RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,912
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 28, 2009 15:24:53 GMT -5
Cops are put in a very difficult position - they are trained to assume that the people they stop and/or arrest are going to try to kill them. This is a very problematic assumption (not to mention a counterproductive one) and is the sort of mentality that leads to widespread disproportionate use of force and to things like this.Do we really want a society in which the people who are supposed to serve and protect us are trained to view every one of us as a potential murderer? That sounds like a recipe for inevitable escalation and commonplace excessive use of force. |
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jul 28, 2009 15:27:53 GMT -5
One in the afternoon, actually. And you never know, those lunchtime walkers in Cambridge were most likely stopping so that they could hop in on a potential riot.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 28, 2009 15:45:23 GMT -5
Jersey: I will submit that it is equally non-Presidential to get on national TV and say that the police "acted stupidly." It is as unacceptable as an adverb as it is as an adjective. If you really think that the impression that most people got was NOT that he was calling them stupid, that's really a stretch. We will have to agree to disagree on the first two sentences. We agree on the last one - I do think most Americans will believe that President Obama called the Cambridge Police as such stupid (present tense at the time), but I think most on here would probably tilt toward my interpretation. My only point is that the former interpretation has some added ginger that one does not find in ink or on camera. The president was clearly trying to connect -- even if he provided an obligatory statement that he wasn't - the arrest of Gates to a history of racial profiling. That is unacceptable given his professed ignorance of the facts in the case, which are at-best in dispute and seem to suggest that Gates quickly flew off the handle. And the president did no one any good with this, sending an unfortunate message to white people and cops that even the accusation of being a racist could get you a negative spotlight all the way from the White House. And stop blaming Republicans for this, Ambassador. I am yet to read a story in the media on this matter that says a single thing about Republicans driving it or even commenting on it. This is not to say that Republicans aren't trying to capitalize on it - I have no doubt that to some extent they are - but if anyone is pushing it very publicly it's commentators like Derrick Jackson, Eugene Robinson, and Stanley Fish - and, of course, Gates himself - who have been trotting out guilt by historical association almost since the incident happened. For a reminder of what the president said, by the way, here is his full answer at the press conference. It certainly appears designed to imply that the Gates incident - with the accustation of an at-best stupid police reaction, and failure to even entertain the possibility that Gates was unjustifiably berating the cop - was very likely connected to cops' long history of profiling and racism: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.
I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.
So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.
(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.
And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.
I need not back off of criticizing the Republicans who are helping to prolong the controversy. I have not blamed them for it, but that is beside the point. I hope the point intended is not that only Republicans can comment critically on the incident when the President cannot. Perhaps a soothsayer could help me to understand how President Obama "clearly tr[ied]" to link the incident to racial profiling when, in plain English, he stated "separate and apart from this incident" before all of his comments regarding racial profiling. It is an exercise in folly to get from ink on a page to what many think Obama said, what they believe Obama wanted to say, or what they think the words as delivered really meant in some sort of parallel universe of the English language. This is where I think the answer to my challenge of identifying what Obama needs to apologize for can be found. Obama need not apologize for what he said, but, rather, for what people heard or elected to hear. "Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." You're the President of the United States. Now that Michael Jordan has retired for a second time, you're essentially the leader of the free world. People go nuts every time you say something either in favor of or opposing something (when I was volunteering at a Department of Energy event, everyone was really excited that Obama had spoken about a week prior at the National Academy of Sciences, emphasizing the value of science and science education, despite the fact that he didn't say he was going to fund anything). Your words have *weight*. Obama's paragraph, as linked above, makes a reference to racism and racial profiling (although it's a "I don't know what role it played"). He leaves the potential relationship hanging, and then he goes off on the Cambridge cops. It's not directly linking racial profiling ("the Cambridge cops were guilty of racial profiling"), but it's a pretty clear indirect link ("I don't know what role racial profiling played, if it did play a role, but those Cambridge cops really blew it"). A Politico article puts it a different way - it's essentially saying "I don't know if he's planning to use nuclear weapons, if he has nuclear weapons, but that Saddam Hussein is a really bad guy". It's a strawman, but there's some truth there. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 28, 2009 15:52:30 GMT -5
I can't disagree with the above interpretations inasmuch as they involve situational comparisons and/or word substitutions. It is a soothsayer's adventure to debate them if Obama's words are interpreted strictly.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 28, 2009 15:55:08 GMT -5
