Steel
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 4,884
A deeply disturbing development regarding police
- Thread starter kenny
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,549
packrat
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 10,614
packrat
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 10,614
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,549
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,549
Steel
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 4,884
Well I imagine it is possible
And yes, I have broken many laws. I have driven with excessive speed, double parked, stolen a chocolate bar and even coveted my neighbours wife (
HVVS
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 816
packrat
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 10,614
That''s not what I meant. I''m talking that if you go about your business and say in the course of your day, you didn''t look left right left before you proceed thru the intersection and get pulled over. Rather than act like a whiny baby, be polite and do what the officer says. If the officer freaks out and bitch slaps you and gives you the vulcan nerve pinch b/c you said "I''m sorry officer, what did I do wrong?" then there''s a problem. If you act like a decent person, then generally there shouldn''t be a problem.
I''ve done illegal things. Had my ass caught doing it too. And they hear Yessir, Nosir, I understand sir.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
I don''t think the laws that are passed like this will withstand court challenge. Certainly, in some limited situations such restrictions can be legal. But not in general.
How this gets resolved is for laws to be passed, arrest made, and then the law gets challenged in court.
My home town once - in their infinite wisdom on how to solve what were categorized as "gang" issues - once passed a law restricting any assembly of teenagers or the loitering of them in front of stores (this was in the late 1970''s).
The school district administrator and High School Principal, and Chief of Police were greatly in favor of the law too.
The first arrest was a couple of kids who were "loitering" under a store front awning during a brief rainstorm.... (I''ve been known to do so myself during the rain - something I even do as an adult).
The "fallout" from that was hilarious.... The case was immediately waived to federal court where the judge had the entire city council, Chief of Police, said school administrator and principals, etc appear (within a week of the arrest) - and they all received a very public lecture and education on the constitutional rights of citizens and that the judge would hold them in contempt of court and see them all serve jail time if they ever tried to do anything like this again. Now maybe the judge was overstepping their authority on the last point - but the press sure had a field day with it.
For all those that are concerned about this law. I suggest that you contact the ACLU (or similar organizations) and provide a targeted donation for the court challenge. I don''t always agree with everything the ACLU does - but they serve a vital function and I in general support their general cause.
Perry
How this gets resolved is for laws to be passed, arrest made, and then the law gets challenged in court.
My home town once - in their infinite wisdom on how to solve what were categorized as "gang" issues - once passed a law restricting any assembly of teenagers or the loitering of them in front of stores (this was in the late 1970''s).
The school district administrator and High School Principal, and Chief of Police were greatly in favor of the law too.
The first arrest was a couple of kids who were "loitering" under a store front awning during a brief rainstorm.... (I''ve been known to do so myself during the rain - something I even do as an adult).
The "fallout" from that was hilarious.... The case was immediately waived to federal court where the judge had the entire city council, Chief of Police, said school administrator and principals, etc appear (within a week of the arrest) - and they all received a very public lecture and education on the constitutional rights of citizens and that the judge would hold them in contempt of court and see them all serve jail time if they ever tried to do anything like this again. Now maybe the judge was overstepping their authority on the last point - but the press sure had a field day with it.
For all those that are concerned about this law. I suggest that you contact the ACLU (or similar organizations) and provide a targeted donation for the court challenge. I don''t always agree with everything the ACLU does - but they serve a vital function and I in general support their general cause.
Perry
lulu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 2,328
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 15,549
lulu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 2,328
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
I think it''s disappointing this topic devolved into jokes and sarcasm, to be honest.
I have been personally sickened by some of the "accidental" police shootings that have happened in the US in recent years -
yes, the ones where the victim never had a weapon and the police acted prematurely and shot them countless times, just to be sure they were dead.
In cases such as these, if there is no video evidence it is the police officers'' colluded story against what are usually witnesses with criminal histories, hence we see the unfair outcomes from the justice system that prevail.
I am just grateful hardly anyone but farmers keep guns here, as I don''t think I could put up with that kind of thing in my own city / state and not be seriously affected by it.
I have been personally sickened by some of the "accidental" police shootings that have happened in the US in recent years -
yes, the ones where the victim never had a weapon and the police acted prematurely and shot them countless times, just to be sure they were dead.
In cases such as these, if there is no video evidence it is the police officers'' colluded story against what are usually witnesses with criminal histories, hence we see the unfair outcomes from the justice system that prevail.
I am just grateful hardly anyone but farmers keep guns here, as I don''t think I could put up with that kind of thing in my own city / state and not be seriously affected by it.
lulu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 2,328
Despite the tone I''m quite serious. There will always be bad cops and those who are not sufficiently trained. But those guys go out everyday and put their lives on the line and that can lead to a lot of stress.In that type of situation the adrenaline is just pumping
and the bad guy really is bad. I think it takes a lot of self discipline to hold on to your equanimity .
