NYC, of course they have bad laws. Of course they happen to have immense popularity, particularly when they target "them" and not "me". :(
SeriousStudent
01-02-15, 22:15
Putting on my mod hat for a brief moment.
There is some really excellent discussion going on in this thread. The posts about Terry frisks are frankly fascinating to me.
But can we please, please hold off on the angst and vitriol? I would really like to see the thread continue, and not degenerate into the usual eye-gouging between the same folks.
Seriously, you know how you feel about each other, so just drop that part. I am not passing out lyrics to Kumbayah, I'm telling you to ignore each other like you already claim you do.
But there is some wonderful wheat here. Let's not have to set the chaff on fire and lose that. You know by now that I lose zero sleep over locking/deleting threads. But I'd like to keep reading this one.
Thank you.
Redacted a whole bunch of stuff.
Did you bother reading the post above yours?
-SeriousStudent
You know I don't agree with the WaPo article premise. You don't initiate force due to the initial call, you initiate force in response to the subject's failure to comply with your lawful commands. However, you know perfectly well that the criminal codes on the books in the United States are bloated and excessive to the point of being perverse. Non-enforcement is not a justifiable defense for having all these needless mala prohibita laws. If just one dumb or a-hole officer decides to pursue a citizen when 99.999% of officers realize it's ridiculous, it's too much. Citizens shouldn't have to go to court to press a nullification case regarding offensive laws.
You keep pointing out that you have discretion, well yay for you. You know perfectly well that more than a statistically insignificant number of officers don't. If you honestly don't believe that, then perhaps you should be the one seeking help. :(
That's a fantastic point I wish that I had made. We as citizens shouldn't have to rely on the discretion of the police to keep from getting tossed in the klink. The laws on the books should be clear, concise and limited enough that the average man can know them and understand them and most importantly know if they're violating them.
A 55mph speed limit is a clear concise easily understandable law. You know if you're breaking it or not. The situation in criminal law that we have now is akin to speed limits where the actual limit is secret and variable. The police know what the number is at the moment but you don't and all you can hope for is that the officer excercising "discretion"
SeriousStudent
01-02-15, 23:53
The very next person that ignores post number 83 in this thread is going away. Believe it.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Interesting article written up by a police officer concerning the case: http://www.breachbangclear.com/problems-with-the-garner-case/
Interesting article written up by a police officer concerning the case: http://www.breachbangclear.com/problems-with-the-garner-case/
Excellent article. While every point is valid, I think these two paragraphs cover where the wheels came off the bus:
A large, angry, noncompliant offender who isn’t threatening or assaulting anyone, or trying to evade, can be handled in a less aggressive manner. Most cops would much rather talk than fight someone into cuffs. An offender who’s just angry and noncompliant, but isn’t aggressive or trying to evade, gives the officer time to talk him down.
Some police supporters are saying cops don’t have time to stand there until a violator decides to follow their lawful orders. Maybe that’s true. But we wind up taking much more time handling the aftermath of a fight than we would by waiting out the suspect. In the end, it’s almost always more efficient timewise to talk someone into compliance rather than fight them into it. Talking people down avoids injury to them and you, eliminates time-consuming use-of-force documentation and generally leaves a better taste in the public’s mouth about what we do. And we cops need the public on our side.
These officers were on a task force specifically to combat the selling of loosies, which NYC feels cuts heavily into their tax revenues. It wasn't like they were going to be assigned a higher priority call at any moment. Even if they were, selling loosies is definitely a "chickenshit" offense. If you get a higher priority call, well it's Garner's lucky day and you move on to more important things. I fail to see how anyone could argue with that? :confused:
Averageman
01-03-15, 04:59
These officers were on a task force specifically to combat the selling of loosies, which NYC feels cuts heavily into their tax revenues. It wasn't like they were going to be assigned a higher priority call at any moment. Even if they were, selling loosies is definitely a "chickenshit" offense. If you get a higher priority call, well it's Garner's lucky day and you move on to more important things. I fail to see how anyone could argue with that? :confused:
A Task Force for Loosies, ok so just how much moeny is NYC losing on this every year? How does it benefit the City in risk -vs- reward to have a Task Force for something like this?
Look Garner wasn't Robin Hood by any means, but if that is true, why doesn't someone bring up the facts and put them out there about NYC's Loosie Task Force?
