Sleeping 7-Year Old Shot by Police During Raid

[Captain Seafort]

We're having some fun with this out here in New Mexico, actually -- I believe it was a lawyer who received a ticket for speeding due to one of those damned cameras. He had, however, lent the car to a friend while he was at work, and the courts are trying to say he's responsible for breaking the law despite that it was not him that broke the law; they acknowledged that he was not the driver and tried to fine him anyway. It's going to the state court of appeals, and I have a feeling that no matter which way it goes, it'll keep getting appealed.

Eh? How does that work? If the argument was over whether or not he was driving, fair enough, but if everyone agrees that he wasn't driving, why are they still going after him, and why aren't they going after the other bloke instead?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Have you ever knowingly ticketed a relative of a police, with him or her saying that he was a relative of a police officer, for "harmless speeding"? Or is it departmental policy to let those slide as a rule? If the latter, then the different class is already created.

My only experience with the relative of a police officer involved me impounding his relatives car because they were grossly over due on the registration and did not have insurance. I would not have felt good about them going off and getting in a wreck and me being in a position to do something about it.

It is not department policy to let anyone slide. The law reads approximately that officers can arrest, cite, or release on warning for misdemeanors below a class A (traffic offenses are consider class C misdemeanors in Utah, but they're ultimately infractions which the only choice is to cite or warn).

Policy and law does further restrict us on certain crimes such as DUIs, and Domestic Violence - battery which is a class B misdemeanor, but if probable cause to arrest exists we do not have discretion we must arrest via citation or jail (jail is determined by several factors such as risk of continued violence against the victim, seriousness of injuries, if weapons were involved, and history of domestic violence)

I guess I value equality of the law a bit more highly than you then. To me, a law that is not equal is no law at all.

I do see the advantages your system has over the US system. I don't necessarily agree with how it is applied though in some cases. However, I do not think the US system is superior to the German system.

Yeah, but it may just be that I consider the other system far better due to the reasons outlined in this thread by me many times. Unless, of course, you consider a choice based on those reasons elitist. In short, this is nothing but a cheap shot, especially considering how I gave ample evidence why I prefer the German system.

I apologize then, but you must understand this is in response to your cheap shot against me and your dramatic reactions to something that is different over something so petty as traffic violations.

[Kamakazie Sith]

We're having some fun with this out here in New Mexico, actually -- I believe it was a lawyer who received a ticket for speeding due to one of those damned cameras. He had, however, lent the car to a friend while he was at work, and the courts are trying to say he's responsible for breaking the law despite that it was not him that broke the law; they acknowledged that he was not the driver and tried to fine him anyway. It's going to the state court of appeals, and I have a feeling that no matter which way it goes, it'll keep getting appealed.

Eh? How does that work? If the argument was over whether or not he was driving, fair enough, but if everyone agrees that he wasn't driving, why are they still going after him, and why aren't they going after the other bloke instead?

That's one of those many differences between states. Some states hold the owner of the car ultimately responsible while others will work out a deal if the owner identifies the actual driver and that driver pays the fine.

[Captain Seafort]

That's one of those many differences between states. Some states hold the owner of the car ultimately responsible while others will work out a deal if the owner identifies the actual driver and that driver pays the fine.

Strange. Given that speeding is caused by too much right boot, it strikes me as very odd indeed that anyone but the owner of said boot should be held responsible.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's one of those many differences between states. Some states hold the owner of the car ultimately responsible while others will work out a deal if the owner identifies the actual driver and that driver pays the fine.

Strange. Given that speeding is caused by too much right boot, it strikes me as very odd indeed that anyone but the owner of said boot should be held responsible.

Well, that makes two of us. Though when you have a system where the defense asks an officer to demonstrate the understanding behind the mechanics of a device such as a LIDAR or RADAR, despite the technology being proven over and over, instead of simply producing a record of maintenance and/or a test of the device.

[Spoonist]

You said your officers do things like not nailing other cops for domestic violence violations and such so I don't see why you're having a hard time accepting that I don't buy your culture argument.

I'll just give up, you clearly do not get it.

Then your partner issues the ticket. It will probably be a bit embaressing but as I said no biggie. Likely you'd get some friendly bantering for not teaching your wife the law by your colleagues.

Sorry. Traffic violations don't work that way in the US. I can't write a citation for something that I did not witness. My partner can't write a citation for something he/she did not witness. It must be the witnessing officer.

Uhm.... ???? Agreed that that is how it works in the US but you where asking me how it works over here. Over here an officer should never work alone, so his partner is always with him.
Its a work safety thing, again coming from big brother laws that try to take care of its citizens (regardless of whether the citizen wants it or not) which depending on preference can be liked or disliked.

