Sleeping 7-Year Old Shot by Police During Raid

[Enigma]

Wow. People are acting like cops use discretion mainly on family\relative or the same for other cops. I am pretty sure they make up a tiny fraction of the total use of discretion in letting people off the hook from getting a ticket.

At one time, I was speeding to get to work and didn't notice that I was practically doubling the speed limit. A cop drove up beside me and motioned me to slow down. I did and he just went his merry way. Another time I was caught speeding when making a delivery and the cop instead of giving me a ticket for going 75km/h in a 50km/h zone reduced gave me a ticket for going 67 in a 50 zone. The fine was about half as much and I did not get any demerit points. My first ticket, I wasn't paying attention and I did 80km/h in a 50 zone and had to pay the full amount and received demerit points. I got every spectrum of the cops' discretion. From no ticket to a full ticket. My brother was pulled over once for not having the front license plate attached to a bracket to the front bumper. The cop gave him a 72 hour notice. My brother attached the plate to it's proper place and went to the police station. He went in and talked to the cop behind the front desk and told them of the notice. The cop asked him who gave my brother the notice and my brother told him. You know what the reaction of the cop was? He laughed and said "Rookie!". The cop did not even leave the desk to check on the car to make sure the plate was in the right place(technically he was supposed to check but used discretion and not bothered). Am I complaining? No. Why? Just about every profession uses a certain level of discretion in there jobs. Some doctors could choose not to charge their family or friends for certain medical procedures. Lawyers might not charge any fees or a vastly reduced rate for their family or relatives or even for the same with their co-worker\partner.

It isn't corruption. FOP cards (at least in Ohio there are three levels. FOP members are any present or past members of a law enforcement agency and are or were in good standing. FOP Auxiliary are family and relatives above the age of 18 of the FOP members and FOP Auxiliaries are those who support FOP and law enforcement in general) as far as I understood from the FOP (at least as it pertains to Ohio) website does not make any mention that it is a "No Ticket". The unofficial use is to not ticket (for the most part) those that are part of the law enforcement or related to an officer in minor offenses. My wife has a cousin that is a cop. His daughter got involved in a collision and when a cop arrived at the scene, the daughter tried to use the FOP card but the cop (who knew the father) said that in no way was she getting off the hook for the collision and would in fact call her father.

You'll also realize the increase in the amount of people contesting the tickets should the police ticket every single offender? How many cops do you think will be pulled off the road to attend those court cases? You know what'll most likely happen? The cops will probably over time skip going to the courts and the offenders will get off free. Let the police use their discretion in dealing with family or relatives that speed since they make up a very tiny fraction.

[Simon_Jester]

Wow. People are acting like cops use discretion mainly on family\relative or the same for other cops. I am pretty sure they make up a tiny fraction of the total use of discretion in letting people off the hook from getting a ticket.

I won't complain about any use of discretion that applies equally to all people. That's "equal protection" in my book, because anyone can benefit from it and no one benefits more of it than anyone else would. The only time I have a problem with use of discretion is when it is not being applied equally to everyone- when I can get away from tickets that you couldn't.

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.

In my case, since the officer doesn't know me from Adam, any reason I might benefit from discretion is going to be one of the ones I can accept if anyone gets it. Something that does as much good for random strangers as it does for me.

If I had a lot of friends in the county police, then my position would be grossly hypocritical unless I did demand tickets instead of warnings. As it is... well, it may be hypocritical. I don't know.

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.

Exactly. Thank you.

No, but they [other discretion cases] 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.

All those are fine too, as far as I'm concerned, because they are impersonal. Everyone gets equal protection from the fact that officers, at their discretion, can choose not to ticket someone five minutes before the end of their shift. Or because it's raining. Or for any other reason.

The only time I have any problem with the use of police discretion is when it is used to favor specific individuals and give them special privileges (such as being ticketed way less often than normal people who do the same things at the same times in the same places).

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?

They wouldn't make the claim if they didn't expect it to work. The solution is to ignore the claim, not to pass out little cards so the people who really are related to policemen so they can drive away from the speed trap unticketed.

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.

Could you explain to me how paying police to not take warranted action against you is better than paying them to not take unwarranted action against you?

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.

I wonder which way the cause-effect relationship runs there... seriously. I agree with Thanas; defending the specific use of police discretionary powers to grant special privilege* to the friends and relatives of police is pretty ridiculous.

*Literally. "Privilege" comes from a word for "private law," law that only applies to special people.

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.

