Sleeping 7-Year Old Shot by Police During Raid

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't think you understand. The difference between a private business having the ability to make exceptions and officers is clear. Private businesses can do it because they are their own business and because there is no express interest for society to monitor their actions. The reason we give cops the ability to use their discretion is because we believe they can efficiently root out things, but we still expect them to give out the same tickets and judgements based on all relevant information. You knowing a certain cop is no more relevant then knowing Barack Obama.

No, it is you that doesn't understand. You are mistaken about the concept of police discretion. It is not about giving out the same tickets and judgements based on all relevant information. A police officer can exercise his/her discretion if they just want to be nice. The only time discretion is illegal is if it is used/not used due to a persons ethnicity.

Also if you give a police officer's niece a ticket, that's their problem not yours. You were merely doing your job and shouldn't be faulted. It's no more reasonable for them to get angry at you then any other member of society. If individuals who get tickets from cops are expected to understand that the officer is merely doing his job, then the same courtesty should be given to cops from their fellow officer.

Agreed. That still doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't expect officers to ticket the family members of co-workers when they can exercise discretion against the general public for equally "irrelevant" things like "wanting to be nice".

Additionally, your excuses don't account for the fact that the NYPD openly admits to giving these cards to politicans, people of express influence and members of the press for "Press relation reasons."

Why should they account for that? I'm not arguing against that. Furthermore, you have yet to show that simply possessing one of these cards is a get out of a ticket card. You have assumed this. You have not shown it.

[Alphawolf55]

They won't get you out of everything but they will help, according to the union spokemen. I mean alot of times they're called courtest cards cause you're suppose to give the holder special "courtesty"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/nyregion/11cards.html

Additionally, what other possible reason is there for them to exist? You just admitted that it'd be perfectly fine to give special treatment based on relations to a police officer, so what other reasons is there for a card to exist that states relations to a police officer other then to get special treatment?

And you're wrong, I should expect a police officer to ticket the members of police families. There's no logical reason why certain people should be above getting tickets based on who they know and the fact you don't want to be unpopular. Sure you can practice "discretion" for them. But you could for every traffic situation at that point. Why should be there be two set of rules? Isn't what's good for society at large good for the individuals?

[Kamakazie Sith]

They won't get you out of everything but they will help, according to the union spokemen. I mean alot of times they're called courtest cards cause you're suppose to give the holder special "courtesty"

The union spokesman says no such thing. The article author makes that claim and does not support it.

Additionally, what other possible reason is there for them to exist? You just admitted that it'd be perfectly fine to give special treatment based on relations to a police officer, so what other reasons is there for a card to exist that states relations to a police officer other then to get special treatment?

Actually, I admitted that it would be perfectly fine to get special treatment if you're a family member, or significant other, of a police officer. Not just any relation. As for the function of the card the union spokesman specifically challenges the assertion that simply having a card will get you out of a ticket. It goes on to explain that the cards have the officers name and a phone number where they can be reached. If a card holder claimed to be a family member the officer who conducted the traffic stop would definitely call that number to verify.

And you're wrong, I should expect a police officer to ticket the members of police families.

True. It is wrong of me to say what you should expect. However, I'm not challenging that. I'm challenging your assertion that this practice is a corrupt practice.

There's no logical reason why certain people should be above getting tickets based on who they know and the fact you don't want to be unpopular. Sure you can practice "discretion" for them. But you could for every traffic situation at that point. Why should be there be two set of rules? Isn't what's good for society at large good for the individuals?

You can for every traffic situation. Haven't you been paying attention? Police discretion on traffic matters is very flexible. The only time it would become an issue is if you were letting people go because of their ethnicity or vise versa issuing tickets.

So, really there isn't two sets of rules. There is officer discretion, and that's it. A police officer can give a ticket to the family member of another cop but most cops do not want to do that. The ones that do will do it. There is no punishment for doing so...

Basically, Alphawolf. This corruption you see is simply people in a career field exercising their legal authority to use discretion in the manner they see fit. As Lonestar pointed out...some apply discretion because the person they've pulled over is in the military.

In my case I exercise it against people I catch with misdemeanor amounts of marijuana. Possession of marijuana is clearly against the law, but I do not have to make an arrest if I so choose. Do you feel that I'm unfairly exercising my discretionary powers? If not, then why is it wrong for an officer to exercise their discretionary powers for family members of their co-workers?

[Spoonist]

This "discretion" stuff is really strange to me. Over the pond where I live we would definately call that corruption. Instead we expect our officers to enforce the law regardless of who is involved. I've read of several such cases here which has lead to disciplinary actions. Equal treatment before the law, etc. How can that not be seen as a slippery slope for corruption?

Just as an example the latest was cops doing a routine check on all bicycles passing a check point and handing out tickets for safety violations. So two cops pull over a bicycling couple, where both where missing a safety item, but they only ticket the guy, not the girl. Just to be nice as you said. This ended with both cops getting disciplined and officially apologizing for their actions.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This "discretion" stuff is really strange to me. Over the pond where I live we would definately call that corruption. Instead we expect our officers to enforce the law regardless of who is involved. I've read of several such cases here which has lead to disciplinary actions. Equal treatment before the law, etc. How can that not be seen as a slippery slope for corruption?

So, you're saying that your cops ticket each others family members when they stop them. How can you prove that to me? If you can then I salute your different set of ethics.

