Sleeping 7-Year Old Shot by Police During Raid

[Alphawolf55]

But the private organization is filled entirely by people of the union and I could see ways to put some restrictions on what organizations public servants could join and duties performed, we do it for some other groups.

The problem with discretion on the east coast is that quotas are really making it difficult to ignore anything. Everything is judged by compstat in NYC, which really gives the force motivation to cite people for everything for minor stuff to reach quoats, but downplay big crimes to lower statistics.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Kamikazie, SVPD, I want to thank you both for convincing me. I will no longer be sending donations my local FOP and will encourage others I know who do so to cease. I had done it simply because I thought police should be supported if they're doing a laudable job, but thanks to your arguments that such behavior is normal for police I will no longer be doing so.

It's a form of sanctioned bribery, whether you admit it or not.

[Thanas]

This thread is just hilarious. You got two people arguing that it is perfectly okay to treat some people differently than others because they are related to you, at the same time when one of the oldest principles is that people are supposed to be equal before the law.

[SVPD]

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.

I've already addressed this repeatedly. Friends and Family of cops might receive different treatment because of the card if the officer decides its warranted and the offense is sufficiently minor. This is within the discretion that the courts allow officers to have. It is not a problem if they occasionally do get this treatment because members of the public also get special treatment based on their personal circumstances on a frequent basis and because it is more important to avoid the inevitable interpersonal difficulties of writing tickets to people close to those who you have to work with than to assuage public misconceptions about the law being applied "equally". The law being applied is not just the traffic offense in question, but also the law granting the officer discretion and the jurisprudence that supports it.

Let me make this exceedingly clear: and if you try to claim again thatI haven't addressed this point, we're going to come straight back to this post. I'll even add some things that may not have been made clear before so that you can understand it's been addressed:

1. Officers have discretion.
2. This is not limited except in very specific ways, such as no writing or not writing tickets based on sex or race, but other than that it is impractical to micromanage how they exercise it and the government and courts do not try to do so.
3. If he government/courts DID try to micromanage discretion on minor violations, it would inevitably be a gigantic mess costing large amounts of time and money in disciplinary process over unproveable accusations as to what an officer's motives were for writing or not writing any given ticket, and ultimately degrade police performance
4. Police, like everyone else, are human beings and so are their relatives. They have normal human emotions, normal human foibles, and cannot reasonably be expected to be completely detached 100% of the time.
5. Because of these facts, it is advisable for officers to avoid writing tickets to friends and relatives unless the violation is more serious than an everyday, minor, traffic offense.
6. Courtesy cards are a convenience to the officer. They allow the officer to be certain this person is telling the truth.
7. If they did not exist, people would just claim to be friends and relatives. Some would inevitably lie. Eliminating the cards might eliminate public perception that a little card "gets you out of jail free" but that perception is inaccurate in the first place. It wouldn't eliminate the problem anyhow because things like "FOP supporter" stickers would still exist and in some cases the name on the driver's license will make it clear they are related.
8. This is a problem because once that fact is introduced to the officer, he is aware of it. He may try to disregard it, but even if he does, human beings are not computers; he cannot overcome any psychological blind spots he may happen to have. He may have personal problems already with the officer who's relative he's confronted with. He may write a ticket where he normally wouldn't just in case the person is lying, thereby creating problems by tacitly accusing a co-worker's friend or relative of lying to him.
9. If we say that officers should only write tickets based ont he circumstances of the offense, there is no way for the officer to prove that he did this. It is impossible for the officer to prove what his own internal motivations were for writing or not writing a ticket. If he writes a ticket to a relative or friend, they are now completely justified in complaining that he only gave them a ticket to avoid perceptions of favoritism. If he does not, others are perfectly justified in complaining that he showed favoritism.
10. Trying to get rid of this problem is essentially trying to say "there shouldn't be discretion" which would make efficient law enforcement impossible.

I have had this situation happen to me personally when a young adult claimed to have a card because her mother was a dispatcher for a city that neighbors, but didn't have one on her. I wrote her a ticket since I didn't believe this story. (Don't ask me for a lot of details because this was several years ago and I don't remember things like exactly how fast she was going or what the speed limit was where I wrote the ticket). It turned out that she did, in fact, have one, and was, in fact, the dispatcher's daughter, and I got called on the carpet about it by my supervisor, who said it was bad for relations with that department, which it is.

If you want to argue (like lolbertarian fucktards usually do) that police should be completely dispassionate about people they know getting tickets, go ahead, but we aren't living in that fantasy world where all cops are emotionless supercops, and even if we were their friends and relatives wouldn't be. This use of discretion is a minor accomadation to the reality of human nature. You cannot make that reality go away by saying "well, it shouldn't be like that." I agree. Human nature sucks, but sorry, it's not going away.