Then do a statistical analysis. If an officer is letting off 80% of white people at traffic stops, and ticketing 80% of black people... you can make a case for racism. Likewise if they let off 80% of vets and ticket 80% of non-vets. Different type of discrimination, but still discrimination. And it'll show in the records. If it's too close to call, then it's too close to call.

This is not hard. Any damn fool could do it with a calculator, a list of incidents, and an intro statistics textbook, provided the records are being kept.

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.

Yes, but if the group of stops is large enough you can control for this. On a one for one basis, well as you say, no two traffic stops are identical. The only way to compare is to look at large groups.

Which, yes, means it's going to be very difficult if not impossible to check the records individual officers unless they rack up hundreds of traffic stops; I don't know how reasonable that is because I don't know how many times a day a given traffic cop makes stops. But you can still do it.

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.

It doesn't matter whether it's a binding obligation if it works some significant fraction of the time.

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.

Yeah, and it's equally acceptable to disagree with the flames if they're foolish, or to condemn them as a screwed up debating tactic.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Thanas.

I found an interesting article on the impact that no discretion is having on the German justice system. Though this is not an argument that Germany should adopt discretion that the US uses. I mostly just wanted to hear from Thanas...

PDF

Read the whole thing or go straight to section C "The Role of Police in Germany". I've quoted some interesting paragraphs and I would like to hear your point of view on the matter.

In 2003, German police registered about 6.5 million criminal offences in
total, among them 1.54 million thefts without aggravated circumstances. In the vast
majority of these cases, the damage caused by the offender was very minor: In 46.5
percent of these offences a damage of less than 50 Euro was reported to the police.
In shoplifting cases, the rate of offences with a damage below that line was 76 percent.
22 Even among other offences, e.g., fare dodging, embezzlement, slander or
bodily harm between juveniles, there are many cases which do not require the ´last
resort´ of a criminal sanction.

However, criminal justice policy in Germany has adopted a strategy
of procedural decriminalisation instead of repealing statutory provisions: During
the last 30 years, the options for public prosecutors and courts to withdraw
cases unconditionally or conditionally were permanently extended. Today, about
50 percent of all formal proceedings against suspects are already discontinued at
the prosecution service level without a charge.

A reform of police powers seems to be recommendable not only because there is an
urgent need for a more efficient way of dealing with minor crimes, but also because
it could reduce the current gap between the law and the reality of police practice in
Germany.25 Nowadays, it is an open secret among practitioners that police do not
adhere to the strict principle of legality26 that is stated by law (§§ 152 II, 170 StPO).
Perhaps, the realisation of such a principle is inherently impossible for police in a
modern society. Police officers use a certain degree of discretion every day when
they allocate their resources differently, “convince” victims to refrain from reporting
petty offences or when they turn a blind eye to some acts that might violate the
law. As long as lawyers and policy makers stick to the myth of a strict principle of
legality, they deprive themselves of the chance to regulate police discretion in a
transparent and constitutional way. If exercising discretion is inevitable for police,
we should face the facts and regulate them by means of the law in the interest of an
equal and constitutional police work.

[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.

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.

I know but SVPD made this claim

"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"."

And I disagree with this completely.

[jcow79]

I think this issue is being looked at backwards by many. A reverse schadenfreude, if you will. This isn't exclusively a way for people to get a "get out of jail free card" this is a way for police officers to recuse themselves from minor infractions that can make their professional and personal lives more difficult than necessary while also allowing them to build a more positive public image.

Of course the law should be blind and treat everyone equally but there's an understanding that the human element of the justice system is its biggest flaw. This is exactly why a judge would not be expected to preside over a case of one of his own friends or relatives or anyone he may have any sort of relationship business or otherwise. It's expected that a judge would act in a biased manner towards someone close to him. Why would we expect any different from police officers? The fact is we don't. We know perfectly well that police officers will act favorably to people close to them as would most people. So when it comes to minor traffic violations, why would we not essentially allow an officer to recuse himself from the situation? On a more serious violation an officer might very well have to be "taken off the case" and another officer put in his place. However for minor violations it's better to let the person go rather than waste the resources to get another officer on the scene and waste everyone’s time.

This discretion is both a net benefit for the officer because he isn’t forced into a situation that could have an adverse affect on him personally, and for society because people that know full well they have violated the law get to experience the human side of police officers and understand they are not impassionate ticket writing machines. I’d be willing to bet society by and large would NOT appreciate this discretion be removed. For a board that tends to have a dim view of zero tolerance policies, I see the argument tending dangerously close to that as an only tenable alternative.

