No ID in Arizona? You'll get arrested.

[General Zod]

Uh... correct me if I am wrong, but can't the police in California arrest you without proper ID?

Edit: Nope.

They can detain you up to 24 or 48 hours (not sure which) until they confirm your identification, though.

[Alphawolf55]

But the problem is, increasing the power of police in general just helps the bad cops. With the blue-wall of silence and the mindless adoration of cops it's already hard to get bad cops off the force. Giving them more power and control, honestly just makes it harder for everyone to do their job right. While a bad cop will break the rules (usually with breaking search and warrant rules), the majority of misbehavior among cops are the ones that are within their legal confines but they abuse. They know the law and they know how to skirt it. So while I do agree we shouldn't destroy the power of the police for the sake of the bad ones, I think that in most cases we can't rely on cops being inherently Benevolent, unless we increase punishment for the misbehavior they do commit (which I'm in favor of) and create higher walls so better people become cops (which cops would throw a fit about). Honestly one of my biggest problems with cops is that none of them will pressed will admit that while a good number of cops are good guys just wanting to serve their community the job does attract the wrong kind of people.

The blue wall of silence is a bit exaggerated. It does depend on the department though. However, you need to understand that police are afforded the same rights as a citizen when it comes to pressing criminal charges against them. So, when you hear about a cop being acquitted it isn't necessarily because of the blue wall. Sometimes it is because the burden of proof does not meet the requirement of being beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, sometimes depending on the location for every valid complaint filed against a police officer there are frivilous complaints filed against officers that in some cases will exceed the number of valid complaints. So, where do you draw the line? What standard of evidence do you use against cops? What rights do cops have? These are all important questions. Many people seem to feel that being held to a higher standard = a lower burden of proof. This is not the case and it shouldn't be either.

You have to admit though, cops get away with certain things that would get other people jailed or arrested. Remember that cop who waved his gun around at kids in D.C? If any body else did anything like that they'd get a trip to the station what did he get? Desk Duty.

If a doctor makes a mistake on a patient he can get sued and lose his medical license, a cop accidently shoots someone? He can get off multiple times. (Just this year the Judges decided to acquit 2 police officers who shot a guy believing he had a gun, what he had instead was pulling out his wallet). Now were the cops performing an act of self-defense? Maybe, but in any other job those 2 would've been fired and heavily sued. They not only were acquitted but kept their jobs.

Granted me and you might have completely different experiences in cops, in NH where I grew up, there's one of the largest cops to civilian ratios in the country. The cops lie in court, do searches based on circumstial evidence (they smell weed even though it's not there), and openly insult people (I knew an autistic guy who was pretty normal who the cop called to his face a spaz). But we're also the safest state in the country, so police feel that they've been justified in their extreme behavior and that's the problem to me. Cops see their job as protectors of society and they are but they believe the ends justify the means and I personally disagree.

[jcow79]

You have to admit though, cops get away with certain things that would get other people jailed or arrested. Remember that cop who waved his gun around at kids in D.C? If any body else did anything like that they'd get a trip to the station what did he get? Desk Duty.

A cops job description is doing what the rest of us aren't allowed to. You are not allowed to pull over a person, cuff them and haul them off in your car. Hell, you'd probably get 25 years or more for kidnapping. But for the police this IS their job. So it doesn't surprise me that a lot of the other rules don't quite work the same. This doesn't excuse abuses, but it pretty much does guarantee that they will occur.

If a doctor makes a mistake on a patient he can get sued and lose his medical license, a cop accidently shoots someone? He can get off multiple times. (Just this year the Judges decided to acquit 2 police officers who shot a guy believing he had a gun, what he had instead was pulling out his wallet). Now were the cops performing an act of self-defense? Maybe, but in any other job those 2 would've been fired and heavily sued. They not only were acquitted but kept their jobs.

Doctors don't typically have to make a split second decision about whether the patient is trying to kill them. We afford police a lot of leeway because they have to make that determination and a mistake in the other direction costs them their lives and potentially the lives of others. And yes, police DO lose their jobs when they make mistakes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You have to admit though, cops get away with certain things that would get other people jailed or arrested. Remember that cop who waved his gun around at kids in D.C? If any body else did anything like that they'd get a trip to the station what did he get? Desk Duty.

Those people were involved in an act that could damage another persons property, or in other words they were committing a crime. While I feel his action was way overboard I can see why he choose to brandish his gun. He was outnumbered. Desk duty is a fair punishment. I didn't see him point it at anyone, or engage in any use of force other than the brandishing.