Let's see.. How many times have I addressed this already, in whole or in part?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Your argument, and Schatten's is addressed - again.

[SVPD]

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.

No, but they are built on equally irrelevant facts such as "It's raining and I don't want to get wet" or "It's a holiday tomorrow and I don't want to ruin his weekend" or "it's 5 minutes to the end of the shift and I'll get yelled at if I go onto overtime for this ticket" and so on and so forth.

You have complained that you think it should only be based on the circumstances of the offense, but the fact is that the general public benefits from irrelevancies just as much as relatives and friends do.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Kamikazie, SVPD, I want to thank you both for convincing me. I will no longer be sending donations my local FOP and will encourage others I know who do so to cease. I had done it simply because I thought police should be supported if they're doing a laudable job, but thanks to your arguments that such behavior is normal for police I will no longer be doing so.

It's a form of sanctioned bribery, whether you admit it or not.

Thanks for the irrelevant emotional comment.

Do you really think I care what you do with your money, Schatten? Please, use that money to discourage donating to FOP and similiar chapters. I promise you I will continue to sleep just as soundly as I did before you posted this.

[Kamakazie Sith]

But the private organization is filled entirely by people of the union and I could see ways to put some restrictions on what organizations public servants could join and duties performed, we do it for some other groups.

I'd like to hear your ideas.

The problem with discretion on the east coast is that quotas are really making it difficult to ignore anything. Everything is judged by compstat in NYC, which really gives the force motivation to cite people for everything for minor stuff to reach quoats, but downplay big crimes to lower statistics.

Well, quotas are illegal over in Utah so I wouldn't know anything about that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This thread is just hilarious. You got two people arguing that it is perfectly okay to treat some people differently than others because they are related to you, at the same time when one of the oldest principles is that people are supposed to be equal before the law.

Actually, I'm saying it is human nature more than anything else. I'm also saying that if you were in the same position then you'd do it to.

I've also been arguing that it is ok to treat people differently if you have a personal point of view on the law. Such as my marijuana example, but I'm guessing you're not a fan of the drug war so you probably support that decision. Discretion gives me that authority. So, if I can ignore clearly established law due to personal reasons and nobody bat an eye then I really don't see the harm in giving my friends and family a break so I can maintain a healthy social life.

[Garibaldi]

The funniest thing about this thread is the guy who compared an officer exercising discretion over a traffic ticket in order to avoid interdepartmental strife to fucking "Animal Farm".

Shocking news from the real world: Slavish obedience to the letter of the law can often be counterproductive!

[SVPD]

This thread is just hilarious. You got two people arguing that it is perfectly okay to treat some people differently than others because they are related to you, at the same time when one of the oldest principles is that people are supposed to be equal before the law.

You're a lawyer, right? In Germany, if I understand correctly?

Then you should understand this quite well, and I'll say it again just for you since you probably have a better chance of grasping it than most everyone else here:

Police officers have discretion when enforcing the law. Very generally speaking, that discretion is proportional to the seriousness of the violation of law. In minor cases, especially traffic offenses which are not even technically "criminal offenses" (i.e. anything other than a felony DUI, cases where a motor vehicle was used as a weapon, or where a person has been killed due to what otherwise would be a minor violation) that discretion extends almost completely; the only limitations on it are that racial, sexual, and other such discriminations are prohibited.

That is the law that's applied equally: The officer has discretion equally, in all such cases of minor violation. That governs all these minor traffic offenses. They are thereby applied equally, because alla re governed by this principle. All of these laws are not applied in the same way in every case, because each case is unique, and universally doing the same thing without regard to any circumstances would result in unequal application of law.

In other words, all people are equal before the law, but the circumstances they find themselves in are not.

Maybe things work differently in Germany. Perhaps you'd care to educate us?

[SVPD]

But the private organization is filled entirely by people of the union and I could see ways to put some restrictions on what organizations public servants could join and duties performed, we do it for some other groups.

So we'd stop police officers from joining a police organization just because some people don't like them handing out cards that are not official and have no actual power at all?

The problem with discretion on the east coast is that quotas are really making it difficult to ignore anything. Everything is judged by compstat in NYC, which really gives the force motivation to cite people for everything for minor stuff to reach quoats, but downplay big crimes to lower statistics.

That's a completely different issue, and I agree with you that quotas are a problem. However, you cannot generalize from NYC to the rest of the East Coast. Moreover, that's not a problem with discretion at all; that's a problem with supervisors trying to make an end run around discretion with performance objectives. Do you have access to the actual policies? How are you aware of this?