As to the European posters: It makes me wonder how differently police may be viewed across our cultures. America is rife with anti-authority and anti-police sentiment. Our police agencies have to spend nearly as much effort on community outreach and bettering their image as they do enforcing the laws. Admittedly some of it is caused by the agencies themselves, a lot is caused by many of our absurd policies, (ie. War on drugs), but plenty of it just stems from our huge swaths of idiots and morons. Do your own countries share any of these same problems and to the same degree?

[Thanas]

*snip*

This article is pretty much saying the discretion as allowed by the prosecutors should be extended to the police forces due to the work it causes. That argument is not convincing for there are long and historical reasons why the police is not allowed discretion. A neutral third party that has no connections to the case is better suited than a police officer when weighing the charges. Note that this is not a matter of deciding to not prosecuting people, it is a matter of not leveling criminal charges. The people involved will still get fined etc.

Furthermore, the article confuses a bit of things - it makes the argument that because many cases are dropped by the prosecutors, police should be allowed to do so. But that is not the job of the police. Furthermore, these cases are not dropped because the prosecutor has a family connection or something, no they are dropped because the evidence is not there.


So all in all, the article is oversimplifying.

[SVPD]

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?

And yet this is precisely what happens. I can't really speak to a truely large department since I haven't worked in one, but like I said before I have been given a hard time because I wrote the daughter of a dispather in a neighboring sitter a ticker.

It's not going to go away. People are people.

[Thanas]

As to the European posters: It makes me wonder how differently police may be viewed across our cultures. America is rife with anti-authority and anti-police sentiment. Our police agencies have to spend nearly as much effort on community outreach and bettering their image as they do enforcing the laws. Admittedly some of it is caused by the agencies themselves, a lot is caused by many of our absurd policies, (ie. War on drugs), but plenty of it just stems from our huge swaths of idiots and morons. Do your own countries share any of these same problems and to the same degree?

Well, we had a bit of a tiff with the Nazi police and them exercising their discretion. So the police are, in some form, always mistrusted.

On the other hand, our police forces are highly competent. The entry exam to the police forces (and I am talking local cops here) is so mentally and physically challenging that only very few make it. You need more than the standard high school diploma to even apply - and these are low positions, like traffic cops. Followed by police academy (which is no joke either) and other testing.

I suspect the selection process in the USA is a bit less challenging.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, we had a bit of a tiff with the Nazi police and them exercising their discretion. So the police are, in some form, always mistrusted.

On the other hand, our police forces are highly competent. The entry exam to the police forces (and I am talking local cops here) is so mentally and physically challenging that only very few make it. You need more than the standard high school diploma to even apply - and these are low positions, like traffic cops. Followed by police academy (which is no joke either) and other testing.

I suspect the selection process in the USA is a bit less challenging.

I guess you would need to post these requirements and standards so we can have an informed discussion on that...

[SVPD]

*snip*

This article is pretty much saying the discretion as allowed by the prosecutors should be extended to the police forces due to the work it causes. That argument is not convincing for there are long and historical reasons why the police is not allowed discretion. A neutral third party that has no connections to the case is better suited than a police officer when weighing the charges. Note that this is not a matter of deciding to not prosecuting people, it is a matter of not leveling criminal charges. The people involved will still get fined etc.

Furthermore, the article confuses a bit of things - it makes the argument that because many cases are dropped by the prosecutors, police should be allowed to do so. But that is not the job of the police. Furthermore, these cases are not dropped because the prosecutor has a family connection or something, no they are dropped because the evidence is not there.

So all in all, the article is oversimplifying.

Do you do criminal law work? Asking just out of curiosity.

In any case, the article indicates on page 10:

Police officers use a certain degree of discretion every day when they allocate their resources differently, “convince” victims to refrain from reporting petty offences or when they turn a blind eye to some acts that might violate the law. As long as lawyers and policy makers stick to the myth of a strict principle of legality, they deprive themselves of the chance to regulate police discretion in a transparent and constitutional way. If exercising discretion is inevitable for police, we should face the facts and regulate them by means of the law in the interest of an equal and constitutional police work.

The article seems to indicate that the police already ARE exercising discretion in Germany and it's essentially just being winked at.

I'm not taking issue with your discussion of how the German system is supposed to work, but this article seems to indicate that the reality of the volume of criminal activity has rendered that theoretical situation not the case. This article appears to be well-referenced, unbiased, and comes from what I can only imagine is a reasonably respectable source. Can you give us anything to compare and contrast to that might contradict it and comes from an equally reputable source?

Well, we had a bit of a tiff with the Nazi police and them exercising their discretion. So the police are, in some form, always mistrusted.