Just as an example the latest was cops doing a routine check on all bicycles passing a check point and handing out tickets for safety violations. So two cops pull over a bicycling couple, where both where missing a safety item, but they only ticket the guy, not the girl. Just to be nice as you said. This ended with both cops getting disciplined and officially apologizing for their actions.

That's a failure of discretion though. In that instance they should have cited both, or given both a break. Instead they created a perception of sexism.

[Simon_Jester]

Furthermore, I hate to break it to you but family favoritism doesn't exist just in the police world and speeding isn't exactly a serious crime. Giving people a break on traffic tickets is one thing, and is NOT corruption. You may not like it but that does not make it corruption.

Could you expand on why you say that this is true? I mean, I'll grant that there isn't a law against doing it in the US, but that doesn't mean it isn't corruption. There are plenty of countries where the police are blatantly corrupt, whether there's a law against what they're doing or not.

So, to you when someone gives a family member a perk that is corruption? Alright, I'm not going to try and change your views but they seem a bit whiny to me.

Just for a laugh I should go tell my friend that his family is corrupt because he was given free (roughly $4000 value) Lasik eye surgery at Hoopes vision.

I can see why someone would see a difference here. If I give you something for free that it costs my business to produce, no one else suffers except possibly as a second-order effect (if I raise prices to cover the cost of the gift).

On the other hand, when police are selectively punishing people for breaking traffic regulations, applying the regulations to random strangers but not to their friends, it shakes the premise that the law is supposed to apply to everyone uniformly. I don't think it's hard to see why that would seem a bit different.

Especially not when the prevailing attitude towards police making a traffic stop is supposed to be "just doing your job, officer." I agree with Alphawolf on that: if police expect random strangers to view them as impersonal agents of the law rather than seeing the traffic ticket as a personal attack, they should be able to hold themselves to the same standard and see tickets issued to their relatives as the acts of impersonal agents of the law and not as a personal attack on the relative.

In my case I exercise it against people I catch with misdemeanor amounts of marijuana. Possession of marijuana is clearly against the law, but I do not have to make an arrest if I so choose. Do you feel that I'm unfairly exercising my discretionary powers? If not, then why is it wrong for an officer to exercise their discretionary powers for family members of their co-workers?

Because you're using discretionary powers to say "I am not going to arrest people for this category of action, no matter who they are, so long as they meet the following impersonal conditions." This hypothetical officer is saying "I am not going to arrest people for this category of action because they are my friends."

In the former case, the enforcement (or discretionary choice not to enforce) is uniform; it applies to everyone. In the latter case, it is not. The advantage of not being arrested at an officer's discretion becomes a special benefit that you get by being related to a police officer. Or by being a member of some organization. Or by giving a lot of money to some organization. Or by having political power.

At which point we start to see a split between the "law for special people" and the "law for everyone else," instead of just law. The special people are getting privileges that ordinary citizens do not enjoy. Which raises equal protection issues, to my way of thinking.

[SVPD]

Discretion is exactly that, discretion.

Police officers will always have discretion over minor offenses. There is simply no way to efficiently utilize law enforcement resources without it. The sorts of offenses which it aplies to are minor offenses, generally so minor that practially everyone commits them just by virtue of making normal, human mistakes.

The goal in enforcing traffic laws is to improve safety on the roads. That requires that officers stop people for violating the traffic laws on a reasonably regular basis. Tickets exist so that there is some sort of consequence that will deter from breaking those laws to a reasonable degree.

However, these are minor laws. Requiring that a ticket be automatically issued every time a stop is made is just absurd. Not all violations occur under the same conditions. Not all violations are to the same degree; there is a huge difference between exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour as opposed to 20 miles per hour. Inevitably, some tickets are simply unwarranted at the time the officer discovers them. For example, I once stopped a man for speeding who informed me that he was acting as principle for 2 elementary schools, and a student at the one he was heading to was becoming seriously violent. Yes, he was speeding, but although he didn't have a technical legal right to do so, he did have a perfectly good reason for doing so, so I didn't give him a ticket.

If you tell officers they must write a ticket whenever they stop someone, they will just avoid stopping all but the emost egregarious violations in order to avoid these situations and exercise discretion that way anyhow. If you tell them they must stop every violationt hey see, not only will you consume police resources excessively on traffic, but police will simply start "not seeing" violations they don't wish to, and no one will be able to do anything about it. since as it stands, police can't possibly see every minor traffic error even when they are present. They may be simply looking in another direction.

Moreover, discretion is just that, discretion. If someone has a little card, that does not obligate an officer to honor it. He can write a ticket or not, just as he can for anyone else. Is he less likely to? Yes, probably, but that depends on the severity of the offense, and the circumstances. The only thing the officer must do in exercising discretion is obey the law themselves, and the law does not attempt to micromanage the reasons for discretion in that way. It is not possible to enforce the law effectively without discretion and it is not possible to micromanage the way in which discretion is applied.

Really, there are 2 possibilities for what you're suggesting:

1) Everyone always gets a ticket, in which case we give out a lot of absurd tickets, just to avoid the relatives and friends of cops getting fewer tickets, in which case basically everyone suffers from absurdity and quality traffic enforcement gets shitcanned just because you don't like some people getting breaks.

or

2) Relatives and friends of cops automatically get tickets because you don't like them getting breaks, or worse, we start prosecuting people for mentioning that they know or are related to a cop as "corruption" in which case we start having fewer and fewer cops as the law distorts itself into a caricature of justice to appease a few people who are pissed about courtesy cards.