Normally here speeding ticketing is set up in 'traps' with 5-10 cops inolved. A very effecient conveyor belt principle. 1-3 hidden cops laser tag the vehicles and report in offenders. Then around a bend 1-5 cops have a blockade and wave in offenders. Then 2-5 cops do the actual questioning and citing.
For safety reasons you would almost never see a high speed chase over a speeding ticket. Instead they would put a helicopter on it and block the road further ahead.
Usually this is combined with looking for stolen vehicles and safety violations like insurance.

Now why do you always fall back to how it works for you or how the way it works where you are sets some sort of standard how you think it works in other countries as well? Its like you are pretending to be interested in other systems but when it boils down to it you only care about yours.

[Spoonist]

That's one of those many differences between states. Some states hold the owner of the car ultimately responsible while others will work out a deal if the owner identifies the actual driver and that driver pays the fine.

Strange. Given that speeding is caused by too much right boot, it strikes me as very odd indeed that anyone but the owner of said boot should be held responsible.

Well, that makes two of us. Though when you have a system where the defense asks an officer to demonstrate the understanding behind the mechanics of a device such as a LIDAR or RADAR, despite the technology being proven over and over, instead of simply producing a record of maintenance and/or a test of the device.

Now we don't have that system here but its the same argument that goes for issuing parking tickets. They are put on the car, ie owner, regardless of who drove the vehicle.

So if you are fine with parking tickets issued on the car this should be no different. Mind you in such a system its only the fine that is put on the car/owner, not any other punishment, those you still have to be pulled over to get.

[jcow79]

The degree of punishment a prosecutor and a judge is expected to wield is entirely different, as I pointed out several times. But yet you still persist that a Judge and a prosecutor is the same. Do you think there is a difference between being forced to try to send your wife to death row or writing her a parking ticket? If you think so, then why should you be allowed to exercise discretion on the sole basis of people being related?

This argument fails in that police ARE given this same right. You would not find a homicide detective investigating a case against his friend or family. He would be forced to recuse himself from the investigation and another investigator would take over. I'm sure this is true for nearly any crime above this discretionary threshold. Our officers make traffic stops by themselves. Once it was discovered that the person you pulled over was a friend or family member you would have to further inconvenience them by making them wait while another officer became available to take over the stop. Now you have truly created a second class citizen by being related to an officer. That's exactly what American cops need, more people hating them.

Quit ignoring that Kama and SVPD are arguing from within a discretionary system and trying to hold them to your countries standards. At least acknowledge that within this system, as flawed as you may view it, their arguments are consistent and have merit.

In case you do not notice, this creates a second class of citizens, those that can speed, park in the wrong spots and when caught, whip up a card or name people and then get off with almost 100% certainty. This is what horrifies me.

Second class maybe to girls with big boobs and overly polite people, who are actually far more likely to be the recipient of discretionary leniency. Cops let perfect strangers off ALL the time with warnings. The chance that they will pull over a friend or relative is remote. In your country if a cop pulls over a friend or relative they can ticket them and honestly say "I'm just doing my job" but in the US you're just being a dick because you let off perfect strangers all the time with warnings, but you chose to give your friend a ticket? And you don't see how this might cause relationship problems? Again these cops are workign in this sytem and have to deal with the pitfalls of this system.

Yes, I am horrified by it, that a state that is supposed to have equality before the law just does not - but not because of wealth or merit, because they are a different sort of people.

Everyone a cop gives a warning to is a different sort of people. A person being polite is just as subjective of a reason for a cop to issue a warning as it being their friend. At least the polite stranger won't be at dinner later. Quit ignoring that at least letting your friend off has a reason behind it opposed to letting off the multitudes of strangers.

I am of course not qualified to evaluate you as a police officer. I am however qualified to express an opinion on the moral validity of your point of view and given that your only excuse so far is that it is somehow impossible to change the system (gee, wonder how we Europeans managed it, given that a mere 100 years ago the situation was exactly the same in Europe) or that it would force you to have some discomfort - well, neither reason is very convincing.

Hmm, what things have happened in Europe over the last 100 years that may have had dramatic impact on your legal systems? I don't know European history nearly as well as you. Help us out. I really really hope massive world wars aren’t in your stepping stones to legal reform.

[Kamakazie Sith]

'll just give up, you clearly do not get it.