[Thanas]

In Germany, there are different types of discretion. There is discretion of the sort which governs if the officer acts and discretion of the sort how he acts. Generally, there is no discretion in the first sense when it comes to people breaking the law. A police officer always must act. He does however have some discretion how he chooses to act, unless the law or long-standing application of it says otherwise.

In your example, letting people off is not an option. If you are speeding, you will get a fine. No warning or "I'm gonna let you off", there will be a fine. Enforcing the law in different ways is expressively forbidden by the German constitution. Does it happen? Yes. Is it legal? No. Can he be punished? Yes. Can the officer lose his job over this? Yes. Can he face criminal charges? Possibly.

He abuses the public trust when he enforces the law differently.

You are right that in some cases, the law might be enforced differently, especially minor cases may only result in a warning. Again, depends on the discretion allowed.

I for one have only ever heard of people getting off the hook for some extremely minor offenses (such as not carrying ID cards or having bad bandages in your car). But speeding? No.

[Coyote]

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.

Since when is expecting someone to read a thread before making comments "backseat modding"? It's been that way here for years. Unless it is okay now to pop into threads at random and demand summaries or re-state already-covered issues at any time.

[Spoonist]

3. If he government/courts DID try to micromanage discretion on minor violations, it would inevitably be a gigantic mess costing large amounts of time and money in disciplinary process over unproveable accusations as to what an officer's motives were for writing or not writing any given ticket, and ultimately degrade police performance
5. Because of these facts, it is advisable for officers to avoid writing tickets to friends and relatives unless the violation is more serious than an everyday, minor, traffic offense.
9. .... If he writes a ticket to a relative or friend, they are now completely justified in complaining that he only gave them a ticket to avoid perceptions of favoritism. If he does not, others are perfectly justified in complaining that he showed favoritism.
10. Trying to get rid of this problem is essentially trying to say "there shouldn't be discretion" which would make efficient law enforcement impossible.

I am sorry but you should put in contextual caveats in arguments like this. Because as it stands right now all of the above 3,5,9,10 is pure bullshit and most of the others are pure americanisms.
Other countries do not share your laws or the implications thereof as has been pointed out be me and now Thanas as well. Those countries are proof that your version of 'discretion' is not necessary for law enforcement in the way you claim. Those countries are also proof that when writing their laws other countries does think of this as unequal treatment before the law and/or corruption. They also think that what you see as everyday discretion would be either worthy of disciplinative action or outright illegal. Mind you I'm not claiming that our officers or system are perfect or vice versa. I'm just pointing out that your "general trueisms" are simply false unless you put in contextual caveats.
So please get of your soapbox, it does not benefit your argument.

[Coyote]

In Germany, there are different types of discretion.

You are right that in some cases, the law might be enforced differently, especially minor cases may only result in a warning. Again, depends on the discretion allowed.

I for one have only ever heard of people getting off the hook for some extremely minor offenses (such as not carrying ID cards or having bad bandages in your car). But speeding? No.

Are there ever plea-bargains in Germany, and can an offender be let off if he's a first-time offender of a minor crime who --in the judge's dicretion-- is unlikely to commit another offense?

Personal discretion is used a lot in situations where officials at various levels let things go because they feel, in their opinion that has formed during a situation, that a little discretion is warranted.

Police officers have let me go on at least two occassions I can recall for minor traffic infractions. Lawyers and courts in the states accept plea-bargains for lesser offenses-- is that not a discretion?

[Coyote]

I am sorry but you should put in contextual caveats in arguments like this. Because as it stands right now all of the above 3,5,9,10 is pure bullshit and most of the others are pure americanisms.
Other countries do not share your laws or the implications thereof as has been pointed out be me and now Thanas as well. Those countries are proof that your version of 'discretion' is not necessary for law enforcement in the way you claim. Those countries are also proof that when writing their laws other countries does think of this as unequal treatment before the law and/or corruption. They also think that what you see as everyday discretion would be either worthy of disciplinative action or outright illegal. Mind you I'm not claiming that our officers or system are perfect or vice versa. I'm just pointing out that your "general trueisms" are simply false unless you put in contextual caveats.
So please get of your soapbox, it does not benefit your argument.

This is silly. Police officers are drawn from the society they serve, and will reflect the norms, values, and mores of that society because that is what the society expects. In the USA, minor traffic infractions where no injuries are caused are not seen as such a big deal. It's not that they are ignored, it's just that discretion in those matters is not seen as a problem.