On the other hand, our police forces are highly competent. The entry exam to the police forces (and I am talking local cops here) is so mentally and physically challenging that only very few make it. You need more than the standard high school diploma to even apply - and these are low positions, like traffic cops. Followed by police academy (which is no joke either) and other testing.

I suspect the selection process in the USA is a bit less challenging.

That depends entirely on where you are talking about. In some places turnover is high, and therefore standards are lower, but those places also pay well in order to attract applicants. Florida is a good example. Therefor, they still have many applicants that cannot pass the tests.

Where I live, in Ohio, jobs are scarce. I am currently applying to a better paying department in this area. Of 200 people taking the written test, only 10 will be interviewed for 3 positions (and this is after eliminating those that failed the fitness test; this department is noted for having unusually high standards for physical fitness; a slightly-toned-down version of USMC standards). In any case, this allows a high degree of selectiveness. I have applied to more difficult places; in one case there was one job with 200 people testing. It came down to me and one other person. Sadly, he got it.

[Alphawolf55]

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?

And yet this is precisely what happens. I can't really speak to a truely large department since I haven't worked in one, but like I said before I have been given a hard time because I wrote the daughter of a dispather in a neighboring sitter a ticker.

It's not going to go away. People are people.

Doesn't mean we should make it easier for officers to do it and seriously there are worse things then being unpopular to some guys in a different area. Should IA care about seeming unpopular to the regular force?

[Kamakazie Sith]

*snip*

This article is pretty much saying the discretion as allowed by the prosecutors should be extended to the police forces due to the work it causes. That argument is not convincing for there are long and historical reasons why the police is not allowed discretion. A neutral third party that has no connections to the case is better suited than a police officer when weighing the charges. Note that this is not a matter of deciding to not prosecuting people, it is a matter of not leveling criminal charges. The people involved will still get fined etc.

The argument isn't convincing because of historical reasons? That doesn't sound like a very good reason for the article to be dismissed. Furthermore, how can you decide to not prosecute someone but still fine them? Do people in Germany have the right of due process? If so, then how can you fine someone when you've dropped the case?

Furthermore, the article confuses a bit of things - it makes the argument that because many cases are dropped by the prosecutors, police should be allowed to do so. But that is not the job of the police. Furthermore, these cases are not dropped because the prosecutor has a family connection or something, no they are dropped because the evidence is not there.

It doesn't confuse that. It does state that currently dropping cases is not the job of the police. It is recommending that it become the job of the police for minor crimes. I'm not sure how you can dismiss its argument for a reform of police discretion in Germany by citing that currently that is not their job.

Also, maybe I misread something but it didn't mention that the cases were dropped because the evidence isn't there. It implied that many are dropped by prosecutors because their work load is overwhelming (which is what SVPD was saying would happen without discretion)

So all in all, the article is oversimplifying.

Eh I think you're oversimplifying the article....

[Kamakazie Sith]

Doesn't mean we should make it easier for officers to do it and seriously there are worse things then being unpopular to some guys in a different area. Should IA care about seeming unpopular to the regular force?

IA doesn't go out with you and patrol the streets. Trust is very important in paramilitary roles. You need to know that your buddy has your back. While I agree that worrying about what your co-worker will think isn't a very good reason to take or not take action it doesn't automatically make it an irrelevant reason. Especially when the action you took was entirely your choice and you've probably let people off the hook that you didn't know. It makes that person feel like you might have a grudge against them. Again, not a very good reason but combine with every other reason cited in this thread it is really just the cherry on top.

[Thanas]

Do you do criminal law work? Asking just out of curiosity.

Some, though not my specialty.

In any case, the article indicates on page 10:

Police officers use a certain degree of discretion every day when they allocate their resources differently, “convince” victims to refrain from reporting petty offences or when they turn a blind eye to some acts that might violate the law. As long as lawyers and policy makers stick to the myth of a strict principle of legality, they deprive themselves of the chance to regulate police discretion in a transparent and constitutional way. If exercising discretion is inevitable for police, we should face the facts and regulate them by means of the law in the interest of an equal and constitutional police work.

The article seems to indicate that the police already ARE exercising discretion in Germany and it's essentially just being winked at.

No. This is dead wrong. To elaborate: Some crimes or offenses in Germany have to be reported by the victims to be prosecuted (like petty theft, for example), while others are prosecuted by the state (like murder, or speeding tickets). To say that officers exercise discretion in pressuring people not to report it is completely wrong. Discretion is a legally defined term, it only exists if the law provides for it.