And when something really bad happens in your neighborhood you''ll be very glad they''re there.
and the bad guy really is bad. I think it takes a lot of self discipline to hold on to your equanimity .
And when something really bad happens in your neighborhood you''ll be very glad they''re there.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
And yet no one has trotted out anything but anecdotes. And say it with me: the plural of anecdote is not data.
Until someone can put this whole "the cops are worse these days" mindset into a historical perspective (which is going to be very difficult, since even LESS surveillance was available in times past) and can show me that this is not just an issue of selective reporting and selective focus on the bad stuff which we all seem to love dwelling on (see all the "OMG, what is the world coming to THESE DAYS" type threads, usually posted by 20-somethings no less - now there''s irony for you), I am going on the assumption that nothing has really changed all that much from "back in the good old days" when all cops were good and Miranda hadn''t even been conceived of. And yes I know Miranda just took a hit by the supremes, but the point is, if police were so perfectly marvelous "in the good old days" before 1966 (more grim amusement at this point), why was Miranda even needed?
As usual with these things, it is a matter of AWARENESS and what people choose to FOCUS on. The world didn''t change all that much. What you CHOSE TO SEE changed. Arjunajane - how often do you get a news story that someone somewhere in America does something right? Please do let me know where you find those reports if you get them, because I don''t see them much and I''m right here in the middle of it. Around here, as there I suspect, the reporting paradigm is "if it bleeds it leads".
Again, I will say, I fear that the decent police - who make up the majority - WILL be beleaguered by self-righteous citizens who don''t know the full story - the "coming in at just the wrong part of the conversation" syndrome, - but I think they will likely lose the battle, and it would be better if they just bow to the inevitable and deal with the law of unintended consequences head on.
Given the level of hatred of the police I see in this thread, I certainly wouldn''t put MY life on the line for that.
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
Sorry, ksinger to be frank, but I feel your argument is off point and frankly coloured by your personal circumstance.
There is nothing wrong with that - we all bring our personal experiences to the table when expressing viewpoints, it is only natural.
But I don''t see anyone harping on about "the good old days" here except for yourself?
I know for a fact police were just as corrupt and ''rough around the edges'' in the past as they are now - in fact in Australia they were a lot worse in the 70''s and 80''s in terms of corruption..
But that is not what Kenny''s post was about, nor mine.
Ksinger, I completely get your point about the news media and I agree - seeing as I am a 20-something you may find it difficult to believe, but I hold a healthy amount of skepticism towards mainstream media - especially the sort that seems to prevail in the US.
When I was very young I learned about the inherent problems and failings of modern news reporting from a great teacher, that lesson has stuck with me and I have taken it upon myself since then to never take anything I read or see on face value.
I do my own research from extended sources, seeking unbiased and non-sensationalized information, and than I make my own judgment call once I feel I''m adequately informed.
I''m sure you are aware of what recent events I am referring to above, which you have called anecdotes - if you wish, I will look up and post the relevant information, but considering it''s sensitive nature I''d rather not.
As far as awareness and what people choose to focus on - you may also be surprised to learn that, if public opinion here is anything to go by (as reported in mainstream media), my views on such issues is in the minority.
Personally, I feel that the minority in this case are people similar to I - who take it upon themselves to be more informed and look behind the sensationalist headlines at the deeper (and often uglier) stories and issues that are causing them.
I do not hate police, I never said anything of the sort.
I hope this has given you a little more insight into why I post the way I do on this subject.
There is nothing wrong with that - we all bring our personal experiences to the table when expressing viewpoints, it is only natural.
But I don''t see anyone harping on about "the good old days" here except for yourself?
I know for a fact police were just as corrupt and ''rough around the edges'' in the past as they are now - in fact in Australia they were a lot worse in the 70''s and 80''s in terms of corruption..
But that is not what Kenny''s post was about, nor mine.
Ksinger, I completely get your point about the news media and I agree - seeing as I am a 20-something you may find it difficult to believe, but I hold a healthy amount of skepticism towards mainstream media - especially the sort that seems to prevail in the US.
When I was very young I learned about the inherent problems and failings of modern news reporting from a great teacher, that lesson has stuck with me and I have taken it upon myself since then to never take anything I read or see on face value.
I do my own research from extended sources, seeking unbiased and non-sensationalized information, and than I make my own judgment call once I feel I''m adequately informed.
I''m sure you are aware of what recent events I am referring to above, which you have called anecdotes - if you wish, I will look up and post the relevant information, but considering it''s sensitive nature I''d rather not.
As far as awareness and what people choose to focus on - you may also be surprised to learn that, if public opinion here is anything to go by (as reported in mainstream media), my views on such issues is in the minority.
Personally, I feel that the minority in this case are people similar to I - who take it upon themselves to be more informed and look behind the sensationalist headlines at the deeper (and often uglier) stories and issues that are causing them.
I do not hate police, I never said anything of the sort.
I hope this has given you a little more insight into why I post the way I do on this subject.
