So you question those who tolerate law enforcement operating within their legal limits?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
More COPS gone wild....
- Thread starter powderfinger
- Start date
- Status
So you question those who tolerate law enforcement operating within their legal limits?
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
At the grey areas at the extent of their limits, yes. I think law enforcement should always operate with the appearance of high respect for the laws they're paid to uphold. Pushing boundaries of acceptability-- both social and legal-- is not in keeping with the "fair play" law enforcement I want protecting our rights.
Of course. All the time. Are they doing something wrong when they operate within the legal limits / powers given to them by the State?
I think his point was that just because a cop *can* do something, doesn't always mean they *should*. Esp. in a situation such as a jaywalker... cmon...
Sure they do. They get a quota of 8 hours of sleep a night at the station while you are paying them. Oh, and by the way, I never had a quota. (Well, other than the time the Chief was gonna give our wives new toasters and waffle irons if we wrote 50 tickets in a month......and in case you're stoned or drunk and missed it...that was sarcasm)
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
That's not a quota...
And not every jurisdiction has quotas. But you better believe in this bad economy, when municipalities are going broke, laying off city/county workers, furloughing workers, they are going to get hard up for revenue. And guess who gets to play the Sheriff of Nottingham? The coppers!
You're reducing this to generalisations. The real questions should be:
1. Was their action in any given circumstance within their legal powers?
2. If yes, was their actions in that circumstance the appropriate use of their powers in the circumstances that were apparent to them at the time?
If the answer to 1 is no, then they are arguably a criminal and should be punished. If the answer to 2 is no, then they are not acting outside the law, but they may not be discharging their duties in the way that society wants them to. It may be internal discipline is warranted or it may be that debate needs to be started. However, I think its folly to just generalise and go "a jaywalker...cmon" - it may well be perfectly reasonable to act in a certain way in relation to a jaywalker - it all depends on the facts. I don't think the "cmon" argument has a history of success. YMMV.
You're conflating "operating within the legal limits" with pushing the legal limits. The two aren't interchangable.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
One suggests a healthy buffer of legality, the other doesn't. I want a healthy buffer.
I never thought I'd see the day, Unrepresented, that I looked at you as the voice of reason in a thread. 
P.S. I dont disagree that the police may have been out of line here. 27 years I spent in L.E., and I never wrote a jay walking ticket. But again, I was the worst cop in history, so fwiw.
P.S. I dont disagree that the police may have been out of line here. 27 years I spent in L.E., and I never wrote a jay walking ticket. But again, I was the worst cop in history, so fwiw.
Do you apply the same standard to a speed limit when you are driving?
I'm not suggesting that police should push the limits of their power either - indeed if you look at the British model of policing its exactly what you want (and it is by far the ebst police force I have come across in terms of public respect and interaction) But its not clear to me how you would go about enforcing a "healthy buffer of legality" when a lot of things are fairly black and white with regard to legality or not. I think what you are talking about is a proportionate approach to enforcement of laws, which is more a policy decision from the politicians than a matter of individual policing (even if cops can apply discretion on an individual basis if they want)
There are less accidents on the Autobahn than on American highways with speed limits. Speeding doesn't kill. Dumb ass drivers do.
So what you're implying is that if you don't agree with the law (ie you think the law is dumb), you shouldn't have to comply with it. Do you think the police should adopt the same logic when deciding how they should behave?
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I never thought I'd see the day, Unrepresented, that I looked at you as the voice of reason in a thread.
May want to start making sure your meds are still working properly.
Only when upholding the public trust.
Pretty much.
I mean, I'm not going to do anything to harm anyone else or their property, or put them in danger. I use common sense. A lot of laws are just random and there to entrap people and create revenue.
Neither of which happened in this instance. Yes there are instances of this happening, but they are separate incidents and are not necessarily indicative of a widespread epidemic. If they were everyday occurrences, they wouldn't be news.
- Status