A Task Force for Loosies, ok so just how much moeny is NYC losing on this every year? How does it benefit the City in risk -vs- reward to have a Task Force for something like this?
Look Garner wasn't Robin Hood by any means, but if that is true, why doesn't someone bring up the facts and put them out there about NYC's Loosie Task Force?
It's not just NYC. NYS has a hard on for this stupidity. Huge source of tax revenue.
It's not just NYC. NYS has a hard on for this stupidity. Huge source of tax revenue.
That's because its a liberal cesspool and home to TOS.....need I say more?
A Task Force for Loosies, ok so just how much moeny is NYC losing on this every year? How does it benefit the City in risk -vs- reward to have a Task Force for something like this?
Look Garner wasn't Robin Hood by any means, but if that is true, why doesn't someone bring up the facts and put them out there about NYC's Loosie Task Force?
It's not just NYC. NYS has a hard on for this stupidity. Huge source of tax revenue.
There's also the control aspect. Don't go crossing the state by undermining their authority lest the hammer fall hard and fast. Harm a fellow citizen and they'll track you down... eventually. "harm" the state and you become a #1 priority. And once again it's not a police issue it's a political issue at the root.
A Task Force for Loosies, ok so just how much moeny is NYC losing on this every year? How does it benefit the City in risk -vs- reward to have a Task Force for something like this?
Look Garner wasn't Robin Hood by any means, but if that is true, why doesn't someone bring up the facts and put them out there about NYC's Loosie Task Force?
To play Devil's Advocate, or at least exlain it from an NYPD (not NY politician) viewpoint:
In the early to mid 90s NYPD invested in the zero-tolerance/ broken windows model of policing. The basic premise is twofold.
First, that mid and even upper level criminals, who the NYPD really want, still commit low level offenses. Want the biggest dealer in the boro? Pull him over for a busted license plate light and dog the car. Want to bust up the gang bangers on the corner? Start citing for loitering or littering. That guy robbing all those folks on the subway? Bet he's jumping the turnstiles too. Effectively, this model interdicts criminals for easier to catch offenses that they commit, thus taking them off the street or putting them on notice. Bonus points if they're committing said offense while committing a larger one, thus opening up an avenue for investigation.
COMPSTAT, at least to the bosses, confirmed that this was working.
Second is that enforcing minor offenses shows criminals and the public that NYPD will not tolerate even minor offenses, let alone larger ones. Neighborhoods that are well kept send a message to the criminals that they aren't welcomed. The revenue aspect here is Tourism, not taxes: NYPD cracked down on graffiti artists, subway performers, panhandlers, and red light window washers under the same premises as above, plus because the tourists and commuters were complaining, it threatened that revenue. The tourists from the Midwest or the money spenders from the Hamptons weren't going to take a subway downtown if they thought they'd end up in a real life enactment of Michael Jackson's BAD.
So, NYPD stood up street crimes units to focus on issues like street level dealing, prostitution, petty theft, and unlicensed vending. While there is a tax component, keep in mind that the store owners, who reported Garner, were doing so because they were losing money. In the eyes of the NYPD, these units, when enforcing vending laws, were making businesses happy, moving along folks hanging out outside other businesses, and disrupting what other illegitimate business the loosie dealers have going.
This model of policing kinda fell out of favor with the advent of community policing and problem oriented policing strategies. My department, the only one I've worked for, was an early buy-in of community policing. The agencies that "forget" that they still have to arrest bad people, and occasionally go after ticky-tack violations seem to have trouble, just like the ones who go after everything, and forget that they work for the same people they're jacking with. In my humble experience, zero-tolerance works best as a specific tactic, and not an overall strategy. It works well as part of a Focused Deterrence program for specific people or gangs, for instance.
Not saying one way or the other, just a different perspective on why some departments choose to enforce things like these the way they do.
Averageman
01-03-15, 09:53
To play Devil's Advocate, or at least exlain it from an NYPD (not NY politician) viewpoint:
In the early to mid 90s NYPD invested in the zero-tolerance/ broken windows model of policing. The basic premise is twofold.
First, that mid and even upper level criminals, who the NYPD really want, still commit low level offenses. Want the biggest dealer in the boro? Pull him over for a busted license plate light and dog the car. Want to bust up the gang bangers on the corner? Start citing for loitering or littering. That guy robbing all those folks on the subway? Bet he's jumping the turnstiles too. Effectively, this model interdicts criminals for easier to catch offenses that they commit, thus taking them off the street or putting them on notice. Bonus points if they're committing said offense while committing a larger one, thus opening up an avenue for investigation.