I apologize then. I thought I understood. It seemed to me that you were explaining that the culture in your country is different to such a degree that police don't experience those same concerns that a US police officer does. To your cops. Writing your family member a ticket is just doing your job and they don't take it personally because they understand that.

However, I want to point out that when you say that culture > human nature but then later admit that your cops are guilty of giving breaks to fellow cops for things like DUI it adds confusion to your message.

Anyway, if that is not the message you are trying to communicate then I apologize for the frustration you are probably experiencing because I am interested in learning about your system. I'll try to be less confrontational regarding your posts.

Uhm.... ???? Agreed that that is how it works in the US but you where asking me how it works over here. Over here an officer should never work alone, so his partner is always with him.
Its a work safety thing, again coming from big brother laws that try to take care of its citizens (regardless of whether the citizen wants it or not) which depending on preference can be liked or disliked.

I like that. I wish we worked with a partner in my department. Some US departments do work with two per car, but not mine.

Normally here speeding ticketing is set up in 'traps' with 5-10 cops inolved. A very effecient conveyor belt principle. 1-3 hidden cops laser tag the vehicles and report in offenders. Then around a bend 1-5 cops have a blockade and wave in offenders. Then 2-5 cops do the actual questioning and citing.

We do similiar things but mostly for DUIs...

For safety reasons you would almost never see a high speed chase over a speeding ticket. Instead they would put a helicopter on it and block the road further ahead.
Usually this is combined with looking for stolen vehicles and safety violations like insurance.

Many US departments are heading that direction. For my department we can only chase if we have probable cause that the person fleeing in the vehicle was involved in a violent felony. However, we don't have the funding for a helicopter so those people usually get away.

Now why do you always fall back to how it works for you or how the way it works where you are sets some sort of standard how you think it works in other countries as well? Its like you are pretending to be interested in other systems but when it boils down to it you only care about yours.

I apologize. I think I misunderstood your intention.

[RogueIce]

Now we don't have that system here but its the same argument that goes for issuing parking tickets. They are put on the car, ie owner, regardless of who drove the vehicle.

So if you are fine with parking tickets issued on the car this should be no different. Mind you in such a system its only the fine that is put on the car/owner, not any other punishment, those you still have to be pulled over to get.

I think in quite a few cases where it's the camera, it's mostly considered a civil violation: you get a fine, but no points on your license or anything like that (as it is for parking and the red light cameras). If a police officer gets you for running a light or speeding, though, you can still get the points on your license depending on the severity.

I don't know if this is universal across the US, though.

[Terralthra]

Also, at the "policeman's wife" canard. Maybe she shouldn't be speeding? I mean, come on."It would be very awkward for the policeman if he catches a loved one committing a crime and punishes them for it, therefore policemen should be able to just let people go"? Really?

Awkward? I think that seriously undercuts the reality of the situation. Sure, she shouldn't be speeding but that doesn't change the fact that the officer still has the choice on whether to cite or not. It is completely up to that officer. In addition he would be punishing himself as well since it is likely they share the same finances not to mention whatever other arguments this would lead to then the court time if she decided to fight it and then then the possibility of the wife dragging their personal life out onto the floor. Marriage with police is already challenging enough for the spouse without adding those factors to it.

Oh man, keep piling it up.

"It's up to the officer whether to cite" is not an effective argument to rebut "We shouldn't give officers discretion in whether to cite." Especially when it's "We shouldn't give officers discretion in whether to cite, because they are human beings and will abuse the privilege for personal reasons like favoritism."

Also, keep digging deeper on the awkwardness front. It's not that it's just "awkward," it's that giving a citation would be directly against the officer's wishes, as he would be effectively citing himself. Well, gee, now that you've shown how a police officer has a direct financial conflict of interest, surely the best response is to give the officer in question complete discretion to ignore traffic violations.

I mean, really, that just takes the cake. I'm pretty sure no one actually wants a speeding ticket, and it will cause strife and stress to whoever receives one. That's not an argument in favor of letting speeders off without a ticket, that's an argument against getting caught speeding. The best way not to get caught speeding being, obviously, don't speed. If speeding is really so minor a crime that we can just let policemen's wives and children and friends off without punishment for it because it would cause stress, maybe we should look into changing the law, because it hardly seems fair to punish others for it if it's so harmless. Keeping the law against harmless behavior around and then letting policemen choose not to enforce it if enforcing it would cause them direct financial harm is excusing favoritism by law enforcement, and nothing less.

Not to mention...what kind of idiot pulls his own wife over? Do you honestly not know your own wife's make/model/license plate?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Oh man, keep piling it up.

Oh man, keep pretending you know what you're talking about.

