Sleeping 7-Year Old Shot by Police During Raid

[SVPD]

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

How exactly is that a problem?

Because people claim to be related to cops, or friends with them all the time, when that is not exactly the case. Do you not understand that people lie to the police?

[Alphawolf55]

But how is that a problem? Why is it an issue if people claim to be friends or relatives of the police when no special treatment is officially supposed to be given?

Also I like how you're only solutions are, "NOT GIVE TICKETS" or "GIVE TICKETS TO COPS FAMILY MEMBERS ALWAYS" when there's a third relatively reasonable situation, get rid of the cards and just have police assume in any situation in which they pull someone over the person is not related or friends with a police officer. Will it fix everything? No, especially not in small towns where everyone knows each other but in the bigger cities this could could have some good net positive effects and few negative effects other then cops getting angry at each other for dumb reasons.

[SVPD]

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.

They aren't getting any "special rights." The card gives them no "right" to anything. All the card does is make the officer it's presented to aware of a fact.

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?

What about them? People can buy these and an officer may chose to give them a break if he wishes.

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?

Once you go beyond extremely minor problems, such as traffic violations, then it becomes problematic. The more serious a violation is the less discretion there is about enforcing it, and some things, such as DUI or Domestic Violence pretty much remove all discretion if there is probable cause. It never becomes "protection money" at all however; protection money would be if you were paying the police to not take unwarranted action against you.

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.

It is when you're giving people of a certain color breaks, yes, that's racism. The other things, you cite, however, are individual circumstances and personal relationships, and in the case of giving money to a charity, reflects on the person's general character. People who donate money to police charities generally are not people who are regularly in trouble with the law.

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.

In that case, yes, but that only demonstrates why discretion is a good thing. The problem is, however, is that if I do let off someone who happens to be a veteran for example, the claim will inevitably be made that this must have been the reason. You can't have discretion working that way. As it is, we already have plenty of problems with people who claim they got stopped because they were black, no matter what the circumstances actually were. People claim this all the time, but in reality you almost never know who someone is when you stop them.

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.

First of all, people speeding above the limit by an identical amount does not make it an identical case. The road they are on, the actual speed and speed limit themselves, the ability of the driver, the weather and a huge number of other things combine to make no two tickets identical.

Second, that's a big "if", especially since most cops won't write anyone a ticket below a certain threshold and won't give anyone a break above it. What that is varies from cop to cop.
You may have a problem with it, but ultimately, its an unavoidable by product of discretion.

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.

You'd need to show a lot more than just a difference in ticket frequency to show that it's a problem. We're talking about exceedingly minor violations here.

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.

What if an officer regularly writes good-looking women tickets just to avoid any suspicion that he's engaging in favoritism?

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.

Except that there isn't. The exchange of good (a little card) is not being made with the person who is enforcing the law. In fact, it often is not even the same department, and the "good", the little card, has no actual value beyond its worth as paper. The card obligates no one.

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.

Mostly it's jsut flaming, which, you'll recall, is perfectly acceptable here.

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?

Given the sheer litigousness of our society, yes, I would expect that some organization or other would have taken this up as a cause if it were of any significance.

[SVPD]

But how is that a problem? Why is it an issue if people claim to be friends or relatives of the police when no special treatment is officially supposed to be given?

Because there is no official treatment that's supposed to be given at all. It's all up to discretion.

Also I like how you're only solutions are, "NOT GIVE TICKETS" or "GIVE TICKETS TO COPS FAMILY MEMBERS ALWAYS" when there's a third relatively reasonable situation, get rid of the cards and just have police assume in any situation in which they pull someone over the person is not related or friends with a police officer. Will it fix everything? No, especially not in small towns where everyone knows each other but in the bigger cities this could could have some good net positive effects and few negative effects other then cops getting angry at each other for dumb reasons.

First of all, there is nothing to be "fixed", except for the fact that you're all pissed off that these cards exist.

Second, the "net positive effects" are simply your assumption

Third, the negative effects are, in fact, quite real, because you still have discretion. Your "assumption" goes right out the window as soon as you walk up to the car and the driver says "I'm Officer Smith's wife". Now what? Are you going to write her a ticket just because she's his wife to avoid the suggestion that she got special treatment? Or are you not going to because you weren't really planning to give her anything but a warning in the first place?

[Alphawolf55]

If there's no official treatment, then there's no issue with someone claiming to be a relative. If someone claims to be officer's smiths wife, you do what you would've done if she wasn't officer smith's wife. It's not exactly hard, why does knowing for a fact she's his wife matter?