On the arrest - Gates was outside (on his porch) when he was arrested. If a crowd had gathered, yelling out inciting statements may have pushed the cop over the edge to assume that Gates was trying to get the crowd to riot. In a tony Cambridge neighborhood at 1 AM Gates was going to get 7 people who were walking by to riot? <SethAndAmy>Really? Reaaaallly?</SethAndAmy> In a college neighborhood at 1 in the afternoon - within the exceedingly small realm of possibility. Especially if the arrest was over inciting to riot, which holds the intent of a crazy guy who was going off on some police officers. While I'll agree that this should have been handled much better on both sides, I think that Gates' behavior was so egregious that there's enough of a gray area to clear the cop. On the separate comment about police officers evilly assuming people are trying to kill them - I don't think that it's fair to cops to establish a different standard. During cases like traffic stops, if someone opens their car door, the cop kind of has to assume that the person wishes them ill. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 28, 2009 16:02:41 GMT -5
In a college neighborhood at 1 in the afternoon - within the exceedingly small realm of possibility. Especially if the arrest was over inciting to riot, which holds the intent of a crazy guy who was going off on some police officers. Look, I realize this is essentially a political board, and that political arguments tend to take crazy positions that are absolute BS that no one - even the person making the argument - believes, but saying that he feared a riot is just making up nonsense. Read the police report. It's akin to me saying that maybe Crowley isn't a cop but a space alien from the planet Veenu (hey, it's within the exceedingly small realm of possibility!) You want to argue that Gates was causing a noise problem - you've got no evidence, but it's sane. A riot in a $1M+ neighborhood of Cambridge directly adjacent to the University? Total nonsense. This thread has really devolved into Sergeant Crowley fan-fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 28, 2009 21:52:11 GMT -5
I think that this discretion is often exercised by police in a way that exceeds the boundaries of the law, and the punishments for exceeding it are typically minor, if any. What is your opinion based on? A handful of media reports where bad cops really, really Editeded up? I don't see a link between a gross disregard for an officer's duty and deciding whether to make a misdemeanor arrest for disorderly conduct, failure to ID, obstruction, etc. Keep in mind you'll never hear about a good officer doing his job correctly when it comes to minor offenses like disorderly conduct. If you don't think there are problems with police misconduct in America, I want to know what you're smoking. Just look over at the PG County police department, for pete's sake, where apparently you can shoot unarmed men without any consequences and you're free to shoot the mayor's dogs as long as you think there are drugs in the house. There have been accusations of sexual assualt by on-duty NYPD officers, a BART officer who straight-up murdered a man in Oakland, and a cop who bludgeoned a woman who got into a car accident with the officer's son then arrested her for assault. And that's just lately off the top of my head. I read the article you posted earlier, which mentions most of these stories. I think they are all abhorrent, and I'd be glad to know that none of those individuals will ever work in law enforcement again (assuming all allegations are true, of course). I never said police misconduct does not exist in America -- it certainly does. What I have an issue with is the idea that the Gates incident somehow speaks to police misconduct. Or Russky's idea that the Gates incident (or the incidents you mention) somehow indicates police officers, more often than not, use poor discretion when entrusted with it. One of policing's biggest problems is the gradual militarization of our police that began in the 1970's. For decades the Pentagon has been cheaply selling military surplus to police departments, so much that most PDs are more paramilitary organizations than constabularies any more. Furthermore, police officers have unsurprisingly taken the whole "war on drugs" framing to heart, with citizens being seen less as protectees and more as possible enemy combatants. There's simply no reason that the majority of drug warrants should be served in a no-knock method with SWAT teams, except that many jurisdictions have elaborate SWAT teams (paid for by the federal government) with little justification for their existence. I completely agree with this. You forgot to mention the recent popularity of tasers, which in theory protect officers but are used far too frequently. The "us vs. them" mentality is also evident in weird law enforcement ads. (Drinking and Driving? We're gonna get ya! You're gonna go to JAIL!) The new trend in law enforcement is toward community policing, and rightly so. We entrust police officers with extraordinary power, chief among them being to arrest and to kill if necessary. This kind of power deserves aggressive oversight, not subservient deference. Again, I completely agree. I like cops having video mics (which record constantly and are attached to an officer's uniform) and police chiefs who don't withhold information (happens far too often when officers use deadly force). Disagreeing with the position of some on this board that anyone given a gun and a badge loses his or her conscience is NOT "subservient deference." Disorderly conduct" is attempting to start a riot, not simply being agitated. This I completely disagree with. Since this whole incident, there have been a lot of specious claims that begin with "Disorderly Conduct is..." Disorderly conduct statutes are either state laws or local ordinances -- it