"It's up to the officer whether to cite" is not an effective argument to rebut "We shouldn't give officers discretion in whether to cite." Especially when it's "We shouldn't give officers discretion in whether to cite, because they are human beings and will abuse the privilege for personal reasons like favoritism."

Except we're not talking about that. We're not arguing about if officers should have discretion or not. We're arguing if it is corrupt for a police officer to give a warning to his friends or family when operating in a system that allows for police to have discretion. If the US system did not allow for discretion I would not be here arguing this. You don't see me supporting the cops that let their friends off on DUIs, or fake evidence to keep their buddies out of prison for serious crimes? Do you?

In fact, in this thread I have specifically stated that advantages do exist in a system with no discretion, such as the German system. However, changing the US system to a system of no discretion would be very expensive and in my opinion isn't worth the cost so you can avoid the hang up over police giving warnings to friends and family when they already give many warnings to complete strangers.

Also, keep digging deeper on the awkwardness front. It's not that it's just "awkward," it's that giving a citation would be directly against the officer's wishes, as he would be effectively citing himself. Well, gee, now that you've shown how a police officer has a direct financial conflict of interest, surely the best response is to give the officer in question complete discretion to ignore traffic violations.

You have no idea what the conversation is. I think you should just leave.

I mean, really, that just takes the cake. I'm pretty sure no one actually wants a speeding ticket, and it will cause strife and stress to whoever receives one. That's not an argument in favor of letting speeders off without a ticket, that's an argument against getting caught speeding. The best way not to get caught speeding being, obviously, don't speed. If speeding is really so minor a crime that we can just let policemen's wives and children and friends off without punishment for it because it would cause stress, maybe we should look into changing the law, because it hardly seems fair to punish others for it if it's so harmless. Keeping the law against harmless behavior around and then letting policemen choose not to enforce it if enforcing it would cause them direct financial harm is excusing favoritism by law enforcement, and nothing less.

What takes the cake is when a pencil neck like you enters a thread and starts an argument for something that isn't even being argued. Fuck off.

[Terralthra]

I will take your utter refusal to respond to my points as a complete concession. Many thanks.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I will take your utter refusal to respond to my points as a complete concession. Many thanks.

Right a concession to the argument that we aren't having and I'm not making. Good job.

[Terralthra]

That you can't seem to understand it when the premises of your arguments are questioned is your problem, not mine.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That you can't seem to understand it when the premises of your arguments are questioned is your problem, not mine.

Your questions ignore the context of my arguments. If you wish to start a conversation regarding the merits of discretion itself then start another thread. In this thread we're talking about whether or not US police exercising discretion to avoid personal complications that can interfer with their personal life is a form of a corruption.

[Spoonist]

I like that. I wish we worked with a partner in my department. Some US departments do work with two per car, but not mine.

I'm curious, my prejudice from movies is that this is and urban/rural thing. That in cities its more common to have a partner, but highway patrol or small towns usually go with single cops due to cost.
I'm guessing my prejudice is wrong though so I'd be interested in how you think the divide goes?

Hmm, what things have happened in Europe over the last 100 years that may have had dramatic impact on your legal systems? I don't know European history nearly as well as you. Help us out. I really really hope massive world wars aren’t in your stepping stones to legal reform.

Oh man that was a big question. Short version is that we continued to evolve our systems while others did not. Otherwise;
Nationalism
Industrialism
Humanism
Socialism
WWI
Communism
Fascism
Nazism
WWII
Rebuild
Cold war

All of these things influenced law making processes. What happened in most countries though was a feeling of "we can do better" that was applied in all fields. With this came the idea that the state should not only provide for itself but it should also provide for its citizens and thus protect its interests through them. So when you combine that with a feeling that for the first time we can actually really try to make the law equal for all if we put in enough safety mechansims, then viola, you get this new set of laws slowly evolving to what we have today.

[jcow79]

Hmm, what things have happened in Europe over the last 100 years that may have had dramatic impact on your legal systems? I don't know European history nearly as well as you. Help us out. I really really hope massive world wars aren’t in your stepping stones to legal reform.

Oh man that was a big question. Short version is that we continued to evolve our systems while others did not. Otherwise;
Nationalism
Industrialism
Humanism
Socialism
WWI
Communism
Fascism
Nazism
WWII
Rebuild
Cold war

The question was largely rhetorical but I (sincerely) thank you for the summary. It is helpful. It also illustrates the point I was making. When comparing the systems of the US and those in Germany we can't ignore that Germany and the rest of Europe went through some supreme devastation both physically and culturally and then rebuilding that can largely be considered catalysts for their current system. Despite the outcome appearing mostly positive I would not like many of those steps to be essential in the blueprint of creating these reforms.