If a doctor makes a mistake on a patient he can get sued and lose his medical license, a cop accidently shoots someone? He can get off multiple times. (Just this year the Judges decided to acquit 2 police officers who shot a guy believing he had a gun, what he had instead was pulling out his wallet). Now were the cops performing an act of self-defense? Maybe, but in any other job those 2 would've been fired and heavily sued. They not only were acquitted but kept their jobs.

Your example is terrible. Last time I checked there haven't been any recorded cases of doctors being the victim of a homicide committed by an armed and dangerous tumor. If you're stopped by the police, and they say "Hands up!" You better do it. Hands up does not mean...get your wallet. That's assuming this is what happened. I'm inclined to believe it because even bad cops aren't necessarily looking to murder someone.

Granted me and you might have completely different experiences in cops, in NH where I grew up, there's one of the largest cops to civilian ratios in the country. The cops lie in court, do searches based on circumstial evidence (they smell weed even though it's not there), and openly insult people (I knew an autistic guy who was pretty normal who the cop called to his face a spaz). But we're also the safest state in the country, so police feel that they've been justified in their extreme behavior and that's the problem to me. Cops see their job as protectors of society and they are but they believe the ends justify the means and I personally disagree.

Yes, corrupt cops do exist. How does that justify limiting the authority of law abiding cops? Limiting the authority doesn't stop bad cops from going beyond the scope of their authority, and this is the point I'm trying to make. For example, the Taser being taken away from the BART cops. Sure, it'll stop bad cops from using the taser in an excessive manner. However, it will also force good cops to use other force options that have much longer lasting effects, and it won't stop bad cops from using excessive force.

[eion]

You have to admit though, cops get away with certain things that would get other people jailed or arrested. Remember that cop who waved his gun around at kids in D.C? If any body else did anything like that they'd get a trip to the station what did he get? Desk Duty.

Those people were involved in an act that could damage another persons property, or in other words they were committing a crime. While I feel his action was way overboard I can see why he choose to brandish his gun. He was outnumbered. Desk duty is a fair punishment. I didn't see him point it at anyone, or engage in any use of force other than the brandishing.

Actually if I remember correctly it was during the snow storm and someone threw a snowball at a hummer (bad idea) and it turned out to be the hummer of an off-duty plain clothes detective (oh shit). The detective gets out, brandishes his weapon, gets pretty angry, and finds himself surrounded and being chanted at by the mob. Someone else called the police and said there was a man waving a gun around in the middle of a snowball fight. The police rightly send a uniformed officer and the uniform finds out it was the detective, and rightly suggests the detective leave the potentially volatile scene.


Here it is. I think we can all agree there was bad judgments by both sides of this, and that what the detective should have done was pulled his vehicle over, gotten out, displayed his badge, and addressed the crowd and ask them to try not to hit any cars with their snowballs. But I’m sure he had had a stressful day. Luckily no one got hurt.

[Alphawolf55]

Because limiting the authority of all cops give the bad ones less defense when they do go over the edge, The argument that cops are going to break the laws either way so we should give them more authority isn't a comforting one. Why is giving more authority to cops a good thing anyways? Do cops really need more leeway? Why for example should a cop be able to search for marijuana in someone's car without a warrant just because he claims to smell it? Why should a cop be able to bring someone to the station just because he's arbitarily saying that you're being a public disturbance?

[jcow79]

Because limiting the authority of all cops give the bad ones less defense when they do go over the edge, The argument that cops are going to break the laws either way so we should give them more authority isn't a comforting one.

No one is making that argument. Authority IS NOT being granted to prevent bad cops from being QUITE so bad. Authority is being granted to give cops the right to perform a duty they are being tasked with by the legislature. My suspicion is that most cops wouldn’t want this duty to begin with. Their job has just gotten a lot bigger and potentially a lot more dangerous and I doubt a sizable raise came with it.

Why is giving more authority to cops a good thing anyways? Do cops really need more leeway?

It depends what you require your police force to do. If you are going to require them to do additional duties you may very well require additional laws to give them the legal right to do said duty. The police don’t get these rights by their say so. A lot of departments limit their own officers even beyond what the law itself does. An officer can lose his job by breaking department policy alone even if no laws were broken.

Why for example should a cop be able to search for marijuana in someone's car without a warrant just because he claims to smell it?