COMPSTAT, at least to the bosses, confirmed that this was working.
Second is that enforcing minor offenses shows criminals and the public that NYPD will not tolerate even minor offenses, let alone larger ones. Neighborhoods that are well kept send a message to the criminals that they aren't welcomed. The revenue aspect here is Tourism, not taxes: NYPD cracked down on graffiti artists, subway performers, panhandlers, and red light window washers under the same premises as above, plus because the tourists and commuters were complaining, it threatened that revenue. The tourists from the Midwest or the money spenders from the Hamptons weren't going to take a subway downtown if they thought they'd end up in a real life enactment of Michael Jackson's BAD.
So, NYPD stood up street crimes units to focus on issues like street level dealing, prostitution, petty theft, and unlicensed vending. While there is a tax component, keep in mind that the store owners, who reported Garner, were doing so because they were losing money. In the eyes of the NYPD, these units, when enforcing vending laws, were making businesses happy, moving along folks hanging out outside other businesses, and disrupting what other illegitimate business the loosie dealers have going.
This model of policing kinda fell out of favor with the advent of community policing and problem oriented policing strategies. My department, the only one I've worked for, was an early buy-in of community policing. The agencies that "forget" that they still have to arrest bad people, and occasionally go after ticky-tack violations seem to have trouble, just like the ones who go after everything, and forget that they work for the same people they're jacking with. In my humble experience, zero-tolerance works best as a specific tactic, and not an overall strategy. It works well as part of a Focused Deterrence program for specific people or gangs, for instance.
Not saying one way or the other, just a different perspective on why some departments choose to enforce things like these the way they do.
I'm pretty familiar with the"Broken Window" concept of Police work. I take no issue with that, what bugs me to a large degree is that if you tell Cops to go out looking for someone selling "Loosies", then you get on TV and say so.
The Mayor and the Chief of Police should have had the cojones to come out and tell the truth about how this whole issue started. It shouldn't be left out, shouldn't be "discovered by talk radio and shouldn't be some "secret" someone tells on YouTube.
I will say that irregardless of what caused the inital interaction between the Cops and Garner, Garner was wrong. Now he's just dead wrong.
I don't disagree. Being behind the curve in public information and not getting good info out faster doesn't help anyone, regardless of how you feel on the issue.
ForTehNguyen
01-03-15, 10:02
end the war on drugs. More laws = more force = more escalation
I don't disagree. Being behind the curve in public information and not getting good info out faster doesn't help anyone, regardless of how you feel on the issue.
Take Ferguson, the one thing the police did wrong there was letting Browns parter in crime run around for 2 weeks with his BS "unarmed shot in the back for no reason" story without a counter. I think if they had cut that story off at the knees most if not all that ugliness could have been avoided....
Averageman
01-03-15, 10:29
Take Ferguson, the one thing the police did wrong there was letting Browns parter in crime run around for 2 weeks with his BS "unarmed shot in the back for no reason" story without a counter. I think if they had cut that story off at the knees most if not all that ugliness could have been avoided....
Was he arrested or even detained before MSNBC made him a hero?
Having him give a statement immeadiatly would have been very helpful.
Was he arrested or even detained before MSNBC made him a hero?
Having him give a statement immeadiatly would have been very helpful.
Browns body probably wasn't cold yet when that happened
Averageman
01-03-15, 11:24
Hmmmmm and no one ever pointed out the inconsistancies between what was in the Statement and what he was putting out there for the Press?
I would guess, just from knowing human nature the two might be markedly different, but then again that would mean the DA getting out there with the signed statement and some tape and proving exactly how different and making a point as to how that might have influenced the Grand Jury.
In an age of a 24 hour News Cycle you either get out there in front of it or wonder WTF ran you over.
Averageman - I don't understand what you are saying above. They did release the Grand Jury testimony and the previous interviews shortly after the Grand Jury reached it's verdict. They couldn't have done so prior. I took the time to read most of the testimony and most of the interviews.
You can find them here: http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html
I was surprised (probably shouldn't have been) by the number of folks who, when pressed, altered their statements, admitting 'well, that's the way it must of happened' or 'somebody told me, so I told you.'