Most people don't give a second thought to courtesy cards. I can't recall ever stopping a single person who said "Bet I'd get outof this if I had a card, huh?" They simply aren't on the public radar.

As for it being a bribe; good luck trying to get a bribery conviction for someone paying money to a private organization to give them a little card that may or may not get them out of a situation they may or may not find themselves in in the future. There's a reason it's not "legal bribery"; because that isn't what the law defines as bribery; the connection is far oo vague and tenuous. Do you also think it's bribery for people to put "FOP supporter 2007" stickers in their back windows?

I'll tell you what the real problem is: You're a young adult, you don't like guys in blue uniforms having the authority to put you in jail if you mess up, and you're upset that you don't have one of these cards. This isn't one of those things that "make people sick of police"; it makes you sick of police because you've already made up your mind that you're going to be. It's not something that most people even think about.

[Big Phil]

Furthermore, I hate to break it to you but family favoritism doesn't exist just in the police world and speeding isn't exactly a serious crime. Giving people a break on traffic tickets is one thing, and is NOT corruption. You may not like it but that does not make it corruption.

Could you expand on why you say that this is true? I mean, I'll grant that there isn't a law against doing it in the US, but that doesn't mean it isn't corruption. There are plenty of countries where the police are blatantly corrupt, whether there's a law against what they're doing or not.

Is it corruption when a cop lets an attractive woman off with a warning, while giving a guy in the same situation a ticket?

[SVPD]

Could you expand on why you say that this is true? I mean, I'll grant that there isn't a law against doing it in the US, but that doesn't mean it isn't corruption. There are plenty of countries where the police are blatantly corrupt, whether there's a law against what they're doing or not.

It isn't corruption because there A) is no quid pro quo; a courtesy card or family favor is something that a person may or may not be in a situation to need, may or may not get if they are, and won't get if it becomes more than just a trivial offense and B) because the law and the courts don't define it that way.

On the other hand, when police are selectively punishing people for breaking traffic regulations, applying the regulations to random strangers but not to their friends, it shakes the premise that the law is supposed to apply to everyone uniformly. I don't think it's hard to see why that would seem a bit different.

It really doesn't shake the premise because important people and friends of the police do not universally not have laws applied against them, nor do random strangers universally get tickets. The law does apply eually to anyone; the law is that the officer may exercise discretion and may not be second-guessed unless he violates the law himself. In any case, the police are not punishing anyone by giving them a ticket. Punishment is what courts impose after you are found guilty. You have the right to go to court on any ticket.

Especially not when the prevailing attitude towards police making a traffic stop is supposed to be "just doing your job, officer." I agree with Alphawolf on that: if police expect random strangers to view them as impersonal agents of the law rather than seeing the traffic ticket as a personal attack, they should be able to hold themselves to the same standard and see tickets issued to their relatives as the acts of impersonal agents of the law and not as a personal attack on the relative.

The prevailing attitude of people is precisely that, in spite of these circumstances, simply because the polcie do give a lot of people a lot of breaks. A person getting a break because they know a cop is not getting anything special that tons of other people don't get. A person who is a relative and uses that fact to flaunt the law WILL end up getting their tickets because most officers will not tolerate their good graces being used in that way, or they'll do something serious enough that good exercise of discretion simply doesn't warrant a break.

Giving them tickets simply because they are relatives or friends when everyone else may or may not get discretion is absurd.

Because you're using discretionary powers to say "I am not going to arrest people for this category of action, no matter who they are, so long as they meet the following impersonal conditions." This hypothetical officer is saying "I am not going to arrest people for this category of action because they are my friends."

Except that he isn't saying that; he's only saying he'll take that into consideration.

In the former case, the enforcement (or discretionary choice not to enforce) is uniform; it applies to everyone. In the latter case, it is not. The advantage of not being arrested at an officer's discretion becomes a special benefit that you get by being related to a police officer. Or by being a member of some organization. Or by giving a lot of money to some organization. Or by having political power.

Except that it isn't. You still may or may not get arrested or get a ticket, especially in areas where the cops don't interact with the department your friend or relative works with.

Discretion still applies to everyone. You're assuming that officers use it to give blanket immunity to people when in fact it's simply another fact we consider. What this logically leads to is that same class of people getting especially ahrsh treatment just so that you're assured they aren't getting special treatment.

At which point we start to see a split between the "law for special people" and the "law for everyone else," instead of just law. The special people are getting privileges that ordinary citizens do not enjoy. Which raises equal protection issues, to my way of thinking.

Except that it doesn't, and the courts have considered this. It raises equal protection issues because you're making unwarranted assumptions about how it works.

[Alphawolf55]

SVPD, cut with the 'You've just already made up your mind argument". Everytime someone brought up any complaint of the police, you bring up that argument, that the people who dislike police or dislike any practice are merely young angry adults or people who get in trouble with the law alot. It's a flawed argument, as if every person who says nothing is some silent majority who automatically agrees with the cops. Most people also have a problem with corruptions giving campaign contributions in the 70-80 % range they'll say they dislike it but there's nothing that can be done. If you've ask alot of people what they think of these cards they'll have a problem with them but they'll say "What can you do". Don't automatically assume just because most people have become apathetic and complacent they somehow automatically agree with you.