This is a matter of probable cause. If an officer is willing to lie about his probable cause, let’s face it, you’re going to get searched. Every profession has ways of abusing the authority and privileges that go along with that profession. Would you advocate disallowing dentists using general anesthesia because some dentists molest their patients while they’re under? Or would you rather just address the individuals breaking the law?

Why should a cop be able to bring someone to the station just because he's arbitarily saying that you're being a public disturbance?

Would you want to remove an officers ability to actually remove people that ARE being a public disturbance? Again, an officer that is going to abuse it will abuse it. File a complaint and sue the department if necessary. Removing his ability to perform the job that everyone expects him to do doesn’t help anyone.

[Alphawolf55]

Saying that every professional has a way to abuse his power isn't an excuse to let them keep excessive power. Lets use probable cause for example, just cause a cop is going to search your car either way for drugs, doesn't mean we should give them the legal right to search your car without a warrant. Does having probable cause laws help officer catch guilty individuals who they don't have hard evidence are breaking a law, yes. Will people still search cars either way, yes. But if we lacked them, the guy who went too far and abused it would get in trouble, with them around he's well within his rights.

I will agree that we should give officers the ability to do the jobs we expect them to do, and perhaps limiting their authority limits effectiveness but I'd rather have a little more crime and less abuse of power then the other way around. Granted, like I said I grew up in a ridiculously safe state with very little violence so whats crime to me are usually victimless crimes, so I can't expect my argument to work in areas where it's arguable that with less authority police and innocent people get hurt.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Your papers, comrade?

This is hilarious.The republican party is bringing more aspects of Stalinism to America that the Democrats have ever dreamed of. Oh, and scary.

[Kuroji]

Uh... correct me if I am wrong, but can't the police in California arrest you without proper ID?

Edit: Nope.

If you refuse to give them ID or your info, they likely can, but if you don't have proper ID, no. Thankfully we're not quite that cracked-out for the most part in the US, at least not yet, but things like this are depressing to watch.

However, I see this law being challenged and removed quickly on fourth amendment grounds.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Saying that every professional has a way to abuse his power isn't an excuse to let them keep excessive power. Lets use probable cause for example, just cause a cop is going to search your car either way for drugs, doesn't mean we should give them the legal right to search your car without a warrant. Does having probable cause laws help officer catch guilty individuals who they don't have hard evidence are breaking a law, yes. Will people still search cars either way, yes. But if we lacked them, the guy who went too far and abused it would get in trouble, with them around he's well within his rights.

If they have enough to get a warrant for your car then they have probable cause. A judge doesn't drive down to the scene to verify that the officer is telling the truth, nor is anything else different when something is searched just off of probable cause or having a search warrant issued.

Furthermore, the fourth amendment ALLOWS for this. So, are you saying that the fourth amendment needs to be changed so probable cause no longer appears?

I will agree that we should give officers the ability to do the jobs we expect them to do, and perhaps limiting their authority limits effectiveness but I'd rather have a little more crime and less abuse of power then the other way around. Granted, like I said I grew up in a ridiculously safe state with very little violence so whats crime to me are usually victimless crimes, so I can't expect my argument to work in areas where it's arguable that with less authority police and innocent people get hurt.

Good then you can see how requiring a search warrant for a vehicle stop is impairing police fom providing effective service, and is borderline a violation of the subjects rights.

[Alphawolf55]

I wouldn't say that it impairs their ability to do a job effectively. It's not hard to get a search warrant, you just fax a judge. Also who cares if it impairs a cops ability to perform services? The rights of civilians are more important then the cops ability to do a good job. Cops should not have every power under the sun to stop, search you, or arrest you to get you for something you MIGHT be doing wrong. It doesn't matter if I have coke in my car, if a cop pulls me over he shouldn't be able to search my car just cause he somehow thinks he smells weed.

Plus I forgot to ask this, how is desk duty an appriopiate punishment for waving a gun? In fact how is it a punishment at all?

[Kuroji]

It means that, for one, you are disgraced in the eyes of your fellow officers. But more to the point, if you're stuck at a desk, you're dealing with the most stupid parts of the job and it's unavoidable. It's the difference between being able to go out to do an investigation into something legitimate, and being stuck in one location taking a report on someone who lost their iPod and demands you go search the neighborhood now now now, and similar bullshit like that.