I noticed one thing, the folks who offer testimony that directly supported Officer Wilson's version of the event, were in the area because they were working in the area, or going to work.
Take Ferguson, the one thing the police did wrong there was letting Browns parter in crime run around for 2 weeks with his BS "unarmed shot in the back for no reason" story without a counter. I think if they had cut that story off at the knees most if not all that ugliness could have been avoided....
No, no, no! If that meanie police man wasn't trying to keep him down with all these unknown laws, none of the Ferguson mess would've happened! How was Mikey Brown supposed to know he couldnt just take whatever he wanted at that shop, was there a SIGN stating he should take what he wanted? How was Mikey Brown supposed to know he wasn't supposed to walk down the street high as a kite, or attempt to disarm a Polease Officer?????? Its not like there were SIGNS around stating that he couldn't! It was than man tricking him.....and then murdering him!
(if you believe the "stuff" being thrown around in this thread anyways...)
P.S. if you want to know laws, there are things like statute books that have the entire thing (and definitions too) in them. Same goes for local ordinances...they are like totally written down (just not on billboards). But for conversation's sake, im willing to side with my pal Nova, and demand that all laws should be present everywhere....some how.....always....
You keep pointing out that you have discretion, well yay for you. You know perfectly well that more than a statistically insignificant number of officers don't. If you honestly don't believe that, then perhaps you should be the one seeking help. :(
Could you back that up? Certainly there are jurisdictions that emphasize arrests for certain offenses, as an example in our state there are only two offenses in the traffic code which mandate an arrest - fleeing and eluding and driving while intoxicated. Some agencies informally (a few formally) have policies regarding whether or not officers arrest for other offenses such as drive while suspended, or driving without a license. But most officers have a great deal of discretion in the performance of their duties.
In fact, my experience is the larger the agency the less discretion the officer has to arrest on his whim. Many large agencies require a field supervisor to okay arrests. This limits the individual officer's discretion, but also reduces (potentially) unnecessary arrests.
Regarding this: However, you know perfectly well that the criminal codes on the books in the United States are bloated and excessive to the point of being perverse. Non-enforcement is not a justifiable defense for having all these needless mala prohibita laws. If just one dumb or a-hole officer decides to pursue a citizen when 99.999% of officers realize it's ridiculous, it's too much. Citizens shouldn't have to go to court to press a nullification case regarding offensive laws.
Look at the Garner case this way - so let's say selling cigarettes without tax stamps was a civil offense that the police did not enforce. The shop owner that complained about Garner, would have had to 1) identify Garner - what if Garner told him to get bent?; 2) develop evidence to substantiate his case - what if he wasn't big enough to seize the evidence? 3) file, or pay to have an attorney file the case; 4) present the case.
Now, I don't know how it looks to you, but it looks to me like the burden, and danger, is to the aggrieved party. Makes sense to me that we have a system where that burden is taken on by the governmental entity.
I give you an example of a mala prohibita law - in my community it is unlawful for you to have three or more dogs without a kennel license. Why was such a law enacted? Because of nuisance complaints by neighbors of the 'dog lady' that has multiple dogs in the backyard or house which bark and bother the neighbors or, are woefully neglected. Does that fit everyone that has three or more dogs? No, obviously more folks take care of their animals than don't. But is it necessary to have such a law? In my view yes. Do most people know of the law? Probably not. Are you arrested for the offense? Probably not if you accept the summons. Most likely you either pay the fine, or show up in court and explain that you didn't know about the law and have applied for a kennel license. The judge then makes a decision, many times since you applied for the kennel license, the desired result has been accomplished and the summons id dismissed.
There have to be such laws if 1000's of us are to live together in society.
Averageman
01-04-15, 02:50
Averageman - I don't understand what you are saying above. They did release the Grand Jury testimony and the previous interviews shortly after the Grand Jury reached it's verdict. They couldn't have done so prior. I took the time to read most of the testimony and most of the interviews.
You can find them here: http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html
I was surprised (probably shouldn't have been) by the number of folks who, when pressed, altered their statements, admitting 'well, that's the way it must of happened' or 'somebody told me, so I told you.'
I noticed one thing, the folks who offer testimony that directly supported Officer Wilson's version of the event, were in the area because they were working in the area, or going to work.