Seriously it reminds me when one of the higher ups of the Bed-Stuy police precint was caught saying 'Fuck the complainers they're just degenerates, the good people who aren't saying anything? They support us!"

[SVPD]

SVPD, cut with the 'You've just already made up your mind argument". Everytime someone brought up any complaint of the police, you bring up that argument, that the people who dislike police or dislike any practice are merely young angry adults or people who get in trouble with the law alot. It's a flawed argument, as if every person who says nothing is some silent majority who automatically agrees with the cops. Most people also have a problem with corruptions giving campaign contributions in the 70-80 % range they'll say they dislike it but there's nothing that can be done. If you've ask alot of people what they think of these cards they'll have a problem with them but they'll say "What can you do". Don't automatically assume just because most people have become apathetic and complacent they somehow automatically agree with you.

Are you going to respond to my points, or just try to recast my assessment of your personal issues as my actual argument?

Most people do not have problem with this. Where are the lawsuits and court cases over it? Why do people not react more unfavorably to getting a ticket than they do? When most people are not saying anything about an issue, especially when it's one that is really pretty fucking trivial, the logical conclusion is that they have nothing to say unless you have some evidence to the contrary (Occam's razor, bud) Your asserion that if you "ask a lot of people they'll have a problem with it" isn't evidence.

All you're doing here is making a huge strawman, and appealing to popularity that you haven't even shown exists in the first place. I haven't argued they're ok because most peopel are fine with them; I've argued most people are fine with them because as a practical matter they don't result in anything happening that isn't completely within the purview of the police to do anyhow.

Seriously it reminds me when one of the higher ups of the Bed-Stuy police precint was caught saying 'Fuck the complainers they're just degenerates, the good people who aren't saying anything? They support us!"

It reminds you of an obscure police department's "higher ups" doing something of an unspecified nature at an unspecified point in time that you've provided no evidence of and attempted to sum up in one line of predjudicial language attempting to imply sometihng?

That's nice.

If you don't want to be summed up as a young adult going out of his way to find fault with the mean ole policeman, stop acting like a stereotype of exactly that.

[Alphawolf55]

Where's your evidence that everyone is for it? You've merely said "Well there aren't lots of court cases" except I gave an example of something that most people are quiet about but are overwhelmingly against. You created the straw man first, rather then just argue the points, you decided you knew better then they did and decided to make a comment on the person qualities of the arguers. You decided, no it's not that these practices seem inherently a little shady but it's just that the people against them are angry teenagers who are angry they can't just break the law! Yet you provide no proof or anything to back it up.

Also about the NYPD tapes, there's been multiple links to it in this thread and an entire thread about it.

[Spoonist]

-Kamakazie Sith
Note that I'm not engaging in the big argument that you are in, I just thought it strange with that americanism. So don't take this in the context of the rest.

So, you're saying that your cops ticket each others family members when they stop them. How can you prove that to me?

In smallville where everyone knows everyone, probably not, in cities, of course they do, they would be stupid not to because they might get disciplined.
But the difference would be if you pull them over you ticket them. So in smallville they would recognize the colleagues spouse's car and not pull it over, and if you did make the mistake of pulling them over then even smallville cops would probably feel obliged to ticket the spouse.
What kind of proof where you looking for?

I'm not saying that our cops are not corruptable, we have a massive blue wall for instance, but I am saying that that is such an obvious exploit leading to a slippery slope to corruption that it is generally harshly discouraged to get cops 'to stay in line'. Now mind you all police belong to the same organization here so enforcing such policies are much easier than in the US where there are so many different levels and jurisdictions that it is confusing.

That's a failure of discretion though. In that instance they should have cited both, or given both a break. Instead they created a perception of sexism.

The given reason by the cops in court was that they didn't want to ticket both since they where students. I think the sexism angle never factored in court, but only in the tabloids.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Could you expand on why you say that this is true? I mean, I'll grant that there isn't a law against doing it in the US, but that doesn't mean it isn't corruption. There are plenty of countries where the police are blatantly corrupt, whether there's a law against what they're doing or not.

Corruption is obviously more than just what is against the law. Corruption is acts that cause harm. Not ticketing a family member or the family member of a coworker doesn't harm anyone. Discretion itself doesn't harm anyone. It is a valuable tool. Those family members that catch breaks, when they do, represent a ridiculously small percentage of traffic stops.

I think some people in this thread have a brain bug that police officer family members can willfully disregard traffic laws without fear. This is simply wrong. It just means that when they make a mistake chances are they won't be cited. It doesn't mean that they leave from the traffic stop and the cop radios down the road "Hey, Jacks daughter is coming down the road...let's see if she can break 100!"

I can see why someone would see a difference here. If I give you something for free that it costs my business to produce, no one else suffers except possibly as a second-order effect (if I raise prices to cover the cost of the gift).

On the other hand, when police are selectively punishing people for breaking traffic regulations, applying the regulations to random strangers but not to their friends, it shakes the premise that the law is supposed to apply to everyone uniformly. I don't think it's hard to see why that would seem a bit different.

I'm not trying to say they are exactly the same. What I am trying to tell you is that the person in charge is going to make their decision and there's nothing you can do about it. Enforcement of this is impossible unless you try to make a cite required for every stop.