However, you should not require a search warrant on a traffic stop, because if there's something on a traffic stop that requires a warrant, you should already have the probable cause to do what you need to do without a warrant. The only time I've ever seen people needing to call up a judge for a search warrant for a vehicle, they've already had the driver arrested. If they think you have drugs in the car but they don't have any proof, and you decline consent to search the vehicle... if they get a warrant to search your vehicle and they fail to find any drugs, you've got a potential suit against the officer and the judge who signed that search warrant. No judge in his right mind is going to issue a search warrant on a vehicle just on a stop unless there's information specific to you or that vehicle, saying that you've got something there.

No officer should be able to just search a vehicle without a warrant because they have a suspicion, unless they've got some proof that there's something in the vehicle, for example being able to smell marijuana or something like it with your window rolled down.

[Uraniun235]

I wouldn't say that it impairs their ability to do a job effectively. It's not hard to get a search warrant, you just fax a judge. Also who cares if it impairs a cops ability to perform services? The rights of civilians are more important then the cops ability to do a good job. Cops should not have every power under the sun to stop, search you, or arrest you to get you for something you MIGHT be doing wrong. It doesn't matter if I have coke in my car, if a cop pulls me over he shouldn't be able to search my car just cause he somehow thinks he smells weed.

So, if it's so easy to get a warrant, what's to prevent judges from rubber-stamping requests for warrants to search cars when they're woken at 1 AM by a cop who just pulled you over?

[Alphawolf55]

Nothing other then the fact it now adds an extra person and the cop has to justify it. Additionally it creates a paper trail of stated reasons, the cop can't just change his mind on what the reasonable cause was. Though I honestly don't know why anyone thinks "I smelled marijuana" is a reasonable cause when it's such a subjective thing and can't be proven, especially since marijuana itself doesn't have a strong smell only after it's smoked does it.

[General Zod]

Nothing other then the fact it now adds an extra person and the cop has to justify it. Additionally it creates a paper trail of stated reasons, the cop can't just change his mind on what the reasonable cause was. Though I honestly don't know why anyone thinks "I smelled marijuana" is a reasonable cause when it's such a subjective thing and can't be proven, especially since marijuana itself doesn't have a strong smell only after it's smoked does it.

If a cop can smell marijuana, that probably means the people in the car have been smoking it. Which probably means they were committing a DUI, and thus the cop has a reasonable cause.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Nothing other then the fact it now adds an extra person and the cop has to justify it. Additionally it creates a paper trail of stated reasons, the cop can't just change his mind on what the reasonable cause was. Though I honestly don't know why anyone thinks "I smelled marijuana" is a reasonable cause when it's such a subjective thing and can't be proven, especially since marijuana itself doesn't have a strong smell only after it's smoked does it.

If a cop can smell marijuana, that probably means the people in the car have been smoking it. Which probably means they were committing a DUI, and thus the cop has a reasonable cause.

Or, of course, the cop thinks that two niggers like that don't have any right driving a BMW unless they're wearing Armani, flashes his lights, knocks on the window, and when it opens says "Woah, is that Mary Jane? Get out of this car, I have reasonable suspicion to search it," and thus decides to look for anything he can use to screw with them - and even if he finds nothing, he can simply say he was having an 'off' day or misidentified their car's air-freshener as Marajuana; their day is still fucked with, and he gets to have his fun, and nothing is going to come of it.

[General Zod]

Nothing other then the fact it now adds an extra person and the cop has to justify it. Additionally it creates a paper trail of stated reasons, the cop can't just change his mind on what the reasonable cause was. Though I honestly don't know why anyone thinks "I smelled marijuana" is a reasonable cause when it's such a subjective thing and can't be proven, especially since marijuana itself doesn't have a strong smell only after it's smoked does it.

If a cop can smell marijuana, that probably means the people in the car have been smoking it. Which probably means they were committing a DUI, and thus the cop has a reasonable cause.

Or, of course, the cop thinks that two niggers like that don't have any right driving a BMW unless they're wearing Armani, flashes his lights, knocks on the window, and when it opens says "Woah, is that Mary Jane? Get out of this car, I have reasonable suspicion to search it," and thus decides to look for anything he can use to screw with them - and even if he finds nothing, he can simply say he was having an 'off' day or misidentified their car's air-freshener as Marajuana; their day is still fucked with, and he gets to have his fun, and nothing is going to come of it.