At the point where this little Thug was going out on the 24 hour news cycle and lying to make a name for himself and stir the folks in Ferguson up,he should have been arrested.
The Police and DA should have had a press conference and got in front of this guys lies and expose them for what they were and he should have been prosecuted, not only for the lies he told but as an accessory to Mr Browns crimes.
You don't need to wait until he has caused a major uproar in the community, stood on stage with Reverend Al and gotten his 15 minutes of thug fame and glory.
A big part of what has let these stories spin out of control is a lack of understanding and the truth being so slow to get out there.
The Criminal Justice system seems to be its own worst enemy when it comes to the MSM.
This blew my mind as well. Why the **** was the False Narrative pushed so hard from all angles, without a Damn counter about the Truth?
Let the FSA get all ****ing hopped up and pissed off and then come out weeks later. **** that.
Averageman
01-04-15, 04:13
This blew my mind as well. Why the **** was the False Narrative pushed so hard from all angles, without a Damn counter about the Truth?
Let the FSA get all ****ing hopped up and pissed off and then come out weeks later. **** that.
Same thing with Garner.
Get in front of the Press as Chief of Police with the same video and point out exactly the reason for the Officer citing Garner for selling "Loosies". Point out exactly when Garners behavior turned in to resisting arrest and why he had to be subdued. Point out exactly what a choke hold is, what the regulation for Officers using the hold is and how and why it was used.
But more than anything point out that the guy died from a heart attack he had on the way to the hospital, not from a "choke hold".
The worst thing that can happen is that you're proven wrong in court later, but in the meantime get the message out there from a Chief of Police as to how, when where and why.
This blew my mind as well. Why the **** was the False Narrative pushed so hard from all angles, without a Damn counter about the Truth?
Let the FSA get all ****ing hopped up and pissed off and then come out weeks later. **** that.
Because that's probably what the DOJ wanted.
Averageman
01-04-15, 08:56
Because that's probably what the DOJ wanted.
If you're going out there with the rest of it you might want to own that one too.
At the point where this little Thug was going out on the 24 hour news cycle and lying to make a name for himself and stir the folks in Ferguson up,he should have been arrested.
The Police and DA should have had a press conference and got in front of this guys lies and expose them for what they were and he should have been prosecuted, not only for the lies he told but as an accessory to Mr Browns crimes.
You don't need to wait until he has caused a major uproar in the community, stood on stage with Reverend Al and gotten his 15 minutes of thug fame and glory.
A big part of what has let these stories spin out of control is a lack of understanding and the truth being so slow to get out there.
The Criminal Justice system seems to be its own worst enemy when it comes to the MSM.
This guy is out on the news cycle before the investigation was completed - so other than automatically assuming any time an officer uses force he is correct, how could they have gotten out in front? The officer involved did not, other than in general terms give any testimony for a period of time, until he had talked with the association's attorney. The witnesses that ultimately provided independent corroboration of the officer's statements did not come forward immediately.
I think the best the agency could have done is release the video-tape of the robbery earlier and simply state that the deceased and another identified subject are being looked at as persons of interest in the robbery.
Don't really have an opinion on autopsy reports, ultimately what you had was dueling examiners, with the GJ deciding which was most credible.
So, yes, get out as soon as possible with the info that you can, be transparent throughout the process, is the thing to do. Other than earlier release of the video as mentioned, I don't see what else could have been done that wouldn't have seemed to be subverting the GJ process.
Averageman
01-04-15, 15:29
So, yes, get out as soon as possible with the info that you can, be transparent throughout the process, is the thing to do. Other than earlier release of the video as mentioned, I don't see what else could have been done that wouldn't have seemed to be subverting the GJ process.
But time and time again, they don't.
Why if he was a part of an assault and theft and then with an accomplice that assaulted a police officer wasn't he charged and held?
After he started showing up as the star on MSNBC why wasn't he charged again with lying under oath he clearly committed perjury ?
It would seem to me that part of what a DA does is public relations, why are we seeing these guys do it so poorly?
Look at the Garner case this way - so let's say selling cigarettes without tax stamps was a civil offense that the police did not enforce. The shop owner that complained about Garner, would have had to 1) identify Garner - what if Garner told him to get bent?; 2) develop evidence to substantiate his case - what if he wasn't big enough to seize the evidence? 3) file, or pay to have an attorney file the case; 4) present the case.