Especially not when the prevailing attitude towards police making a traffic stop is supposed to be "just doing your job, officer." I agree with Alphawolf on that: if police expect random strangers to view them as impersonal agents of the law rather than seeing the traffic ticket as a personal attack, they should be able to hold themselves to the same standard and see tickets issued to their relatives as the acts of impersonal agents of the law and not as a personal attack on the relative.

Here we go again. Are cops machines? No. They are human like everyone else. If you don't want cops to give coworker family members a break then you should be against discretion period. You give them a choice then they will do what they will do. There are cops that will cite the family members of other cops, but most DO NOT WANT TO. That's the key here. Desire.

]Because you're using discretionary powers to say "I am not going to arrest people for this category of action, no matter who they are, so long as they meet the following impersonal conditions." This hypothetical officer is saying "I am not going to arrest people for this category of action because they are my friends."

It's very personal. I don't agree with marijuana being illegal, nor do I agree with destroying lives due to social use of drug like marijuana. LOL how is that not personal?

In the former case, the enforcement (or discretionary choice not to enforce) is uniform; it applies to everyone. In the latter case, it is not. The advantage of not being arrested at an officer's discretion becomes a special benefit that you get by being related to a police officer. Or by being a member of some organization. Or by giving a lot of money to some organization. Or by having political power.

No, it doesn't. Some officers choose not to cite because they just want to be nice. I already covered this. It is not always because that person belongs to an organization or whatever.

At which point we start to see a split between the "law for special people" and the "law for everyone else," instead of just law. The special people are getting privileges that ordinary citizens do not enjoy. Which raises equal protection issues, to my way of thinking.

That would be true if everyone else didn't get breaks either for subjective reasons...that is not the case.

[SVPD]

Where's your evidence that everyone is for it?

Strawman. I didn't say everyone is for it; I said they really don't give a shit. Most people do not spend a great deal of time worrying about police, much less minutiae such as courtesy cards. Those who do, tend to spend their time worrying because they are criminals and trying to avoid getting arrested.

You've merely said "Well there aren't lots of court cases" except I gave an example of something that most people are quiet about but are overwhelmingly against.

Yes you did. That does not in any way establish that this situation is similar. I don't see anyone making a big deal in the press, or pretty much anywhere else, and really, do you think the average person is as concerned with courtesy cards, regardless of their opinion, as political kickbacks and such?

You created the straw man first, rather then just argue the points, you decided you knew better then they did and decided to make a comment on the person qualities of the arguers.

That would technically be an ad homenim, not a strawman. The main site details different fallacies; you might want to read up. In this case, however, it really isn't a fallcy since I wasn't using it to support my argument. I was using it to flame you for being an immature brat.

You decided, no it's not that these practices seem inherently a little shady but it's just that the people against them are angry teenagers who are angry they can't just break the law! Yet you provide no proof or anything to back it up.

That's because the only people I've encountered who make a stink about it are immature angry teenagers who are angry they don't have a courtesy card themselves (not that they can't break the law, just because they don't have what they falsely imagine to be a "get out of jail free" card). I have seen no evidence that people ingeneral are concerned with this issue, therefore I've concluded they are. Demonstrate that there's widespread public opposition.

Also about the NYPD tapes, there's been multiple links to it in this thread and an entire thread about it.

What NYPD types are you talking about, and what do they have to do with the response you're addressing here? Is the Bed-Stuy precinct in NYC? Sorry, I haven't memorized the names of precincts in a city I don't work for and don't care to. Again, what does me "reminding you" of that particular indcident have to do with anything? So what if they've been linked and there's a thread about it? It's not my job to avoid "reminding you" of anything.

The fact of the matter is that you're just having a hissy fit and you haven't addressed any of my points nor provided any evidence for your claims.

[Kamakazie Sith]

In smallville where everyone knows everyone, probably not, in cities, of course they do, they would be stupid not to because they might get disciplined.
But the difference would be if you pull them over you ticket them. So in smallville they would recognize the colleagues spouse's car and not pull it over, and if you did make the mistake of pulling them over then even smallville cops would probably feel obliged to ticket the spouse.
What kind of proof where you looking for?

Here's my biggest problem with your assertion. It flies in the face of being human. People don't like citing friends family members. It's a human reaction. So, I guess I'm looking for something like maybe an article about police officers in your country not having discretion.

I'm not saying that our cops are not corruptable, we have a massive blue wall for instance, but I am saying that that is such an obvious exploit leading to a slippery slope to corruption that it is generally harshly discouraged to get cops 'to stay in line'. Now mind you all police belong to the same organization here so enforcing such policies are much easier than in the US where there are so many different levels and jurisdictions that it is confusing.

I just have a hard time believing that your cops, especially with your alleged blue wall, cite coworker family members.

The given reason by the cops in court was that they didn't want to ticket both since they where students. I think the sexism angle never factored in court, but only in the tabloids.

The given reason doesn't matter, especially when it contradicts itself. All that matters is the evidence. In the same stop if you didn't write one person a ticket because that person was a student then why did you give a ticket to the other person who was also a student.

Both are students. However, both are not male. Both are not female. Thus, the difference is the sex of the one you cited and the other that you did not.

So, do your cops not have the choice to issue warnings?