is not a uniform offense. What's the law in Massachussets? Well, it's a bad one. Here's the text: CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER: Section 53. Penalty for certain offenses Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Pretty crummy in terms of clarity (any surprise it's in the same Chapter as "Blasphemy?"). Nevertheless, the Mass. Supreme Court has interpreted the statue, and the Court does not interpret it as simply attempting to start a riot: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/when-is-conduct-disorderly.html (That's right, I'm going to link to Andrew Sullivan, too, after criticizing Russky for it earlier. I'm hypocritical like that.) Clearer statutes usually refer to language which incites an immediate breach of the peace, otherwise known as "fighting words." So, in many jurisdictions, if you say to another person, in public, "Walk away you Edited. Go home and Edited your mother," you may be arrested for disorderly conduct. In a handful of jurisdictions, you may be arrested for this language even if the person it is directed to is a police officer. The officer in question acted wrongly, regardless of how Gates was acting. A badge is not a license to be respected under penalty of arrest. I've been consistent in stating Gates should not have been arrested, and both parties should have walked away. Furthermore, the 911 call has come out, and nowhere does the caller mention the race of those breaking in. Yeah, I called this one, too. Just gloating. This thread has really devolved into Sergeant Crowley fan-fiction. Actually, most of the people creating this "fan fiction" have indicated at some point they don't agree with Crowley's actions. (And what's wrong with liking cops?) Can we remember for a second that the system more or less worked here? Gates wasn't charged. Unless the rest of Massachussets law is as old-timey as its DOC statute, he should be able to have the record of the arrest expunged. Officers across Massachussets now have a better idea of when they should and should not arrest a person for disorderly conduct. Crowley gets fan mail and hate mail, which is pretty much par for the course for a cop. This incident does not say ANYTHING about racism or police misconduct, IMO. What is says is that when two decent people screw up, the criminal justice system lets the incident go and doesn't ruin their lives over it. The media does. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 28, 2009 22:42:39 GMT -5
[ Actually, most of the people creating this "fan fiction" have indicated at some point they don't agree with Crowley's actions. (And what's wrong with liking cops?) I'm sorry, but if we're talking about Skip Gates inciting a riot, I want a whole chapter about Ann Coulter liking cops (specifically Sergeant Crowley)... in the erotic sense. If we're going fanfic, we should go all the way. What is says is that when two decent people screw up, the criminal justice system lets the incident go and doesn't ruin their lives over it. The media does. Amen! |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 28, 2009 22:45:29 GMT -5
So this thread has gone 10 pages.
Was it really that interesting a topic?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 29, 2009 8:49:43 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 29, 2009 8:55:07 GMT -5
Geez, why didn't anyone say that before?
Sibling rivalry. It all makes sense now. I've fought with my brothers over much more silly stuff than this.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Jul 29, 2009 12:11:20 GMT -5
Bando: I agree that police deserve aggressive oversight. However, it seems like too many people are willing to claim "contempt of cop" despite no evidence to the contrary. Cops are put in a very difficult position - they are trained to assume that the people they stop and/or arrest are going to try to kill them. They are also the only legal use of force (outside of personal self-defense). If somebody gets mugged, it's the cop's fault that he didn't stop them before the mugging. If somebody gets stopped because a cop thought someone seemed suspicious, then the cop is harassing them. There is a very small line in between. On the gradual militarization - criminals have access to high-level weaponry. Cops in Omaha engaged in a firefight aren't going to be able to call the FBI office in St. Louis and have their PD hold down the fort for a few hours while the truck screams down with HRT personnel. Combine this with Mexican militia groups that have access to heavy weaponry (at least for border states), and SWAT seems reasonable. On the arrest - Gates was outside (on his porch) when he was arrested. If a crowd had gathered, yelling out inciting statements may have pushed the cop over the edge to assume that Gates was trying to get the crowd to riot. "On the arrest - Gates was outside (on his porch) when he was arrested. If a crowd had gathered, yelling out inciting statements may have pushed the cop over the edge to assume that Gates was trying to get the crowd to riot. " Boy that's pretty damn thin. You really want to give cops the right to arrest people who might start a riot if theoretically (not in reality) the circumstance ripe for a riot MAY HAVE existed at that time and place? So a cop can say...."in different circumstances that guy's disrespect for me (constitutionally protected speech by the way) might be enough to cause a riot so he's under arrest?" That sounds very much like saying cops can arrest people for Contempt of Cop. Because you can always argue that contempt of Cop could possibly lead to a riot in theoretical situations. Mind you I yield to nobody in believing the racism charges alleged by Gates were irresponsible and totally unsubstantiated. Both of these things can be true at once...in fact in this case they ARE both true at once even though many seem to be viewing them as diametrically opposed. 1. The cop should not have arrested Gates for pi ssing him off and.... 2. Gates was totally out of line with his racism charges, which for a man of his intelligence and privillege was not unlike yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 29, 2009 12:18:27 GMT -5