[SVPD]

If there's no official treatment, then there's no issue with someone claiming to be a relative. If someone claims to be officer's smiths wife, you do what you would've done if she wasn't officer smith's wife. It's not exactly hard, why does knowing for a fact she's his wife matter?

Because there's discretion. There is no "official" treatment because there is no policy saying "other officer's wives' will not be given tickets if they are less than X miles an hour over the speed limit." A superior may not come along and give you an order not to give her a ticket, nor may her order you to give her one, unless he also observed the violation in the first place (for example, if you are a trainee and your FTO wants to see how you handle the ticketing process.)

Therefore it is up to you, and you only, whether or not to give someone a ticket, and these situations do not occur in a vaccuum. Suppose that last week you didn't give Jones's wife a ticket because you wouldn't have given anyone a ticket in that circumstance. Now you decide to give one to Smith's wife. Smith may very well decide you don't like him or his wife. He may end up angry at either you, Jones, or both.

Suppose on the other hand that you and Smith had an argument last week about some unrelated matter. Smith may think you're giving his wife a ticket now because you're an ass. He might even be right. We all have psychological blind spots.

This sort of thing is what causes drama between and within departments. The fact that you keep overlooking is that police are human, and have human foibles, and those are not going to go away. Trying to make cops pretend they don't know their co-workers spouses, other officers from neighboring departments, and the like is simply absurd.

Lolbertarian fucktards like to argue at this point "well, they're supposed to be professionals". Yes, they are, and A) other professionals get to extend each other courtesy and no one bitches and B) "supposed to be" is a poor substitute for reality. If you've got a ready supply of robocops that won't ahve the normal interpersonal issues present in any workplace exacerbated by this sort of thing to replace cops, go ahead and bring them out but I'm not optomistic. It's easy to say "well, they're supposed to be professionals" and "then treat each other like anyone else" when you don't have to deal with the problems. We call that "handwaving".

[Alphawolf55]

Then why expect society at large to see you guys as individuals just doing your job and not hold a grudge?

[Ritterin Sophia]

I just decided to pop in and see where this discussion has gone. Kamikazie, SVPD, are you two honestly suggesting you feel it is okay for police officers to give preferential treatment to friends and relatives of other police or themselves?

[SVPD]

Then why expect society at large to see you guys as individuals just doing your job and not hold a grudge?

Because:

A) They don't really care about it or hold a grudge. Seriously, do you think actual adults with real responsibilities spend much, if any time, worrying about this issue?

B) It doesn't really affect them. If someone else does or doesn't get a ticket for whatever reason that has no bearing at all on whether you get one.

What is your point here? Do you even have one, or are you just asking the same questions over and over hoping to use them to sneak in your assumption that society at large has issues with these cards, under the radar?

[SVPD]

I just decided to pop in and see where this discussion has gone. Kamikazie, SVPD, are you two honestly suggesting you feel it is okay for police officers to give preferential treatment to friends and relatives of other police or themselves?

So because you just decided to pop in we should repeat ourselves in order to address your strawman? Police have discretion. It is not giving preferential treatment to friends and relatives of other cops if they get a break because regular citizens can and do get the same treatment as well.

[Keevan_Colton]

I just decided to pop in and see where this discussion has gone. Kamikazie, SVPD, are you two honestly suggesting you feel it is okay for police officers to give preferential treatment to friends and relatives of other police or themselves?

So because you just decided to pop in we should repeat ourselves in order to address your strawman? Police have discretion. It is not giving preferential treatment to friends and relatives of other cops if they get a break because regular citizens can and do get the same treatment as well.

All animals are equal, some animals are just more equal than others...

[Alphawolf55]

Then why expect society at large to see you guys as individuals just doing your job and not hold a grudge?

Because:

A) They don't really care about it or hold a grudge. Seriously, do you think actual adults with real responsibilities spend much, if any time, worrying about this issue?

B) It doesn't really affect them. If someone else does or doesn't get a ticket for whatever reason that has no bearing at all on whether you get one.

What is your point here? Do you even have one, or are you just asking the same questions over and over hoping to use them to sneak in your assumption that society at large has issues with these cards, under the radar?

So if actual adults won't hold a grudge for getting a ticket, why would your fellow officers and their family? Are you suggesting the police are less mature then the average person?