[Alphawolf55]

That's because the only people I've encountered who make a stink about it are immature angry teenagers who are angry they don't have a courtesy card themselves (not that they can't break the law, just because they don't have what they falsely imagine to be a "get out of jail free" card). I have seen no evidence that people ingeneral are concerned with this issue, therefore I've concluded they are. Demonstrate that there's widespread public opposition.

How? You want me to poll every person? I can say it was a big enough issue to merit mention in the NY Times. Again, your argument that because you've only met whiny teenagers who oppose it mean everyone is, is no better then the people who claim they've only met jackass cops thus everyone is a jackass cop. The problem is everytime someone has a complain you make a jackass out of yourself by claiming they're just criminals and teenagers. As if there's no legitimate complaint of the police when that's bullshit. SO prove all the complainers just want get out of jail free cards or shut the fuck up.

Again, you've yet to address what actual legitimate purpose police courtesty cards are suppose to fulfill.

[SVPD]

How? You want me to poll every person?

I don't give a shit how you do it as long as it leads to legitimate evidence. That's your problem.

I can say it was a big enough issue to merit mention in the NY Times.

So it's too much trouble to either make some argument based on the article, or show how that situation in any way relates to anywhere outside NYC?

Gee, maybe that's because it's an article on the cards being sold on Ebay! Obviously that means the cards themselves are a problem! Quite frankly, you ought to be happy, since that means anyone can get one now, not just friends and relatives.

Again, your argument that because you've only met whiny teenagers who oppose it mean everyone is, is no better then the people who claim they've only met jackass cops thus everyone is a jackass cop.

The problem, however, is that the burden of proof is on you to show that the public, in general, has a problem with these cards, just as it would be on you to show that most or all cops are "jackasses". Burden of proof is something else you may want to familiarize yourself with.

The problem is everytime someone has a complain you make a jackass out of yourself by claiming they're just criminals and teenagers.

How exactly do I make a jackass out of myself by pointing out that when someone makes an unsubstantiated claim against cops in general, refuses to provide any meaningful evidence, tries to shift the burden of proof, and ignores all the points I've brought up about why it isn't a problem in the first place, that means they're most likely an immature teenager or a criminal?

Oh wait, that's right, I don't. You've just been ignoring my arguments to try to pretend my flaming of your sorry ass is my argument... that would be the strawman again.

As if there's no legitimate complaint of the police when that's bullshit.

Of course there are legitimate complaints against individual cops. What's bullshit, however, is your teen angst about "corruption" that doesn't exist and your attempts to use that as justification for anger at police in general.

SO prove all the complainers just want get out of jail free cards or shut the fuck up.

Prove that, in my personal experience, people who level complaints against the police in general are just whining brats or criminals? Ok. Every person I've encountered who bitches about the police in general is a whiny teenager or a criminal. You included.

Again, you've yet to address what actual legitimate purpose police courtesty cards are suppose to fulfill.

They eliminate the problem of people claiming to be related to or friends with a cop. They are not illegal, unethical, corrupt, or anything else. All they are is a convenience for a situation which would exist anyhow. They also do not need to fulill a purpose; they just need to be legal and not corrupt, and they aren't.

[Alphawolf55]

Except if you read the fucking article, you'd see that there was concerns about the level of unfairness of the cards.

You've brought up no fucking points. All you've brought up is that police discretion is a good thing, but that's not the argument, no one argued that police shouldn't have some level of discretion. The argument was the fact that there are institutions in place that give out official cards to family and friends of police and people who donate money. Cards that's only express purpose is to give special treatment. People have explained why cops will give special treatment, because they're human which is understandble. But you've yet to explain why it's alright for an official institution to perptuate the occurence is alright.

Now you say they are in no way bribes or unethical but the fact remains, by donating to the police unions you get a card that says you should be given a special courtesy when pulled over. IE, buy forking over cash you get a suggested privilege, how is that not unethical?

[Keevan_Colton]

You two are seriously arguing a "I'm a buddy/family of a cop" card that gets folk off lighter with (even if it is just "minor") criminal acts is not a form of corruption?

Paying into a police benevolence fund gets you a card that keeps the cops off your back for little stuff, that's pretty much the defenition of a bribe. Cash for preferential treatment.

The fact that it is a situation that would happen anyway is bad enough and one that rules should be structured to prevent, to streamline this with official cards is unbelievable.

[Keevan_Colton]

They eliminate the problem of people claiming to be related to or friends with a cop.

How exactly is that a problem?

[Spoonist]

Again I get the feeling that you are answering in context of the others, so again note I'm only pointing out something which to me is a strange americanism.

Here's my biggest problem with your assertion. It flies in the face of being human. People don't like citing friends family members. It's a human reaction.

Here is my problem with your assesment of my assertion, you do not factor in culture. If there is a culture in X force and not in Y force to cite spouses that overrules any "human nature". Like having a chief that gets really pissed about his department getting critique from the politicians, thus leaning on his officers not to do stupid shit.

So, I guess I'm looking for something like maybe an article about police officers in your country not having discretion.

There is a similar concept but completely different implementation. If an officer thinks a petty crime in the circumstances is trivial or 'motivated' he can select not to issue a ticket. But in his log he must cite a reason to do so. That reason has to be a legal one, so "its my colleagues wife" doesn't cut it, but instead would make things worse.
Here is a machine translation of the relevant paragraph:

According to § 9 Police Act (1984:387), a police officer when he becomes aware of a crime which falls within the public prosecution, to report it to his superior as soon as it can be done. A police officer may make remission of the crime report to the circumstances of the particular case is insignificant and it is obvious that the crime would not lead to sanctions other than fines.