All of these things influenced law making processes. What happened in most countries though was a feeling of "we can do better" that was applied in all fields. With this came the idea that the state should not only provide for itself but it should also provide for its citizens and thus protect its interests through them. So when you combine that with a feeling that for the first time we can actually really try to make the law equal for all if we put in enough safety mechansims, then viola, you get this new set of laws slowly evolving to what we have today.

Bolded part my emphasis. This is another of those cultural differences that I believe illustrates the division between those on the European side of this and those on the US. While I agree with a lot of European style social policies, a huge portion of the US population is starkly opposed. They want the government out of their day to day lives. Our law enforcement has to take into account this perception. They are in fact serving the public after all.
Also, making 1 to 1 comparisons between the two systems (3 actually when adding in your country) is fraught with very sophisticated elements. We can compare the different systems as wholes to decide which we think is superior, but when discussing the nuances of each system I think it is only fair to compare the execution of these policies from the system from which they originate. It does not make much sense to discuss the merits of police discretion in the German system because it is not permitted and would actually be corruption under their laws. However since discretion is perfectly accepted in US law, we should look to how that policy is carried out in the US and make consistent arguments in that context.

This next section is not towards Spoonist’s comments in particular but at the broader thread.

Our police agencies have such a bad PR problem in general I truly believe that low level police discretion policies give them a powerful tool to actually have a positive experience with the day to day public. It's been pointed out over and over again that your average speeder is FAR more likely to be the recipient of "just a warning" as opposed to the few times a police officer will pull someone over from their own social/family circle.

You can't just not enforce traffic laws. It's been pointed out rightly that speeding and reckless driving do contribute to countless traffic accidents and fatalities. However, by just having police officers pulling people over it does give other drivers the impression that the area is patrolled, and as long as tickets are being handed out at reasonable frequency, the public knows that the laws are enforced. People passing a traffic stop don’t know whether that driver was ticketed, they just see someone pulled over. Giving our officers this discretionary tool gives them the ability to pull someone over, give them a stern warning, educate the driver on public safety, but end the encounter with the driver understanding that the police aren't just "tax collectors at the point of a gun" as my paranoid father calls them. I think the Europeans would be surprised (or maybe not so much) by how many Americans actually feel this way about the police. Many Americans think traffic enforcement is just a way to fund their departments and nothing else.

Several have asked “but where does it end?” Well despite this being an obvious slippery slope fallacy, Kamakazi has addressed this. It ends where the law says it ends. Once you are acting outside of the allowances of the law you are truly entering the area of corruption.

[Thanas]

Have you ever knowingly ticketed a relative of a police, with him or her saying that he was a relative of a police officer, for "harmless speeding"? Or is it departmental policy to let those slide as a rule? If the latter, then the different class is already created.

My only experience with the relative of a police officer involved me impounding his relatives car because they were grossly over due on the registration and did not have insurance. I would not have felt good about them going off and getting in a wreck and me being in a position to do something about it.

It is not department policy to let anyone slide. The law reads approximately that officers can arrest, cite, or release on warning for misdemeanors below a class A (traffic offenses are consider class C misdemeanors in Utah, but they're ultimately infractions which the only choice is to cite or warn).

Policy and law does further restrict us on certain crimes such as DUIs, and Domestic Violence - battery which is a class B misdemeanor, but if probable cause to arrest exists we do not have discretion we must arrest via citation or jail (jail is determined by several factors such as risk of continued violence against the victim, seriousness of injuries, if weapons were involved, and history of domestic violence)

No, I meant on parking tickets.

Yeah, but it may just be that I consider the other system far better due to the reasons outlined in this thread by me many times. Unless, of course, you consider a choice based on those reasons elitist. In short, this is nothing but a cheap shot, especially considering how I gave ample evidence why I prefer the German system.

I apologize then, but you must understand this is in response to your cheap shot against me

I stand by what I said - anybody who thinks it is okay to give relatives or friends a break is not somebody I trust to apply the law equally and fairly unless everybody, regardless of status, gets the same treatment (in which case why would anybody need those get out of jail cards in the first place? Seems to me that their only reason of existing is to signal the officer "I belong to the same class as you"), which the very example of this thread proves apparently is not the case. Now, that does not mean you are not a good officer, it only means you are not a fair officer who treats everybody equally. (Unless you can honestly say you do not care whether anybody has such a card or not and would give them a speeding ticket regardless, in which case I withdraw the whole paragraph).

and your dramatic reactions to something that is different over something so petty as traffic violations.