The situation is different. The officer in that example (which he defined as discretion) can inform the reporting citizen on the most likely outcome. Most citizens for example do not know that if they have a road accident and damage another car, they will be fined because they broke the law (which says: Drive safely). However, this is one of these crimes where the law explicitly provides prosecution only if it is reported. So if police "pressure" others not to report such a crime (I have been in that situation), the only thing they are allowed to say is "If you report this, the other person will be fined X Euros". As most people do not want others to be fined, they will withdraw the report. If they however continue to file a report, the police officer has no choice but to instantly fine the offender. That is not pressuring others, nor is it discretion because the choice is not up to the police officer. I do not know why the author makes it look as if it is.

(a police officer might also say: This is case x in Y months, so we'll get to it in V time. But that is not discretion and note that the police has a duty to eventually get to it.)

As to the allocation of resources, that is discretion, but it is not discretion by the single police officer, but from the political authority or the department heads. It is discretion not in the criminal or legal sense, but in the organizational sense. Again, not discretion as in deciding to fine or not to fine (or as we would call it, Anfangsermessen or Entscheidungsermessen).

I'm not taking issue with your discussion of how the German system is supposed to work, but this article seems to indicate that the reality of the volume of criminal activity has rendered that theoretical situation not the case. This article appears to be well-referenced, unbiased, and comes from what I can only imagine is a reasonably respectable source.

I have never even heard of that source. It certainly is not required reading for lawyers, nor have I ever read an article from it, nor have I ever seen it referenced in any commentaries on the law.

Can you give us anything to compare and contrast to that might contradict it and comes from an equally reputable source?

Only in German. I can cite the laws to you, if you want to.

[Alphawolf55]

But if there was no way of knowing they were related, no one can claim you knew, thus no one can say you held a grudge. You literally didn't know, no one can hold it against you.

[Thanas]

I guess you would need to post these requirements and standards so we can have an informed discussion on that...

The lowest standards I could find:

- German or European nationality
- younger than 31 years of age
- have a high school diploma of a certain grade (~ top 20-30% of all students)
- at least 1.62m height
- no criminal charges
- ready to defend the constitution
- no drugs
- no tattoos that are visible in short sleeves or (if they are non-visible) are not obscene etc.
- no piercings (though this might have been relaxed for women)
Must be able to do the following:
a) 4*20m run (with turns and obstacles) within 17.8 sec (F: 20 sec)
b) must be able to cross 2400m within 12 minutes (M, F: 2000m)
c) Must be able to complete twice the following exercises in their entirety:
1. Roll forward
2. climb 20 (or 15) meter, then get over the top
3. climb through one box, then jump over a second one and climb through a third
4. Slalom run through six pieces
5. Get over two seperate bars.
6. several other gymnastics.
The second time you are timed, it has to be within 2 minutes.
- psych evaluation
- memory test (very hard)
- single interview
- group discussion
- must be able to speak english (besides German)
- 2-3 years of study at special universities

I am not an expert on those, though - these are just done through googling.

[Thanas]

The argument isn't convincing because of historical reasons? That doesn't sound like a very good reason for the article to be dismissed. Furthermore, how can you decide to not prosecute someone but still fine them? Do people in Germany have the right of due process? If so, then how can you fine someone when you've dropped the case?

Because they agree to be fined instead of going to court and face a much larger fine and possibly incarceration? You get a form by the police in which you have to consent to this process. Otherwise, the prosecutor cannot drop the case.

It doesn't confuse that. It does state that currently dropping cases is not the job of the police. It is recommending that it become the job of the police for minor crimes. I'm not sure how you can dismiss its argument for a reform of police discretion in Germany by citing that currently that is not their job.

Because we have a clear legal distinction between police and prosecutors, which has to do with the control we have over the police.

Also, maybe I misread something but it didn't mention that the cases were dropped because the evidence isn't there.

Exactly, it does not. I once was in charge of evaluating such cases. On one such case the evidence was not there, I dropped the case.

It implied that many are dropped by prosecutors because their work load is overwhelming (which is what SVPD was saying would happen without discretion)

That should not be solved by discretion, because it is not the job of the police to have any discretion at all except in the areas provided by law. The reason there is simply to finally start filling the open prosecutor positions the politicians do not want to fill due to financial reasons.

And by the way - even if they would get discretion, they still would not be allowed to pardon family members or friends. Which is what the whole thread is all about.

[SVPD]

All those are fine too, as far as I'm concerned, because they are impersonal. Everyone gets equal protection from the fact that officers, at their discretion, can choose not to ticket someone five minutes before the end of their shift. Or because it's raining. Or for any other reason.

The only time I have any problem with the use of police discretion is when it is used to favor specific individuals and give them special privileges (such as being ticketed way less often than normal people who do the same things at the same times in the same places).