[Ritterin Sophia]

So because you just decided to pop in we should repeat ourselves in order to address your strawman? Police have discretion. It is not giving preferential treatment to friends and relatives of other cops if they get a break because regular citizens can and do get the same treatment as well.

First of all how the fuck is it a strawman? That's exactly what you're fucking saying you moronic twat! Secondly, according to the board rules, yes, you do have to fucking address it, cretin.

[SVPD]

So if actual adults won't hold a grudge for getting a ticket, why would your fellow officers and their family? Are you suggesting the police are less mature then the average person?

They don't hold a grudge over the fact that courtesy cards exist, you fucking moron. People do regularly hold grudges over tickets, at least for a while, then they give them up becuase ultimately they and the cop don't know each other.

Police will know each other and each other's family. There's going to be continuous contact. Have you ever had a job? Ever notice that you tend to have to work around the same people every day?

[SVPD]

First of all how the fuck is it a strawman? That's exactly what you're fucking saying you moronic twat! Secondly, according to the board rules, yes, you do have to fucking address it, cretin.

No, fucker, I do not need to address your fucking question (which, by the way, is a question, not a point) because at least three other people have already asked it and I've already addressed it. There's a fucking board rule about me-tooing, maybe you ought to fucking read it.

Second, that is not what I'm saying. All you're doing is strawmanning by begging the fucking question. You need to show that it's preferrential treatment; you don't get to just call it that in your fucking question and then ask how we can justify that. I've already explained why it;s not; other citizens frequently get breaks on traffic tickets for no reason other than that the officer happens to be in a good mood that day.

Next time you want to pop into the middle of a debate, it might behoove your sorry ass to read the thread that preceded it. Evidently, however, you're too much of a lazy twat to do that.

[Keevan_Colton]

SVPD, you do need to address the point because you have not actually done so. The "problem" with people pretending to be the friends and relatives of cops is only one if they would receive different treatment because of it.

Do not start trying to backseat moderate this forum.

[Alphawolf55]

SVPD, your argument is no way suggest there isn't special treatment, rather by the way you're talking you seem to be saying its justified to avert internal problems. Just because some other people get off due to luck or the cop feeling like he's being nice is special treatment at the moment too, the problem is those circumstances aren't built on a common similarity of who they know.

[Ritterin Sophia]

You need to show that it's preferrential treatment;

You yourself admitted that it's a problem because people use the "I'm related too...' excuse, how can that be a problem if people aren't getting preferential treatment?

Next time you want to pop into the middle of a debate, it might behoove your sorry ass to read the thread that preceded it. Evidently, however, you're too much of a lazy twat to do that.

No actually, because that's exactly what you're arguing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

No, Keevan. It isn't a form of corruption because it is legal, only involves very minor offenses, other people get lots of breaks too, and it is simply a normal human response.

Would you ticket your friends wife? Maybe you would. That's a question everyone in this thread has to ask themself...

[Kamakazie Sith]

I just decided to pop in and see where this discussion has gone. Kamikazie, SVPD, are you two honestly suggesting you feel it is okay for police officers to give preferential treatment to friends and relatives of other police or themselves?

I'm suggesting that it is a normal human response and I think pretty much everybody would do it to.

[Alphawolf55]

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.

No, Keevan. It isn't a form of corruption because it is legal, only involves very minor offenses, other people get lots of breaks too, and it is simply a normal human response.

Would you ticket your friends wife? Maybe you would. That's a question everyone in this thread has to ask themself...

Corruption can be legal, what the Health Care Industry did to Congress was legal but still corrupt. Also if I had a job where I regularly gave tickets to random individuals, yeah I would. But the problem isn't merely that you give preference, it's that there is a group in place that gives special notification of said relationship to individuals who hold it and to those who merely pay for the privilege of having it.

Giving breaks to your friends is understandable, is it right? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Making exceptions merely because they're related to the police and have a special card for doing so, is harder to justify.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

I never said it was perfectly fine or good. I'm saying it is understandable for a human perspective and doesn't make a real impact at all. Except upsetting people that feel there shouldn't be a bias in police work, but there's bias in all work. People are going to give special treatment to their friends and family, and the family of their coworkers.

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?

I don't think so, but then again discretion gives officers the ability to do that. I only extend that courtesy to my personal family/friends (haven't pulled over one yet), and family members of coworkers (still haven't pulled over one yet). Also, again let me stress that just because you are a family member or relative of a coworker doesn't mean you'll get off. It depends on the circumstances.