Bando: I agree that police deserve aggressive oversight. However, it seems like too many people are willing to claim "contempt of cop" despite no evidence to the contrary. Cops are put in a very difficult position - they are trained to assume that the people they stop and/or arrest are going to try to kill them. They are also the only legal use of force (outside of personal self-defense). If somebody gets mugged, it's the cop's fault that he didn't stop them before the mugging. If somebody gets stopped because a cop thought someone seemed suspicious, then the cop is harassing them. There is a very small line in between. On the gradual militarization - criminals have access to high-level weaponry. Cops in Omaha engaged in a firefight aren't going to be able to call the FBI office in St. Louis and have their PD hold down the fort for a few hours while the truck screams down with HRT personnel. Combine this with Mexican militia groups that have access to heavy weaponry (at least for border states), and SWAT seems reasonable. On the arrest - Gates was outside (on his porch) when he was arrested. If a crowd had gathered, yelling out inciting statements may have pushed the cop over the edge to assume that Gates was trying to get the crowd to riot. "On the arrest - Gates was outside (on his porch) when he was arrested. If a crowd had gathered, yelling out inciting statements may have pushed the cop over the edge to assume that Gates was trying to get the crowd to riot. " Boy that's pretty damn thin. You really want to give cops the right to arrest people who might start a riot if theoretically (not in reality) the circumstance ripe for a riot MAY HAVE existed at that time and place? So a cop can say...."in different circumstances that guy's disrespect for me (constitutionally protected speech by the way) might be enough to cause a riot so he's under arrest?" That sounds very much like saying cops can arrest people for Contempt of Cop. Because you can always argue that contempt of Cop could possibly lead to a riot in theoretical situations. Mind you I yield to nobody in believing the racism charges alleged by Gates were irresponsible and totally unsubstantiated. Was trying to push it. Point respectfully pulled back. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 29, 2009 12:19:41 GMT -5
Bando: I agree that police deserve aggressive oversight. However, it seems like too many people are willing to claim "contempt of cop" despite no evidence to the contrary. Cops are put in a very difficult position - they are trained to assume that the people they stop and/or arrest are going to try to kill them. They are also the only legal use of force (outside of personal self-defense). If somebody gets mugged, it's the cop's fault that he didn't stop them before the mugging. If somebody gets stopped because a cop thought someone seemed suspicious, then the cop is harassing them. There is a very small line in between. On the gradual militarization - criminals have access to high-level weaponry. Cops in Omaha engaged in a firefight aren't going to be able to call the FBI office in St. Louis and have their PD hold down the fort for a few hours while the truck screams down with HRT personnel. Combine this with Mexican militia groups that have access to heavy weaponry (at least for border states), and SWAT seems reasonable. On the arrest - Gates was outside (on his porch) when he was arrested. If a crowd had gathered, yelling out inciting statements may have pushed the cop over the edge to assume that Gates was trying to get the crowd to riot. "On the arrest - Gates was outside (on his porch) when he was arrested. If a crowd had gathered, yelling out inciting statements may have pushed the cop over the edge to assume that Gates was trying to get the crowd to riot. " Boy that's pretty damn thin. You really want to give cops the right to arrest people who might start a riot if theoretically (not in reality) the circumstance ripe for a riot MAY HAVE existed at that time and place? So a cop can say...."in different circumstances that guy's disrespect for me (constitutionally protected speech by the way) might be enough to cause a riot so he's under arrest?" That sounds very much like saying cops can arrest people for Contempt of Cop. Because you can always argue that contempt of Cop could possibly lead to a riot in theoretical situations. Mind you I yield to nobody in believing the racism charges alleged by Gates were irresponsible and totally unsubstantiated. You'd rather the cops wait until unrest breaks out (it doesn't have to be a riot) before they arrest someone? We get it - you don't like this type of law. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist and be used in certain circumstances. I've been on plenty of cases where disorderly conduct was properly charged. In essence, you're asking cops to use a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in arresting someone, when you know that's not the proper standard. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Jul 29, 2009 12:24:28 GMT -5
I am not. I am asking cops not to arrest people who's only real crime is not being deferential enough. Am I correct to say that we are under no obligation to be respectful to cops? Am I wrong to conclude that disrespectful language said to police officers is protected speech? Because I've read a dozen cases where telling a cop to "f off" has been deemed protected speech, as I believe it should be. And in this case, Gates didn't come close to that level of disorderly conduct no matter how liberally you are seeking to interpret such statutes with his foolish (but legal) words.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 29, 2009 14:46:45 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jul 29, 2009 15:00:43 GMT -5
"The one person whose actions have been exemplary will be at work tomorrow in Cambridge."