The problem with this is that you cannot read an officers mind and determine why he did or didn't ultimately give a ticket to someone. You're saying you have a problem with certain internal motivations, but there is no way to know what they might or might not be.

They wouldn't make the claim if they didn't expect it to work. The solution is to ignore the claim, not to pass out little cards so the people who really are related to policemen so they can drive away from the speed trap unticketed.

But you cannot just "ignore the claim". People do not work that way. Once the claim has been made, the officer is aware of it. In fact, sometimes it isn't even necessary to make the claim, the officer may simply know the person or deduce it from their name, address, or something like that.

All you're really doing is trying to put a fig leaf over reality. If cops are supposedly not to tke into consideration the relationships of the person they've stopped, then any stop where they don't wish to write a ticket becomes "well, it's anice day out and I just didn't want to spoil their day. I didn't even think about the fact that it's Jones's wife." What are you going to do, mandate that they write tickets to people who are relatives and friends? That's the same problem you're talking about; just reversed. How close a relative or friend would have to get a ticket? Friend since childhood? One they met last week? What if they have a falling out? How close a relative counts? Grandparent? Cousin? Second Cousin? Second Cousin one removed?

Could you explain to me how paying police to not take warranted action against you is better than paying them to not take unwarranted action against you?

Sicne I said no such thing, no, I'm not going to. Read what I said carefully. I was correcting you on how protection schemes work, not saying they are a good thing.

I wonder which way the cause-effect relationship runs there... seriously. I agree with Thanas; defending the specific use of police discretionary powers to grant special privilege* to the friends and relatives of police is pretty ridiculous.

But there is no special priviledge. You're jsut repeating this over and over like a broken record. Members of the public regularly get breaks. What you're complaining about is that you think they get it more frequently. While this might be true, it's almost indeterminable because we haven't even defined how close a friendship or relation puts a person int he category, nor is there any way to control for people who don't get tickets because they wouldn't regardless.

Then do a statistical analysis. If an officer is letting off 80% of white people at traffic stops, and ticketing 80% of black people... you can make a case for racism. Likewise if they let off 80% of vets and ticket 80% of non-vets. Different type of discrimination, but still discrimination. And it'll show in the records. If it's too close to call, then it's too close to call.

You can do that, but veteran status is a discreet, binary condition: you are or aren't. Race is similar; a person can only really have one race listed on their driver's license (assuming that a prson is whatever race they call themself). Bein a "relativ of a cop" or "friend of a cop" is not something that can be defined easily in that way, nor is it listed on driver's licenses, nor can I think of any way to do it that wouldn't lead to either total absurdity or manipulation of the criteria to give the results one desired.

This is not hard. Any damn fool could do it with a calculator, a list of incidents, and an intro statistics textbook, provided the records are being kept.

Yes, provided records are being kept. It's very hard, however to keep records of vague characteristics.

Yes, but if the group of stops is large enough you can control for this. On a one for one basis, well as you say, no two traffic stops are identical. The only way to compare is to look at large groups.

Which, yes, means it's going to be very difficult if not impossible to check the records individual officers unless they rack up hundreds of traffic stops; I don't know how reasonable that is because I don't know how many times a day a given traffic cop makes stops. But you can still do it.

Again, that works for relatively easily tracked criteria, but there really is no way to assemble the information in the first place that you would need to track how police friends and relatives are treated in these situations. This is exactly the technique that's used to look for racial profiling but it doesn't work that well

It doesn't matter whether it's a binding obligation if it works some significant fraction of the time.

On the contrary, it very much does matter. You're giving money to one party in exchange for something that may or may not have a certain effect in a situation you may or may not find yourself in the future at some unspecified point in the future, with some other party whose identity is unknown and undetermiend and who might have given you the same treatment anyhow. On top of that, part of it "working" is to help avoid unnecessary interpersonal conflict which is a part of human nature.

Yeah, and it's equally acceptable to disagree with the flames if they're foolish, or to condemn them as a screwed up debating tactic.

You can do whatever you want in that regard.

[SVPD]

Doesn't mean we should make it easier for officers to do it and seriously there are worse things then being unpopular to some guys in a different area. Should IA care about seeming unpopular to the regular force?

IA already is unpopular with the regular force in many departments because of the perception of railroading people, and yes, they should care about it. If people feel they're going to get railroaded in order to boost someone else's career, they're more likely to avoid talking to IA.

Yes, there are "worse things" than being unpopular to people you work with, but so what? That doesn't mean avoiding workplace conflict isn't desirable.