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?

I'd say when that person is flagrantly disregarding the law because they feel they can get away with it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Corruption can be legal, what the Health Care Industry did to Congress was legal but still corrupt. Also if I had a job where I regularly gave tickets to random individuals, yeah I would. But the problem isn't merely that you give preference, it's that there is a group in place that gives special notification of said relationship to individuals who hold it and to those who merely pay for the privilege of having it.

Sorry forgot to address your Heath Care example. I'm not sure what they did because I haven't kept up on that so you'll have to provide more detail. I personally think congress is full of a bunch of useless morons, so I don't really keep up to date with their actions because all it does is make me angry. Anyway, using a one example (that might be corrupt) does not make this an example of corruption. You need to define what corruption is to you and how this fits it.

As for your card complaint...that's style over substance. Without the card the person can still say "Hi, my husband is Detective Smith in homicide". It doesn't really make any difference whatsoever besides apperance.

I guess I'll have to take your work for it, but in my experience most people would not do that. Maybe I just know a different type of people or people here are raised differently.

Giving breaks to your friends is understandable, is it right? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Making exceptions merely because they're related to the police and have a special card for doing so, is harder to justify.

When you say related are you talking about family or a politician that donated money?

[Alphawolf55]

The card makes it offical though. SVPD said that family members aren't given priority but at the same time, the card needs to exist because there needs to be proof of people claiming this.

I'm talking about police. Giving some breaks to your friends is understandable, not technically okay but understandable. Giving a break to a close relative of your co-worker is also in some ways understandable (again still somewhat wrong but understandable). Merely giving a break because they're related to a cop in general? That's not as okay especially since in alot of cities like NYC (I'm currently a New Yorker so I'm speaking this from a NY perspective which I will admit is quite unique in the country when it comes ot the issue of police), you're likely never to deal with the cop in question so the familiarity goes down.

Again, are people going to give preference to their friends and family? Yes and it's unrealistic for us to do so. Should there honestly be organizations that giving out official cards detailing how you're related to the police or that you donated money to the police? Not so much.

Edit: Would I be tempted to give a break? Yeah, but I'm also somewhat idealistic and prone to guilt trips so I'd know I'd be causing more headaches for myself then usual by making the exception. Granted the problem is, if I was a cop I'd probably in all honestly go the other way, with myself NEVER giving a ticket for a minor violation and if I did give said ticket suggesting to them that they show up to court and just purposely not showing up,.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The card makes it offical though. SVPD said that family members aren't given priority but at the same time, the card needs to exist because there needs to be proof of people claiming this.

It is an official card from the private organization. It is not an official card from the department, or governing body. They do not have control over it. Anyway, the card just makes the process faster for officers that would give a break regardless if the card existed or not. Instead of the officer trying to have dispatch contact the coworker now you have a direct line.

I'm talking about police. Giving some breaks to your friends is understandable, not technically okay but understandable. Giving a break to a close relative of your co-worker is also in some ways understandable (again still somewhat wrong but understandable). Merely giving a break because they're related to a cop in general? That's not as okay especially since in alot of cities like NYC (I'm currently a New Yorker so I'm speaking this from a NY perspective which I will admit is quite unique in the country when it comes ot the issue of police), you're likely never to deal with the cop in question so the familiarity goes down.

I don't see how it isn't technically ok when I can give breaks to strangers simply because I don't like the drug laws, but whatever. Though I'm assuming you think that is ok. Maybe you don't.

Again, are people going to give preference to their friends and family? Yes and it's unrealistic for us to do so. Should there honestly be organizations that giving out official cards detailing how you're related to the police or that you donated money to the police? Not so much.

Good luck in getting the legislature to even considering such a bill to outlaw said organizations or place restrictions on private organizations.

Edit: Would I be tempted to give a break? Yeah, but I'm also somewhat idealistic and prone to guilt trips so I'd know I'd be causing more headaches for myself then usual by making the exception. Granted the problem is, if I was a cop I'd probably in all honestly go the other way, with myself NEVER giving a ticket for a minor violation and if I did give said ticket suggesting to them that they show up to court and just purposely not showing up,.

That's actually very common among rookies. As you gain experience you start to develop your own perspective on what is important to you and what is not among those discretionary enforcement issues. I'm big on vehicle insurance and moving violations that put others at risk. In other words I probably won't give you a ticket for running a red light at 4am when the streets are empty...unless you have a history for doing so.