Now, I don't know how it looks to you, but it looks to me like the burden, and danger, is to the aggrieved party. Makes sense to me that we have a system where that burden is taken on by the governmental entity.
As with the number of crimes, we have literally thousands of civil offenses that fit that description, and yet those are all handled on a continual basis without problem. A primary reason being that unlike a criminal offense, for a civil offense the aggrieved party does not have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" only "more likely than not" since it is citizen v citizen and not state v citizen.
Applied to the particular case, a simple surveillance cam should be enough evidence to go to court. If garner gets belligerent and threatening over that, then that falls under criminal statutes of assault and is cause for the police to intervene.
I give you an example of a mala prohibita law - in my community it is unlawful for you to have three or more dogs without a kennel license. Why was such a law enacted? Because of nuisance complaints by neighbors of the 'dog lady' that has multiple dogs in the backyard or house which bark and bother the neighbors or, are woefully neglected. Does that fit everyone that has three or more dogs? No, obviously more folks take care of their animals than don't. But is it necessary to have such a law? In my view yes. Do most people know of the law? Probably not. Are you arrested for the offense? Probably not if you accept the summons. Most likely you either pay the fine, or show up in court and explain that you didn't know about the law and have applied for a kennel license. The judge then makes a decision, many times since you applied for the kennel license, the desired result has been accomplished and the summons id dismissed.
There have to be such laws if 1000's of us are to live together in society.
I disagree and when you see where I'm going with it, you'll probably agree. Prohibitions based on fears of what people in the past have done and people MIGHT do in the future is the same reasoning used by the anti-2nd amendment crowd to push gun control laws. Someone misbehaved in the past, therefore someone might misbehave in the future so we have to collectively control everyone. The crimes of those who came before you fall on your shoulders for punishment. That reasoning doesn't work in that context nor anywhere else.
Philosophically, the purpose of the law should be to punish those who harm others, not control the population at large. That philosophy is the same whether you're talking about mis-use of firearms or mis-use of dogs. It's not the object or who many of said object you have, it's what you do it. In your example above, disturbing the peace and public nuisance laws more that adequately cover the harms over populated and/neglected dogs cause, no matter the number of dogs. The kennel license is just an attempt to keep the thumb on people.....
But time and time again, they don't.
Why if he was a part of an assault and theft and then with an accomplice that assaulted a police officer wasn't he charged and held?
After he started showing up as the star on MSNBC why wasn't he charged again with lying under oath he clearly committed perjury ?
It would seem to me that part of what a DA does is public relations, why are we seeing these guys do it so poorly?
honestly i think most das are not cut out for such contentious occurrences. most are only good enough at pr to do the perp walk for high profile scumbags so guilty theyll plead out rather than risk a trial.
Along the same lines that nova is talking about... The problem with petty, pedantic, penny-ante policing. (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2015/01/the-problem-with-petty-pedantic-penny-ante-policing.html) Follow link for the remainder.
To be clear, the concern is with laws that penalize ordinary behavior—behavior that many or most people do at least sometimes, either because that behavior is consistent with social norms (smoking a joint, not coming to a complete stop before turning right on red), or because it is easy to accidentally do the behavior (violate a complicated parking sign). And the worry is that such laws, when pervasively enforced, break the connection between genuine wrongdoing (in the sense of the violation of social norms, also in the sense of doing anything actually morally wrong) and negative interactions with the legal system.
When the law routinely penalizes ordinary folks for doing things that ordinary folks in the community do, or hammers people with large fines for understandable day-to-day screwups, legal punishment stops looking like a consequence of doing bad things to others, and the law stops looking like an expression of our collective sense of how we ought to treat one another.
Instead, it starts to look like a form of taxation, or a negative lottery, in the sense that the “lawbreaker” is one who just happened to have the bad luck to be in front of an official when acting like a normal person, and now has to pay the price. (Ed. Note: broken into paragraphs for readability)
Along the same lines that nova is talking about... The problem with petty, pedantic, penny-ante policing. (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2015/01/the-problem-with-petty-pedantic-penny-ante-policing.html) Follow link for the remainder.
The passage in there about enforcement of democratic law requiring the consent and cooperation of the populace is spot on. If you deligitimize the justice system, either the enforcement or prosecution arm, people eventually stop cooperating and effectiveness starts approaching zero, no matter how many resources you put into it. The worst case scenarios of a deligitimized justice system are a despotic police state if there are enough resources to keep people cowed or complete collapse of the system if there are not (think Syria or any of the Arab spring states).