Now of course if the officer and the colleagues spouse where all alone and no one saw him pull the spouse over then there is of course no-one to report it. Hence my comment regarding city police not getting away with stuff like that as easily.

I just have a hard time believing that your cops, especially with your alleged blue wall, cite coworker family members.

I definately think there is a "look the other way" factor in smallville, but our culture is different here so I think that lots of officers wouldn't think twice about ticketing someones family.
If you want I could check with a police friend and see what he says, maybe my impression is wrong. *shrugs* If so let me know. But I'd have to come back to you later with what he says though cause he is usually too busy to reply right away.

The given reason doesn't matter, especially when it contradicts itself. All that matters is the evidence. In the same stop if you didn't write one person a ticket because that person was a student then why did you give a ticket to the other person who was also a student.

Sorry, my mistake, I was not clear enough. The guy had a job and got a ticket, the girl was a student and did not get a ticket.
Here is the "critique" again machine translated:

Assessment
In this case it is undisputed that Kristenson Rasmussen and his girlfriend at the time failed to follow instructions of traffic signal in the manner prescribed in Chapter 2. 2 § the traffic. For breach of this rule may be made penal. The case has not revealed any indication that it was wrong to issue a ticket against Rasmus Kristenson.
For public confidence, it is important that the police behave in a manner that creates public confidence. This is such that similar cases should be treated equally. In support of such an assessment are such regulations and guidelines described above.
In applying the rules on reporting remission, it is important that the individual police officer can justify why the report remission has been granted. It is the individual officer who has to decide whether the circumstances of the particular case are such that the conditions for remission report exists.
The case has not revealed the circumstances were such that the crime should be treated as insignificant. It seems instead to have been the woman's reaction and economic situation which formed the basis for the decision to report remission. In that case, the police officer's report did not provide remission.
The fact that the policeman in his benevolence can have informed the report remission in violation of the aforementioned general advice does no harm to the individual. However, it has been perceived by Rasmus Kristenson that all are not treated equally before the law. You can not completely avoid similar situations arise but it is important that the various parts of the agency's questions concerning the application of the rules on reporting remission. The Authority's Chief Counsel will follow up this issue.

Note that the critique mentions that the personal circumstances is not a valid reason for not issuing a ticket.

So, do your cops not have the choice to issue warnings?

Yes they do. They have to put in their log though and they have to be able to defend such a decision. But doing that to colleagues spouses would definitaly be seen as corruption and would get you disciplined.

[SVPD]

Except if you read the fucking article, you'd see that there was concerns about the level of unfairness of the cards.

Yeah, there's "a concern". I did read the article. So what? I already explained in detail why those concerns are not well founded, and why the nature of police work and police discretion means they are not. The concerns are based on the assumption that they create different rules, which they do not. It proceeds from a false premise.

You've brought up no fucking points. All you've brought up is that police discretion is a good thing, but that's not the argument, no one argued that police shouldn't have some level of discretion.

If you're not arguing that polcie shouldn't have discretion, then you're stuck. Police will still be able to give breaks to each other's friends and relatives, cards or not. Removing them just makes it easier to lie and say you are related. The only way to prevent them doing that is to either remove discretion, which is essentially impossible and incredibly wasteful and stupid, or to create a positiviely unfair double standard where friends and relatives of cops automatically get tickets just to prevent favoritism, which is hugely unjust.

Why I'm having to repeat myself is beyond me. All you're doing is dismissing my points by saying I didn't bring them up.

The argument was the fact that there are institutions in place that give out official cards to family and friends of police and people who donate money.

They are not official at all.

Cards that's only express purpose is to give special treatment. People have explained why cops will give special treatment, because they're human which is understandble. But you've yet to explain why it's alright for an official institution to perptuate the occurence is alright.

An official institution is not doing any such thing. A private organization does it. These are not issued by any government body.

It's all right for a private organization to do it because A) the officer is under no obligation to honor it B) there is no guarantee the situation will ever occur C) regular citizens can get the same treatment anyhow and often do, and D) they aren't necessarily given out for money anyhow. They're often distributed for free.

Now you say they are in no way bribes or unethical but the fact remains, by donating to the police unions you get a card that says you should be given a special courtesy when pulled over. IE, buy forking over cash you get a suggested privilege, how is that not unethical?

Because it doesn't say you should get special treatment. Anyone can get the same treatment. All it does is suggest to the officer that this person is generally supportive of police efforts (and polcie unions often donate to charity, ro the money goes to funds for fallen officers and the like) and the officer may want to consider that. If the person acts like a douchebag, or caused an accident, or did something beyond pedestrian, every day traffic offenses, they're out of luck and showing the card may actually result in WORSE treatment for their attitude.

I look forward to the inevitable "nuh uh!" response.

[Simon_Jester]

Kamikaze Sith, once again you point out (correctly) that police officers are human beings who do not want to give tickets to friends and family. This is obvious.

Does it mean that the friends and family of police officers should get what are in effect special rights, a limited... not immunity, call it resistance... to being ticketed for a traffic stop? For possessing very small quantities of drugs, which you've already given as another example of officer's discretion? Granted, these are not huge rights or protections. It's not a huge deal. But that doesn't mean it's perfectly fine and good for the system to work this way.