[SVPD]

3. If he government/courts DID try to micromanage discretion on minor violations, it would inevitably be a gigantic mess costing large amounts of time and money in disciplinary process over unproveable accusations as to what an officer's motives were for writing or not writing any given ticket, and ultimately degrade police performance
5. Because of these facts, it is advisable for officers to avoid writing tickets to friends and relatives unless the violation is more serious than an everyday, minor, traffic offense.
9. .... If he writes a ticket to a relative or friend, they are now completely justified in complaining that he only gave them a ticket to avoid perceptions of favoritism. If he does not, others are perfectly justified in complaining that he showed favoritism.
10. Trying to get rid of this problem is essentially trying to say "there shouldn't be discretion" which would make efficient law enforcement impossible.

I am sorry but you should put in contextual caveats in arguments like this. Because as it stands right now all of the above 3,5,9,10 is pure bullshit and most of the others are pure americanisms.
Other countries do not share your laws or the implications thereof as has been pointed out be me and now Thanas as well. Those countries are proof that your version of 'discretion' is not necessary for law enforcement in the way you claim. Those countries are also proof that when writing their laws other countries does think of this as unequal treatment before the law and/or corruption. They also think that what you see as everyday discretion would be either worthy of disciplinative action or outright illegal. Mind you I'm not claiming that our officers or system are perfect or vice versa. I'm just pointing out that your "general trueisms" are simply false unless you put in contextual caveats.
So please get of your soapbox, it does not benefit your argument.

Obviously the context is the United States. We're discussing police in the U.S. in this entire thread. Regardless of whether those points apply in Sweden or Germany, they apply in the United States, and the cultural norms of the U.S. are not about to magically shift to those of the U.S. or Germany. Did you really need that explained to you? We aren't governed by Swedish law here, or the German Constitution.

I get the impression, by the way, that in Germany and Sweden what we consider minor traffic violations, like speeding, are considered more severe there.

[Alphawolf55]

Im sorry SVPD, I disagree completely. Applying the law equally is far more important then avoiding hurting the feeling of other cops. Call me a lolbertarian (even though the two have nothing to do with each other). But if cops are going to argue they're our finest and be expected to wield authority above common people, then they should also be expected to have maturity above that of a teeanger in the work place.

[Spoonist]

This is silly. Police officers are drawn from the society they serve, and will reflect the norms, values, and mores of that society because that is what the society expects....

Huh? Did you miss the contextual thingie? Its not silly to point out that SPVD's generic claims about human nature, governement and law enforcements are clearly wrong by giving examples of working systems where his claims are not in effect.

Of course he is arguing from his version of reality, that does not entitle him any special favors when he is making generic arguments and thus making claims about other versions of reality.

Obviously the context is the United States. We're discussing police in the U.S. in this entire thread. Regardless of whether those points apply in Sweden or Germany, they apply in the United States, and the cultural norms of the U.S. are not about to magically shift to those of the U.S. or Germany. Did you really need that explained to you? We aren't governed by Swedish law here, or the German Constitution.

Even given the context, without caveats, your claims are simply proven false by the examples. Take 10 as the obvious example. Discretion can be implemented in different ways, thus a system can be consistent & effecient without this exploitable feature. If you would have argued that taking away discretion completely would bog down law enforcement then I would not argue, but a small change in the implementation of discretion does not render it impossible.
See the difference? Now please note that this a clarfication nitpick, but in context it shows how ingrained the system is making it an obvious problem area.

I get the impression, by the way, that in Germany and Sweden what we consider minor traffic violations, like speeding, are considered more severe there.

I think it depends on how much you are speeding. Above a certain level its not considered minor anymore.
The cultural difference though is that speeding tickets are one of those things where it can be applied equally to all and thus enforced so that it is.

[Ziggy Stardust]

6. Courtesy cards are a convenience to the officer. They allow the officer to be certain this person is telling the truth.
7. If they did not exist, people would just claim to be friends and relatives. Some would inevitably lie. Eliminating the cards might eliminate public perception that a little card "gets you out of jail free" but that perception is inaccurate in the first place. It wouldn't eliminate the problem anyhow because things like "FOP supporter" stickers would still exist and in some cases the name on the driver's license will make it clear they are related.

This is idiotic. I can perfectly understand the rationale for a police officer letting off a personal friend or relative for a minor violation. But it is utterly absurd that they should be expected to let off people they've never met before based on the assumption that they might be a friend or relative of another police officer. How on earth is that a justifiable position? In large police departments, the cop that pulls someone over might barely know who the other officer is, and he should let a reckless driver off just because they can drop a name?

[Thanas]

In Germany, there are different types of discretion.