That is exactly what I do not understand. If this were a heavy case like murder or something, I completely understand why an officer should have the right to recuse himself when it is a relative of his. But over parking tickets and speeding? Really? It is the pettiness which makes me seriously wonder what strange and horrible emotional toil and friction a parking ticket causes people that they get back at their cop relatives and friend for it. Are people that whiny, unable to own up and tribal?

It just completely baffles me how people could think "I am a relative of a cop, ergo I deserve to get off and if I do not, the supervisor will give the officer who dared to ticket me a talking to."

I just find that inmature.

Second class maybe to girls with big boobs and overly polite people, who are actually far more likely to be the recipient of discretionary leniency. Cops let perfect strangers off ALL the time with warnings. The chance that they will pull over a friend or relative is remote. In your country if a cop pulls over a friend or relative they can ticket them and honestly say "I'm just doing my job" but in the US you're just being a dick because you let off perfect strangers all the time with warnings, but you chose to give your friend a ticket? And you don't see how this might cause relationship problems? Again these cops are workign in this sytem and have to deal with the pitfalls of this system.

If you had paid attention to this thread, you'd have noticed that my position is only arguing against the perks friends of police officers get that other people would not get. Here, I'll explain it to you once more:
Friends of police officers seem to have a right to be let off, or at the very least it is SOP. Other people do not have that right.

Quit ignoring that at least letting your friend off has a reason behind it opposed to letting off the multitudes of strangers.

The differences is in the degree of objectivity. If it is a friend, the outcome is already predetermined.

Several have asked “but where does it end?” Well despite this being an obvious slippery slope fallacy, Kamakazi has addressed this. It ends where the law says it ends. Once you are acting outside of the allowances of the law you are truly entering the area of corruption.

That is a really bad argument to make for the morality of the situation. A few decades ago seperate but equal was legal, does that make it moral?

Here - let me phrase it this way: What exactly are family members of police and friends of police doing that justifies them having perks that set them outside the general population? What makes them better than the rest of US citizens?

[fgalkin]

Also, at the "policeman's wife" canard. Maybe she shouldn't be speeding? I mean, come on."It would be very awkward for the policeman if he catches a loved one committing a crime and punishes them for it, therefore policemen should be able to just let people go"? Really?

Awkward? I think that seriously undercuts the reality of the situation. Sure, she shouldn't be speeding but that doesn't change the fact that the officer still has the choice on whether to cite or not. It is completely up to that officer. In addition he would be punishing himself as well since it is likely they share the same finances not to mention whatever other arguments this would lead to then the court time if she decided to fight it and then then the possibility of the wife dragging their personal life out onto the floor. Marriage with police is already challenging enough for the spouse without adding those factors to it.

So, if he goes shopping with his wife, and catches her shoplifting, he should simply let it go, because of "the possibility of the wife dragging their personal life out onto the floor"?

Discretion should be applied on the basis of the offense, not on the basis that it would make the officer ticket his friends, or more likely, the friends of some cop they've never even met (as is the case with the 35,000-strong NYPD). That's not discretion, that's cronyism, which is considered corruption, even in the US.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[jcow79]

That is exactly what I do not understand. If this were a heavy case like murder or something, I completely understand why an officer should have the right to recuse himself when it is a relative of his. But over parking tickets and speeding? Really? It is the pettiness which makes me seriously wonder what strange and horrible emotional toil and friction a parking ticket causes people that they get back at their cop relatives and friend for it. Are people that whiny, unable to own up and tribal?

Yes.

It just completely baffles me how people could think "I am a relative of a cop, ergo I deserve to get off and if I do not, the supervisor will give the officer who dared to ticket me a talking to."

This is amazingly frequent as well. A lot of Americans take tickets very personally. It is a personal attack on their character, on their decency, and their pocket book. It is the evil tyrannical system trying to force it's authority down their throats and fleece them for all their hard earned money in the process. Shit, haven't there even been a number of threads where people claim that seatbelt laws are prime examples of tyranny? My dad, whom I invoked earlier, is one of these nuts. He waxes on about how DUI laws are the greatest sham the media in league with the government ever pulled on the public. It is absolutely astonishing the drivel that comes from this segment of our society.

If you had paid attention to this thread, you'd have noticed that my position is only arguing against the perks friends of police officers get that other people would not get. Here, I'll explain it to you once more:
Friends of police officers seem to have a right to be let off, or at the very least it is SOP. Other people do not have that right.