And let's say, for the sake of argument, that the friends and family of officers should get this special protection, for the sake of good internal relations within the department. What about people who contribute money to police charities? What about people who buy FOP bumper stickers?

There has to be a limit somewhere; where is it? Where, just as a hypothetical, does it stop being proper use of discretionary power and start becoming a situation where you're paying protection money to encourage the police to use discretionary power in your favor?

Discretion is exactly that, discretion.

Police officers will always have discretion over minor offenses. There is simply no way to efficiently utilize law enforcement resources without it. The sorts of offenses which it aplies to are minor offenses, generally so minor that practially everyone commits them just by virtue of making normal, human mistakes.

Yes. So far, so good. Police discretion is good.

When police discretion is used inconsistently, to reward certain groups (people who are related to police officers, people who donate money to the Policeman's Ball, people who are a certain color), then that is a problem. Not a big problem. But still something that goes against the principle of equal protection under the law for everyone.

Inevitably, some tickets are simply unwarranted at the time the officer discovers them. For example, I once stopped a man for speeding who informed me that he was acting as principle for 2 elementary schools, and a student at the one he was heading to was becoming seriously violent. Yes, he was speeding, but although he didn't have a technical legal right to do so, he did have a perfectly good reason for doing so, so I didn't give him a ticket.

Fair enough. This is a good reason, because it's specific and because it doesn't depend on what type of person the speeder is. You didn't let the speeder off because he was black, or white, or a military veteran, or because he'd donated money to an organization, or because he was your buddy's second cousin. You let him off because he had a perfectly good reason to be speeding, independent of who he was or who he was related to or what charities he donated to. And you didn't want to screw him over on account of that.

I'm totally fine with that.

2) Relatives and friends of cops automatically get tickets because you don't like them getting breaks, or worse, we start prosecuting people for mentioning that they know or are related to a cop as "corruption" in which case we start having fewer and fewer cops as the law distorts itself into a caricature of justice to appease a few people who are pissed about courtesy cards.

I look at it like this. If, for identical incidents (speeding X mph above the limit), people with the courtesy cards are getting ticketed much less often than people without them... well, I have a problem with that. Because unless I'm mistaken, people with courtesy cards don't have life-and-limb situations where they need to hurry from A to B more often than people without. I'd say the solution is to just stop passing out the courtesy cards, myself.

Now, if it's only a little less often, I can shrug it off. Not knowing what the numbers look like, I can't say whether it's that big a problem or not.

Is it corruption when a cop lets an attractive woman off with a warning, while giving a guy in the same situation a ticket?

Since there is presumably no exchange of goods or services, no. But if it happens consistently, I'd say you could definitely call it sex-based discrimination, just as you could call it racial discrimination if the cop lets white people off with a warning and tickets black people consistently.

This is only a problem if it happens often. Often enough that in effect there are two different enforcement regimes, one for "normal" people (who get ticketed, say, 50% of the time) and one for the "special" kind of people (who get ticketed, say, 25% of the time).

Now, if you can buy something that gets you fairly reliable protection from traffic tickets (as opposed to something that almost never works, or only works a tiny bit more often than not having it would)... that is arguably petty corruption, because there is an exchange of goods or services.

Are you going to respond to my points, or just try to recast my assessment of your personal issues as my actual argument?

Since you've used it over and over, aimed at multiple posters, it's hard to tell whether it's just a matter of armchair psychology or whether you're using it as a standard debating tactic to discredit people you disagree with.

Most people do not have problem with this. Where are the lawsuits and court cases over it?

Since suing someone is a colossal pain in the ass, I wouldn't expect individuals to sue over issues like this, which mostly revolve around traffic stops. Why would you?

[SVPD]

You two are seriously arguing a "I'm a buddy/family of a cop" card that gets folk off lighter with (even if it is just "minor") criminal acts is not a form of corruption?

Since it isn't a form of corruption, and it doesn't "get them off lighter" at all, yes. It simply informs the officer of a fact that he may or may not choose to act on; a request for courtesy from a third party.

Paying into a police benevolence fund gets you a card that keeps the cops off your back for little stuff, that's pretty much the defenition of a bribe. Cash for preferential treatment.

No, that is not the definition of a bribe.

Bribe

1.money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, esp. in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc.: The motorist offered the arresting officer a bribe to let him go.
2.anything given or serving to persuade or induce: The children were given candy as a bribe to be good.
–verb (used with object)
3.to give or promise a bribe to: They bribed the reporter to forget about what he had seen.
4.to influence or corrupt by a bribe: The judge was too honest to be bribed.
–verb (used without object)
5.to give a bribe; practice bribery.

The officer making the decision to write the ticket or not is not receiving any money. The person paying the money is getting a little card that says, essentially, "I donated some money, would you please consider that in deciding to give me a ticket or not?"

The fact that it is a situation that would happen anyway is bad enough and one that rules should be structured to prevent, to streamline this with official cards is unbelievable.

It's not "bad" at all, nor is there any way to structure the rules to prevent it, nor any point in it other than to appease petty resentments. Unless you think the rules hould state that people who know cops should automatically get tickets just to make sur they aren't getting special treatment? That's about the only way to prevent it; and it's monumentally unfair.