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
Lulu, I think you have touched on a much wider problem - sufficient training of police.
In my opinion, if they are not sufficiently trained to handle conflict appropriately and perform their duties accordingly, than they should not be unleashed onto the public with batons, pepper spray, handguns and so on. But this is a different topic, and certainly one I don''t have the answer for as we live in such different countries.
I''m sorry, I disagree - the "bad guy" is not always actually bad. Sometimes this is not discovered until it is way too late.
Just to be clear - I have had interactions with fair and caring police, and I have had interactions with total and complete corrupt jerks. No singular event has coloured my views.
I am not arguing for one minute that society doesn''t need police (nor did I see anyone else in the thread doing so), so I find that kind of commentary redundant.
Simply that they should not be allowed to hold themselves above the same laws they are entrusted to enforce - is that too much to ask?
I don t really understand the relevance of the ''it was just as bad in the past'' argument- is it, ''the badness of the present is justified because it has always been this way?''
I think there is a similar rule in the UK.
Can other cameras be used? Its said that the UK is under constant surveillance (more so than most other countries). Most people criticize this, but I think I might actually be in favor of it. Can the findings of surveillance cameras be used to ''keep an eye'' on the police as well as the public? I think this is done in the UK, in particular to criticize police actions during the G8 protests a while ago.
Must say- my personal dealings with US police were completely positive. I had about 4 encounters, and they were helpful, nice, human beings, who made me feel fairly treated and safe (and one of those times the police were called to our house on a noise violation- we were having a rather loud party).
I think there is a similar rule in the UK.
Can other cameras be used? Its said that the UK is under constant surveillance (more so than most other countries). Most people criticize this, but I think I might actually be in favor of it. Can the findings of surveillance cameras be used to ''keep an eye'' on the police as well as the public? I think this is done in the UK, in particular to criticize police actions during the G8 protests a while ago.
Must say- my personal dealings with US police were completely positive. I had about 4 encounters, and they were helpful, nice, human beings, who made me feel fairly treated and safe (and one of those times the police were called to our house on a noise violation- we were having a rather loud party).
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 5,083
You know, I had another rather wordy post typed out - explantion, clarification, etc, and then though, oh hell, why bother? It''s a waste of my and everyone else''s time. My apologies for taking the thread "off point". A poll would have been easier though. Put me down for a "FOR citizen surveillance of police, but with reservations". There, that''ll take care of it.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,337
Not all cops are bad. Duh.
I support them and they do an essential job. Duh.
Bad guys are bad buys. Duh.
Do I really need to say all this?
Why do people assume XY and Z when you say AB and C?
These days security cameras are everywhere for our protection from the rare bad guy or gal.
That does not mean every one of us is a criminal.
I do not see the cameras as an insult; I welcome them since I obey the law and they result in a more law-abiding society.
I see freedom of photography as being like freedom of speech.
The camera is just a new tool to uphold laws that apply to civilians or police.
The camera is just a tool that can repeat what it sees, just like the human eyes and voice.
Better still ... cameras just document; they can not lie or forget, or distort, or interpret.
IMHO, our society gains more than it looses when this modern tool is free to catch that rare rogue cop.
I'm sure forbidding photography will make it's way to the Supreme Court and be shot down.
I support them and they do an essential job. Duh.
Bad guys are bad buys. Duh.
Do I really need to say all this?
Why do people assume XY and Z when you say AB and C?
These days security cameras are everywhere for our protection from the rare bad guy or gal.
That does not mean every one of us is a criminal.
I do not see the cameras as an insult; I welcome them since I obey the law and they result in a more law-abiding society.
I see freedom of photography as being like freedom of speech.
The camera is just a new tool to uphold laws that apply to civilians or police.
The camera is just a tool that can repeat what it sees, just like the human eyes and voice.
Better still ... cameras just document; they can not lie or forget, or distort, or interpret.
IMHO, our society gains more than it looses when this modern tool is free to catch that rare rogue cop.
I'm sure forbidding photography will make it's way to the Supreme Court and be shot down.
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
Right, thanks for that Ksinger. I now regret "wasting my time" in my effort of clarifying my posts to you, attempting to explain and appeal in a way I thought you *may* be able to understand (if not appreciate) my own POV - as we have clearly read yours.
TBH, considering your prior posts I am surprised you have said you are FOR civilian surveillance of Police - this seems very at odds with what you previously said.
But again, I defer and you're correct - at this point I'd rather not bother either.
now
Kenny, cheers for the interesting news and thread.
TBH, considering your prior posts I am surprised you have said you are FOR civilian surveillance of Police - this seems very at odds with what you previously said.
But again, I defer and you're correct - at this point I'd rather not bother either.
Kenny, cheers for the interesting news and thread.
lulu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 2,328
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,337
lulu
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
- Messages
- 2,328
arjunajane
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 9,758
HollyS
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,105
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)