So you file a complaint with his precinct. Unless it's some backwater nowhere redneck town, legitimate complaints will get dealt with. A dickhead cop that likes to abuse his authority is going to abuse is no matter what the laws say. Frankly there's not much you can do about abusive assholes until after the fact.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Or, of course, the cop thinks that two niggers like that don't have any right driving a BMW unless they're wearing Armani, flashes his lights, knocks on the window, and when it opens says "Woah, is that Mary Jane? Get out of this car, I have reasonable suspicion to search it," and thus decides to look for anything he can use to screw with them - and even if he finds nothing, he can simply say he was having an 'off' day or misidentified their car's air-freshener as Marajuana; their day is still fucked with, and he gets to have his fun, and nothing is going to come of it.

The other possibilities is that these two people who told you this story lied to you. So, we're back at that point once again. Where do you draw the line? A warrant is based off of probable cause developed by the officers observations, so if a police officer is willing to lie then the requiring a warrant will not stop that, or make that officer vulnerable to civil right violations. In fact, the possession of a warrant will pretty much make that officer immune to any civil action unless you can prove that the officer lied.

At that point it becomes he said she said. So, you either have to declare that all police are liars and therefore completely strip them of their authority or you realize that no system is perfect and society must place their trust in the hands of their police officers if you want them to be effective.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I wouldn't say that it impairs their ability to do a job effectively. It's not hard to get a search warrant, you just fax a judge. Also who cares if it impairs a cops ability to perform services? The rights of civilians are more important then the cops ability to do a good job. Cops should not have every power under the sun to stop, search you, or arrest you to get you for something you MIGHT be doing wrong. It doesn't matter if I have coke in my car, if a cop pulls me over he shouldn't be able to search my car just cause he somehow thinks he smells weed.

Well, nobody is faxing a judge from their patrol car. However, you could get a telephonic warrant, but guess what that judge is going to be told. "Hi Judge. I'm Officer Douchbag with the Asshole Police Department. I have this vehicle stopped for (insert fabricated traffic violation), and I smell (insert fabricated odor). I need a warrant issued for this vehicle to search these areas for (insert drug)."

Judge will say "Sounds like you have probable cause, Officer Douchebag! Warrant approved."

Then when the officer doesn't find anything you're back to the same position. The only difference by requiring a warrant you've now added the time it took to secure that warrant to the time stolen from these victims. Congratulations! You've now just added another useless bit of a red tape that accomplishes nothing.

Plus I forgot to ask this, how is desk duty an appriopiate punishment for waving a gun? In fact how is it a punishment at all?

Going off the video of the incident he removed the pistol from the holster and it was pointed at the ground the entire time. That is not "waving" which implies a reckless disregard for the rules of firearm safety.

Desk duty is a form of punishment because it is boring and nobody wants to do it. It's like latrine duty in the military...I suppose you feel the only valid forms of punishment are the ones that cause harm like days off, or termination?

[Simon_Jester]

Kamikaze, would you say there's a compromise point? I'd think there has to be a level at which adding more police power causes more harm than good, even if we're nowhere near it in our society.

Where would you draw that line?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Kamikaze, would you say there's a compromise point? I'd think there has to be a level at which adding more police power causes more harm than good, even if we're nowhere near it in our society.

Where would you draw that line?

I would say removing the requirements for police to develop reasonable suspicion to justify detainment would be crossing that line.

I'm torn on this regulation because I realize that the majority of illegals are good hard working people trying to make a difference for their families. However, being illegal also makes it much harder to identify someone unless they've already been arrested. I don't like the fact that illegal criminals are able to change their name like I change socks with no paper trail to track them.

[Thanas]

Given how Arizona houses such racists and thugs like Sheriff Joe - who nobody has acted against - then why the heck should giving them more powers be a good thing considering the low standards of the Arizona police?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Given how Arizona houses such racists and thugs like Sheriff Joe - who nobody has acted against - then why the heck should giving them more powers be a good thing considering the low standards of the Arizona police?

Right, because nobody has acted against him.

Federal Investigation

Also, the low standards of the Arizona police? Don't you mean of Maricopa County?

[Thanas]

Given how Arizona houses such racists and thugs like Sheriff Joe - who nobody has acted against - then why the heck should giving them more powers be a good thing considering the low standards of the Arizona police?

Right, because nobody has acted against him.

Federal Investigation

Also, the low standards of the Arizona police? Don't you mean of Maricopa County?

I didn't know that was ongoing, the last thing I remember is from December last year. Conceded (though I'll wait for the result of the investigation before final judgement).