Your preference for a discretionary system vs a non-discretionary system has been very clear and I even agree mostly with your assessments. However in the context the US style discretionary system:
I would not call this a right because there is no law guaranteeing this protection under the law. What we have is a policy of discretion which EVERYONE living within a departments jurisdiction that supports this policy stands to benefit from. The first time offender that slightly creeps over the speed limit, the hot blonde that flirts with an officer, the very polite older gentleman that is driving too slow in the passing lane, the foreigner that perhaps is unfamiliar with some of the nuances between the US laws and their own, the young man that happened to get pulled over at the end of an officers shift and lucked out with only a warning. This discretion is allowed and broadly applied to them all. Now with this policy raises a question. If discretion is allowed, how should we apply is to people we know or are closely associated with?

1)We could require no tolerance and cite them every time. - This would actually deny these people the same benefit that everyone else is entitled and truly be unfair.
2)We could allow officers to recuse themselves and have another officer issue handle the stop- Again this is unfair to friends and family of officers requiring additional and very likely a lot of extra time while another officer comes on the scene.
3)We can ask officers to use the same criteria they would for any other person they stopped.-This is of course is the best case scenario theoretically for a discretionary system but let's face it, it's unrealistic and ignores the entire argument of natural human bias and personal tension that citing a loved one can cause when discretionary leniency exists. If you allow discretion to begin with, why not formulate the policy that is preferred by the officer and is mostly likely to occur anyway? To me, this would be a consistent policy but a dishonest one. The outcome would be the same but with a wink and a nod among officers that they adhere to it. This would actually cause corruption from individual officers where none existed before.
4)Suggest to your officers that they are not required to cut their loved ones any slack but it is permissible under the law to let them off with a warning for petty traffic crimes. And point out that even if they feel like they're doing something wrong, the department recognizes the strain that enforcing these laws could cause in their personal lives and do not want additional stress to adversely affect their work as a police officer- This is essentially the policy for many if not most departments.
5)Change to a non-discretionary system- This type of system, like the one outlined by Thanas, appears to carry a lot of merit. However, the US and Germany are not analogous and working towards a system like this would likely require a very large portion of our society to completely change its views on the nature of government, the role of the police, understand personal responsibility, and spend several generations trying to breed the stupid people out. Too many Americans just love to "Fight the Power!" Also elements of the German system, like their need for only the officer’s affidavit being required for trials is not currently legal in the US as the officer is required by law to appear. I would think this would raise the cost of this system tremendously.
6)FURTHER SUGGESTIONS.

The differences is in the degree of objectivity. If it is a friend, the outcome is already predetermined.

Every police officer is different. Some won’t give any slack at all and hope that you will contest the ticket so they can fatten their take home pay with overtime. Others will take every reasonable opportunity to let people off with a warning just because they’re nice corrupt guys. And of course you have every stripe in between. Believe it or not there are even some that would ticket their own mothers if they had the opportunity.

Several have asked “but where does it end?” Well despite this being an obvious slippery slope fallacy, Kamakazi has addressed this. It ends where the law says it ends. Once you are acting outside of the allowances of the law you are truly entering the area of corruption.

That is a really bad argument to make for the morality of the situation. A few decades ago seperate but equal was legal, does that make it moral?

I hardly would equate letting people off minor traffic violations with “Separate but equal” or any other civil rights issue of such magnitude.

Here - let me phrase it this way: What exactly are family members of police and friends of police doing that justifies them having perks that set them outside the general population? What makes them better than the rest of US citizens?

I don’t see it that way. I see it as a policy that benefits the entire population and police/public relations and guidelines are suggested to allow the officers to do what they would do anyway within that policy but has the additional net benefit of not causing undue hardship on the officers. Anyone that insists on recieving a ticket rather than recieve a warning because they have a healthy respect for the rule of law is permitted to do so. Let's see how many do.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No, I meant on parking tickets.

You said for "harmless speeding". Anyway, we have parking enforcement who handle parking infractions. However, again it is not department policy to let anyone slide. It does not say "if you encounter a family member of a co-worker you will issue a warning"

I stand by what I said - anybody who thinks it is okay to give relatives or friends a break is not somebody I trust to apply the law equally and fairly unless everybody, regardless of status, gets the same treatment (in which case why would anybody need those get out of jail cards in the first place? Seems to me that their only reason of existing is to signal the officer "I belong to the same class as you"), which the very example of this thread proves apparently is not the case. Now, that does not mean you are not a good officer, it only means you are not a fair officer who treats everybody equally. (Unless you can honestly say you do not care whether anybody has such a card or not and would give them a speeding ticket regardless, in which case I withdraw the whole paragraph).