People also have to keep in mind that as with many other areas, perception is just as important as reality. The system can be as fair an equitable as possible and if people don't believe it, it matters not one whit.
Now do I think we're anywhere close to that? No. But it's better to cut the weed before it grows as the saying goes. Recognizing the early signs and taking steps to stop the pendulum from swinging in that direction are important to the future.
Could you back that up? Certainly there are jurisdictions that emphasize arrests for certain offenses, as an example in our state there are only two offenses in the traffic code which mandate an arrest - fleeing and eluding and driving while intoxicated. Some agencies informally (a few formally) have policies regarding whether or not officers arrest for other offenses such as drive while suspended, or driving without a license. But most officers have a great deal of discretion in the performance of their duties.
In fact, my experience is the larger the agency the less discretion the officer has to arrest on his whim. Many large agencies require a field supervisor to okay arrests. This limits the individual officer's discretion, but also reduces (potentially) unnecessary arrests.
Regarding this: However, you know perfectly well that the criminal codes on the books in the United States are bloated and excessive to the point of being perverse. Non-enforcement is not a justifiable defense for having all these needless mala prohibita laws. If just one dumb or a-hole officer decides to pursue a citizen when 99.999% of officers realize it's ridiculous, it's too much. Citizens shouldn't have to go to court to press a nullification case regarding offensive laws.
Look at the Garner case this way - so let's say selling cigarettes without tax stamps was a civil offense that the police did not enforce. The shop owner that complained about Garner, would have had to 1) identify Garner - what if Garner told him to get bent?; 2) develop evidence to substantiate his case - what if he wasn't big enough to seize the evidence? 3) file, or pay to have an attorney file the case; 4) present the case.
Now, I don't know how it looks to you, but it looks to me like the burden, and danger, is to the aggrieved party. Makes sense to me that we have a system where that burden is taken on by the governmental entity.
I give you an example of a mala prohibita law - in my community it is unlawful for you to have three or more dogs without a kennel license. Why was such a law enacted? Because of nuisance complaints by neighbors of the 'dog lady' that has multiple dogs in the backyard or house which bark and bother the neighbors or, are woefully neglected. Does that fit everyone that has three or more dogs? No, obviously more folks take care of their animals than don't. But is it necessary to have such a law? In my view yes. Do most people know of the law? Probably not. Are you arrested for the offense? Probably not if you accept the summons. Most likely you either pay the fine, or show up in court and explain that you didn't know about the law and have applied for a kennel license. The judge then makes a decision, many times since you applied for the kennel license, the desired result has been accomplished and the summons id dismissed.
There have to be such laws if 1000's of us are to live together in society.
You may have misinterpreted (or I didn't adequately convey) the intent of my statement. My point was that some officers either can't or won't exercise judgment on who to arrest and who to cut loose. The why is less important than the fact itself. One of the best Sgt's I've ever worked for had the philosophy that we aren't out there to hang paper on everyone we come across and just because someone can be taken to jail, doesn't mean they should be taken to jail. Even the officers I've worked with who tend to arrest more than not, would modify their decisions if the jail was "one for one" and they knew they'd be sitting in intake for 2-3 hours with some guy who was DUS or had a misdemeanor municipal warrant. Yet there's always "that guy" who'd cuff the first person they could snatch for anything at all and head for the jail. Keep in mind that the jail being at max capacity usually has more to do with remanding convicts to state DOC than actually arresting more of the populace.
As for enforcement of ticky-tac crimes, I wasn't meaning that the businesses should be forced to seek redress in court. I mean that many of today’s municipal misdemeanor "crimes", shouldn't be crimes at all. If a guy is selling loosies on the sidewalk and hurting a licensed business (because they’re complying with an onerous tax), he should be able to call code enforcement to issue a civil penalty citation. If it’s a real crime, there’s probably a state charge associated with it. Many municipalities create criminals they shouldn’t. Your dog issue is a perfect example. Except for one horse towns who probably can’t afford a separate code enforcement officer, cops shouldn’t be tasked with policing municipal monetary policy. it dilutes the mission and causes a greater negative opinion of police.
A couple of recent posters have touched on the same points.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.