I think she probably has the right idea in distancing herself from this incident.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 29, 2009 23:58:14 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,912
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 30, 2009 8:12:06 GMT -5
I think that this discretion is often exercised by police in a way that exceeds the boundaries of the law, and the punishments for exceeding it are typically minor, if any. What is your opinion based on? A handful of media reports where bad cops really, really Editeded up? I don't see a link between a gross disregard for an officer's duty and deciding whether to make a misdemeanor arrest for disorderly conduct, failure to ID, obstruction, etc. Keep in mind you'll never hear about a good officer doing his job correctly when it comes to minor offenses like disorderly conduct. ... I read the article you posted earlier, which mentions most of these stories. I think they are all abhorrent, and I'd be glad to know that none of those individuals will ever work in law enforcement again (assuming all allegations are true, of course). I never said police misconduct does not exist in America -- it certainly does. What I have an issue with is the idea that the Gates incident somehow speaks to police misconduct. Or Russky's idea that the Gates incident (or the incidents you mention) somehow indicates police officers, more often than not, use poor discretion when entrusted with it. For the first part, my opinion is based on my conversations with people in the criminal justice system, including lawyers, a DoJ employee, and two state circuit court judges, along with my own experiences in law enforcement. The overall picture I've gotten in each case has been one of a lack of police accountability - and the police know it and abuse it far more often than just a few instances of "really bad cops." In fact, much of the time, they're probably not bad cops at all, using most definitions. Still, I could name (well, I can't, but you know what I mean) at least a dozen police officers back in my hometown who have committed actions while on duty that should have resulted in severe administrative sanction and/or criminal charges. These are all open secrets within the criminal justice community there and it is simply accepted with a sigh and a shrug. As to the other part, specifically, "I don't see a link between a gross disregard for an officer's duty and deciding whether to make a misdemeanor arrest for disorderly conduct, failure to ID, obstruction, etc." The problem is that such gross disregard often goes unpunished. You say "I'd be glad to know that none of those individuals will ever work in law enforcement again (assuming all allegations are true, of course)." But the fact of the matter is that such individuals typically do continue working in law enforcement. The cops who put a group beatdown on a black undercover officer taking part in the same suspect search they were stayed on the force. In the case of a cop who clubbed a woman from behind with his gun and then arrested her for assaulting a police officer because his son hit her car earlier in the night and they had an argument, the cop is still at his job, as are the cops who came to the gas station later and asked the station manager to destroy the surveillance tapes that show exactly what the guy did. I could probably spend all day digging up with further examples. Certainly there are other factors at play, like "the blue line" and the fact that the police reimbursement system - risk your life for decent pay for 20 years in return for being able to draw full retirement while still in one's 40s - encourages everyone to sweep things under the rug so that no one's pension is threatened. But the result is that when even blatant wrongdoing goes largely unpunished, the atmosphere of permisiveness naturally leads to police, even good cops, taking greater liberties in more minor situations. That is the connection between gross abuse and going overboard and using disproportionate force as a matter of course in obstruction, disorderly conduct, etc. situations. And it is why we see incidents like this recent nugget from my hometown over and over again. I'm not saying that police misuse their discretion "more often than not," but it does happen with a frequency that I think is not only intolerable in a liberal society but is also counterproductive in the grand scheme of things. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 30, 2009 8:22:17 GMT -5
Still, I could name (well, I can't, but you know what I mean) at least a dozen police officers back in my hometown who have committed actions while on duty that should have resulted in severe administrative sanction and/or criminal charges. These are all open secrets within the criminal justice community there and it is simply accepted with a sigh and a shrug. Did you ever think of moving out of Garrison, New Jersey? (EDIT: Woo-hoo! Eleven! Take that, Eric Holder!) |
|