I've mentioned a few times now that those cards aren't "get out of jail" free cards. They are cards with the sponsors name on it or whatever. However, those cards or sticker do not mean anything to me. They don't create that personal conflict of interest so I'll do what I normally do which is also not ground into stone. I may or may not give a ticket, but the card will have nothing to do with that decision. (Though I guess there's a chance that they might piss me off if they display it when that would be an obvious attempt to gain sympathy)

That is exactly what I do not understand. If this were a heavy case like murder or something, I completely understand why an officer should have the right to recuse himself when it is a relative of his. But over parking tickets and speeding? Really? It is the pettiness which makes me seriously wonder what strange and horrible emotional toil and friction a parking ticket causes people that they get back at their cop relatives and friend for it. Are people that whiny, unable to own up and tribal?

They feel betrayed. When you're able to give warnings to complete strangers for subjective reasons that have already been listed when you give them a ticket for a minor violation it makes them feel that you did so because you want to appear like you're not favoring them.

It just completely baffles me how people could think "I am a relative of a cop, ergo I deserve to get off and if I do not, the supervisor will give the officer who dared to ticket me a talking to."

I just find that inmature.

Ummm I'm also pretty sure I've stated several times that an officer who does give a family member of a officer a ticket won't be punished. I even cited an example where I impounded a car of a relative of a cop. I didn't receive any backlash from that. That officer did talk to me during the stop and after the stop and he wasn't happy but I didn't face any sort of punishment or even a talking to from a supervisor.

The differences is in the degree of objectivity. If it is a friend, the outcome is already predetermined.

To clarify it is not predetermined. A friend may still get a citation depending on the circumstances.

That is a really bad argument to make for the morality of the situation. A few decades ago seperate but equal was legal, does that make it moral?

Here - let me phrase it this way: What exactly are family members of police and friends of police doing that justifies them having perks that set them outside the general population? What makes them better than the rest of US citizens?

Nobody is saying they've done anything or that they're better. In fact, I'm pretty sure neither of those are among the arguments being made here.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So, if he goes shopping with his wife, and catches her shoplifting, he should simply let it go, because of "the possibility of the wife dragging their personal life out onto the floor"?

Discretion should be applied on the basis of the offense, not on the basis that it would make the officer ticket his friends, or more likely, the friends of some cop they've never even met (as is the case with the 35,000-strong NYPD). That's not discretion, that's cronyism, which is considered corruption, even in the US.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

LMAO. First of all. Shoplifting or retail theft is a crime with a victim. Second of all it is also a crime that another officer can be called to handle unlike traffic violations. I've also stated this a few times in this thread.

FYI - While there is no policy or law that states police must arrest when they have probable cause for retail theft, however, it is pretty much understood that you will do so when the victim demands it. If you don't then you must list the reason why the incident failed to meet probable cause in your report. (Like they put it in their pants but never actually left the store or walked past the cashiers)

[fgalkin]

So, if he goes shopping with his wife, and catches her shoplifting, he should simply let it go, because of "the possibility of the wife dragging their personal life out onto the floor"?

Discretion should be applied on the basis of the offense, not on the basis that it would make the officer ticket his friends, or more likely, the friends of some cop they've never even met (as is the case with the 35,000-strong NYPD). That's not discretion, that's cronyism, which is considered corruption, even in the US.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

LMAO. First of all. Shoplifting or retail theft is a crime with a victim. Second of all it is also a crime that another officer can be called to handle unlike traffic violations. I've also stated this a few times in this thread.

FYI - While there is no policy or law that states police must arrest when they have probable cause for retail theft, however, it is pretty much understood that you will do so when the victim demands it. If you don't then you must list the reason why the incident failed to meet probable cause in your report. (Like they put it in their pants but never actually left the store or walked past the cashiers)

However, assuming for the moment that officers are given discretionary powers over misdemeanor theft, would letting the offender go be justifiable, if the offender happens to be the officer's wife?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Kamakazie Sith]

However, assuming for the moment that officers are given discretionary powers over misdemeanor theft, would letting the offender go be justifiable, if the offender happens to be the officer's wife?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

No. You have a clear victim in this situation and the probable cause is there. Could it happen? Sure. Would I tolerate it? Hell no, and neither would the department. The difference between a shoplifter and traffic violations is the presence of harm, and the fact that for this crime another officer can be called to take over the investigation. With a traffic violation another officer can't be called because he is acting via the information of the observing officer, and ultimately that officer would have to appear to testify if the matter went to court.