You are right that in some cases, the law might be enforced differently, especially minor cases may only result in a warning. Again, depends on the discretion allowed.

I for one have only ever heard of people getting off the hook for some extremely minor offenses (such as not carrying ID cards or having bad bandages in your car). But speeding? No.

Are there ever plea-bargains in Germany,

There are some though they will be abolished except in those cases where the law especially provides for them.

and can an offender be let off if he's a first-time offender of a minor crime who --in the judge's dicretion-- is unlikely to commit another offense?

As soon as it is a crime and he is found guilty, he is not going to be let off. He'll be punished. Obviously, as the law allows, the judge can modify the sentence, but he is going to be punished. To do so otherwise would be a crime in itself. The prosecutor however has, by law, the discretion to give a punishment or obligation that is not a criminal judgement by itself. Say, for example, if someone were to commit a minor crime like shoplifiting, he would usually be punished by not going to trial, but instead of doing ~ 120 hours of labor or something.

Police officers have let me go on at least two occassions I can recall for minor traffic infractions. Lawyers and courts in the states accept plea-bargains for lesser offenses-- is that not a discretion?

Not in the same sense. The difference is that in SPVDs case the person got off completely free without anything for speeding, i.e. no punishment awarded at all, not even an obligation given like "you have to report for additional driving instructions" etc. That is not allowed in Germany because it violates the equality of the law. There is a difference between Scenario A (P1 gets punished, P2 gets off free) and Scenario B (P1 gets punished, P2 gets punished less harshly), wouldn't you think?

And the reasons have to be other than "he is the relative of a Police officer". Obviously, they have to be reasons especially written in the law itself. Otherwise there is no discretion in Germany. The police cannot simply chose whether or not they enforce the law.

Obviously the context is the United States. We're discussing police in the U.S. in this entire thread. Regardless of whether those points apply in Sweden or Germany, they apply in the United States, and the cultural norms of the U.S. are not about to magically shift to those of the U.S. or Germany. Did you really need that explained to you? We aren't governed by Swedish law here, or the German Constitution.

So why did you have me spell out the situation of Germany then if the USA is so special and so far removed from the rest of the world?

I get the impression, by the way, that in Germany and Sweden what we consider minor traffic violations, like speeding, are considered more severe there.

It is a minor traffic violation. It is also one that is strictly enforced. The difference is not in the severity, in fact some US traffic laws are far more severe, it is a difference in enforcement. People expect Police officers to bend the law for their friends. If that would happen in Germany, the public would call it a first-grade scandal and people would have to resign.

[stormthebeaches]

It seems to me that the only way to get rid of this unofficial favoritism in the police force would be to completely abolish the system of personal discretion. Make so that every cop give a ticket to every speeder.

[Coyote]

I wonder how many people posting here in the US will get pulled over by the police for speeding, and demand a ticket instead of a warning. Or if they just can't wait to soak up a little favorable personal discretion as soon as they are the ones to benefit from it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

6. Courtesy cards are a convenience to the officer. They allow the officer to be certain this person is telling the truth.
7. If they did not exist, people would just claim to be friends and relatives. Some would inevitably lie. Eliminating the cards might eliminate public perception that a little card "gets you out of jail free" but that perception is inaccurate in the first place. It wouldn't eliminate the problem anyhow because things like "FOP supporter" stickers would still exist and in some cases the name on the driver's license will make it clear they are related.

This is idiotic. I can perfectly understand the rationale for a police officer letting off a personal friend or relative for a minor violation. But it is utterly absurd that they should be expected to let off people they've never met before based on the assumption that they might be a friend or relative of another police officer. How on earth is that a justifiable position? In large police departments, the cop that pulls someone over might barely know who the other officer is, and he should let a reckless driver off just because they can drop a name?

Uhh no Ziggy. That would not happen. The officer in question would certainly verify that this is in fact true. Afterall, as police officers we're convinced that 99% of people lie to us. (exaggeration, but you get my point)

[Kamakazie Sith]

Im sorry SVPD, I disagree completely. Applying the law equally is far more important then avoiding hurting the feeling of other cops. Call me a lolbertarian (even though the two have nothing to do with each other). But if cops are going to argue they're our finest and be expected to wield authority above common people, then they should also be expected to have maturity above that of a teeanger in the work place.

Again, Alphawolf you are completely ignoring the fact that officers who want to give family members or friends tickets WILL. The reality is that most do not WANT to. Do you understand? It isn't a matter of worrying about feelings. It is a matter of personal preference, just like my discretion towards marijuana is personal preference. You keeping focusing on work place dynamics as if it has been our only point in this thread.