[SVPD]

But if there was no way of knowing they were related, no one can claim you knew, thus no one can say you held a grudge. You literally didn't know, no one can hold it against you.

But that doesn't stop them from doing so. How can you prove you didn't know who they were? You can't. If you don't write them a ticket, how can you prove you didn't let them go because of who they were? You can't.

[SVPD]

Do you do criminal law work? Asking just out of curiosity.

Some, though not my specialty.

In any case, the article indicates on page 10:

Police officers use a certain degree of discretion every day when they allocate their resources differently, “convince” victims to refrain from reporting petty offences or when they turn a blind eye to some acts that might violate the law. As long as lawyers and policy makers stick to the myth of a strict principle of legality, they deprive themselves of the chance to regulate police discretion in a transparent and constitutional way. If exercising discretion is inevitable for police, we should face the facts and regulate them by means of the law in the interest of an equal and constitutional police work.

The article seems to indicate that the police already ARE exercising discretion in Germany and it's essentially just being winked at.

No. This is dead wrong. To elaborate: Some crimes or offenses in Germany have to be reported by the victims to be prosecuted (like petty theft, for example), while others are prosecuted by the state (like murder, or speeding tickets). To say that officers exercise discretion in pressuring people not to report it is completely wrong. Discretion is a legally defined term, it only exists if the law provides for it.

The situation is different. The officer in that example (which he defined as discretion) can inform the reporting citizen on the most likely outcome. Most citizens for example do not know that if they have a road accident and damage another car, they will be fined because they broke the law (which says: Drive safely). However, this is one of these crimes where the law explicitly provides prosecution only if it is reported. So if police "pressure" others not to report such a crime (I have been in that situation), the only thing they are allowed to say is "If you report this, the other person will be fined X Euros". As most people do not want others to be fined, they will withdraw the report. If they however continue to file a report, the police officer has no choice but to instantly fine the offender. That is not pressuring others, nor is it discretion because the choice is not up to the police officer. I do not know why the author makes it look as if it is.

(a police officer might also say: This is case x in Y months, so we'll get to it in V time. But that is not discretion and note that the police has a duty to eventually get to it.)

As to the allocation of resources, that is discretion, but it is not discretion by the single police officer, but from the political authority or the department heads. It is discretion not in the criminal or legal sense, but in the organizational sense. Again, not discretion as in deciding to fine or not to fine (or as we would call it, Anfangsermessen or Entscheidungsermessen).

I'm not taking issue with your discussion of how the German system is supposed to work, but this article seems to indicate that the reality of the volume of criminal activity has rendered that theoretical situation not the case. This article appears to be well-referenced, unbiased, and comes from what I can only imagine is a reasonably respectable source.

I have never even heard of that source. It certainly is not required reading for lawyers, nor have I ever read an article from it, nor have I ever seen it referenced in any commentaries on the law.

Can you give us anything to compare and contrast to that might contradict it and comes from an equally reputable source?

Only in German. I can cite the laws to you, if you want to.

That's all right, I'll take your word for it, rather than put you through the ass pain of translating laws from German to English. Unfortunately I speadk only the most basic German myself, so Ich nicht verstehen anything complex.

However, since discretion has a specific legal meaning, lets call it judgement. You would say it's inaccurate that German polcie exercise judgement in how they handle cases that is extraconstitutional but is a product of the reality of the volume of crime? Is that correct?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because they agree to be fined instead of going to court and face a much larger fine and possibly incarceration? You get a form by the police in which you have to consent to this process. Otherwise, the prosecutor cannot drop the case.

Interesting.

Because we have a clear legal distinction between police and prosecutors, which has to do with the control we have over the police.

So because it is the law means it is above reconsideration?

Exactly, it does not. I once was in charge of evaluating such cases. On one such case the evidence was not there, I dropped the case.

Which is something the police in the United States are able to do. If I have no evidence of the crime and it's a minor crime I don't need a prosecutor to tell me that the case isn't going to go anywhere.

Seems like you could reduce the workload of your prosecutors by giving the police more discretionary powers.

That should not be solved by discretion, because it is not the job of the police to have any discretion at all except in the areas provided by law. The reason there is simply to finally start filling the open prosecutor positions the politicians do not want to fill due to financial reasons.

Well, currently. This article is arguing for the reform of those laws. Also, as I stated above a police officer is perfectly capable of looking at the information of a minor crime and saying "no evidence" and dropping it.

And by the way - even if they would get discretion, they still would not be allowed to pardon family members or friends. Which is what the whole thread is all about.

Indeed. They wouldn't be allowed to, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen anyway. The lack of discretion in Germany probably does a good job of removing the human element from most minor things, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that under the table discretion is practiced among your officers.

[Alphawolf55]

But if there was no way of knowing they were related, no one can claim you knew, thus no one can say you held a grudge. You literally didn't know, no one can hold it against you.

But that doesn't stop them from doing so. How can you prove you didn't know who they were? You can't. If you don't write them a ticket, how can you prove you didn't let them go because of who they were? You can't.

That's just plain stupid and you know it. You keep acting like because no one can prove why a cop didn't give a certain ticket, we should just give free reign on everything. Just because cops will give breaks no matter what due to some personal relationships, doesn't mean the force should tolerate officer organizations giving cards that identity said relationship or for donating money. If said cards didn't exist, no one could be positive what their relationship was to an individual and any claim would be just that a claim. They could say they were related, but you could just assume they're lying and go on your merry day. The only reason the cards exist is so you guys can make sure you're giving special treatment to the right people.

[Thanas]

However, since discretion has a specific legal meaning, lets call it judgement. You would say it's inaccurate that German polcie exercise judgement in how they handle cases that is extraconstitutional but is a product of the reality of the volume of crime? Is that correct?

No, for the reasons I outlined above - they cannot make a judgement call if a crime is reported or committed. One example might illustrate this - a friend of mine was caught without a valid bus ticket. The controllers took him to the police per company policy. I accompanied him as help.

The police shook their heads because they all thought that this did not deserve their attention as the case would almost certainly result in no criminal charges but some obligations levelled on him (due to the process I outlined above). You know that they thought this unnecessary. However, because a report had to be filed, they had to go start proceedings. That is the difference - they have no choice, no right to make a judgement call on these things no matter how much retarded they think they are.

So it went through the system and sure enough my friend got a letter from the DA and the whole shebang. The case was, as we all know, dropped of course in favor of a small fine.

Most traffic violations for example do not allow judgement calls at all because you got sixty years of laws and casework spelling it out for you. German traffic laws are very, very narrowly written and do not leave wiggle room. They are also mostly not investigated by the police, but by another agency.

Because we have a clear legal distinction between police and prosecutors, which has to do with the control we have over the police.

So because it is the law means it is above reconsideration?

No, because we value a neutral agency above the officers on the ground. As I said, historical reasons due to the SA being made police officers and being allowed to exercise discretion. And because the system works just fine. The problem now only happen due to the politicians trying to save money by cutting prosecutors.

Which is something the police in the United States are able to do. If I have no evidence of the crime and it's a minor crime I don't need a prosecutor to tell me that the case isn't going to go anywhere.

We do not trust the police to be objective about this. Remember that in some small villages in Germany there is only one police officer, if any at all (we have no sherif position). In my small village he was also the town drunk. If he had been allowed to exercise discretion, well....you get the picture.

Seems like you could reduce the workload of your prosecutors by giving the police more discretionary powers.

Or just hire more prosecutors or assistant prosecutors (the latter getting paid less than the police anyway) who are more familiar with the laws at hand.

The police can already recommend dropping the case in some instances, but they still not have the final say and the DA can (and will) overrule them.

And by the way - even if they would get discretion, they still would not be allowed to pardon family members or friends. Which is what the whole thread is all about.

Indeed. They wouldn't be allowed to, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen anyway. The lack of discretion in Germany probably does a good job of removing the human element from most minor things, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that under the table discretion is practiced among your officers.

Maybe. But if it is, I never noticed it when I worked with the police, my friend in the police force just told me that would be corruption etc. Whereas my family and I have gotten off in the USA already three times.

And quite frankly, I'd rather have the German system than the american way over here. It is more fair.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's just plain stupid and you know it. You keep acting like because no one can prove why a cop didn't give a certain ticket, we should just give free reign on everything. Just because cops will give breaks no matter what due to some personal relationships, doesn't mean the force should tolerate officer organizations giving cards that identity said relationship or for donating money. If said cards didn't exist, no one could be positive what their relationship was to an individual and any claim would be just that a claim. They could say they were related, but you could just assume they're lying and go on your merry day. The only reason the cards exist is so you guys can make sure you're giving special treatment to the right people.

What do you mean by "doesn't mean the force should tolerate officer organizations giving cards"? The force has no control over a private organization or what its members do even if they are employees. You do get that don't you?

If the cards didn't exist all the officer would have to do is call dispatch and get the number of the officer that the person claims they know and give them a call. (this has been addressed several times...you continue to ignore it so you can cling to the "cards are bad mmkay" idea.

The only reason huh? Actually the cards are for many other reasons like gaining entrance into a organization function...which is something common among many organizations.