The Adventures in Policing Thread

So the implication of your, (rhetorical???), questions concerning if the Wii was already turned on or whether they could turn the lights on wasn't that the costs were so slight as to make it irrelevant?

Well, if you say so.

Yes, well that would be my point then, wouldn't it!

... and I said it did, where... exactly?

To use your own words, a 'load of blather', (with a couple of legal phrases thrown in for good measure... congratulations), to mask the fact that was clearly NOT what I was talking about and that it's YOU that has missed MY point which was, (as you've missed it again), that we should be more inclined to apply the same logic and rules to one person as another.

Frankly, the fact that you've missed that and had to start woffling and employing legal terms, (utterly inappropriately), merely confirms my point.... that the legal system is mainly designed to be used in ONE direction only... against the people at the bottom of the pile. Thus people who defraud the social security system are brought to book with a very heavy hand whilst tax evaders can often 'come to an arrangement' with the tax authorities DESPITE the fact that the amounts involved are several orders of magnitude greater.

Of course this ignores the fact that, in this case, if the police were only there for an hour or so maybe it's not relevant but what if they stayed there for a day... two days... a week or a month? When DOES it become relevant?

That, I agree with.

 

Were I the WII homeowner I would organize the web vids. Then I would create a dossier on the officers, their bosses, the judge and anyone else who irritated me. Following that a plan for ongoing, accelerating and visceral public ridicule would be put into place. I would make all involved the butt of local humiliation. Make them as personally miserable as it is possible given the resources and avenues available. Tag them with shameful nicknames. Make their faces symbols of stupidity. Make their names into verbs. It might be possible to drive them either out of their professions or their homes.

Good fun.

 

I'm sure that would impress your sentencing judge, as would this:
"His history includes an extensive arrest record dating back to 1995. Difalco, 43, served three years in state prison from 2002 to 2005 for trafficking drugs, owning and operating a chop shop, and grand theft. ... Documents filed with the court say, in the March raid, detectives removed methamphetamine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, weapons and more than $30,000 in stolen property. The 11 charges against Difalco include trafficking methamphetamine, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and operating a chop shop."

 

True. It reminds me of stories about people who know they are under surveillance dropping rings of blank keys into icy ponds.

 

Has there been video documentation of a midget/little person getting a police beatdown or getting tazed?

I guess not. That would be the most watched internet video ever.

 

Off-Duty Cop Charged In Pedestrian's Death

NEW YORK CITY – An off-duty police officer was arrested in Brooklyn early Sunday morning for allegedly hitting a woman with his car and killing her.

It happened around 1 a.m. on East 56th Avenue and Avenue N in Flatlands.
Police say Andrew Kelly, 30, was arraigned on charges of vehicular manslaughter and driving while intoxicated...REST OF ARTICLE

 

I don't know why it says allegedly, because he did hit her & she is dead. There is zero tolerance within the NYPD for DWI, so if he's above .08, he will most likely lose his job. He refused a breath test, but other officers took him to the hospital & drew blood under a court order. There is some question about whether he will be convicted for vehicular homicide, as it was dark, raining & the poor victim may have been wearing dark clothing & jaywalking. The defense attorney says the BAC will be below the legal limit.
http://transportationalternatives.org/newsroom/releases/1730
"Pedestrian advocates estimate that 1.5 million New Yorkers have been hit by automobiles over the last century, and 30,000 killed."

 

Somewhere out east of Flatbush Ave innit? I wasn't out there much in the rain when I was hacking-- does the motor oil come out of the pavement there when it rains like it does in Manhattan?

Third Avenue up around 88th you couldn't stop short at five mph in a rainstorm in the late 70's... wouldn't matter if you were drunk or sober...

 

This one doesnt reflect badge behavior except in that the on-duties didnt protect him. Tragedy well handled.

 

noting that they couldn't actually talk -- a breakthrough observation -- and thus had no way of expressing whether they liked giving degenerate cops blowjobs or not. And given that the jury had no way of reading the five cows' minds -- yes, Melia is a serial cow rapist -- CONTINUE READING

 

What do you mean by 'is the same as'? Do you mean legally? Morally? Ethically?

In any event aren't you the dude that has the sig saying 'There's so much less to this than you think'? Might be an idea to read it once in a while.

I am comparing and contrasting the value society places on ONE transgression with another. To wit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leandro_Andrade
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n20_v87/ai_16709220/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/73164/the_three_strikes_law_pg2.html

For example, one man in California committed three felonies within ten years; the first was shoplifting a grocery cart from Wal-Mart, the second
was for shoplifting a pair of sunglasses from a department store, and the third was for shoplifting a piece of pizza from a buffet. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison without parole for the pizza slice incident, as prescribed by the Three Strikes Law.

That last one is probably the same as one of the other ones but, regardless, my point is relatively simple and I don't understand why a person that obviously thinks of himself as intelligent is having such a hard time understanding it.

To be clear, I'm making a point relating to moral and ethical issues... NOT legal ones. I'm saying that the law is, in some respects, an imperfect measure of people's 'crimes' and, (as I appear to have to explain everything in words of one syllable now), I'm using the word 'crime' NOT in the legal sense but more as a way of expressing one's abuse or misdeed toward others.

If you remember we've discussed this matter, (or an associated one, anyway), before where I pointed out that the law had allowed pedestrians and cyclists interests to take a back seat to those of car drivers because there wasn't as clear a legal duty towards them as the car owner/driver.

I'm beginning to wonder if that's what we're STILL talking about, tbh.

As I've tried to make clear, my concerns relate to moral and ethical issues so your legal points, (whilst probably true), are irrelevant.

I've tried to explain my point, including writing a lengthy piece to give an example of the crux of the matter from MY perspective and was accused of blathering which, frankly, I didn't appreciate. If, in reply, you're just going to continue to ask rhetorical questions which miss or ignore my point, (itself extremely rude... not to mention witless), or to quote legal statutes which indicate the same thing then please DON'T BOTHER REPLYING!

 

Shoplifting a piece of pizza,perhaps.


Tasering=Breaking shop windows.

Station back-room beatdowns=Armed robbery.

Hey this could be a fun game!!

 

I'm referring to a moral and ethical analysis of the matter. Not legal.

IMO the 3-strikes rule, which is unnecessarily harsh, is emblematic of the sort of rule that's easier to introduce because everyone knows it will mainly target the people at the BOTTOM of society.

Again, IMO, no. Can you imagine it being introduced for tax evasion or corporate malfeasance where the amounts involved might be a thousand or a million times greater? I can't... and yet if you ask people in the street which is worse the response probably wouldn't reflect the current balance of legal sanctions. That says to me that 'white-collar' crime is viewed as less important by the legislature than 'blue-collar' crime but not necessarily by ordinary people... PARTICULARLY at the moment.

Well, like most people I view the criminal justice system as one entity which is probably unfair but there we are.

Clearly that would depend on WHY the person was shoplifting and what choices they faced, wouldn't it. If it's the proverbial single mother stealing food for her child because her abusive boyfriend has beaten her and stolen all her money that's rather different than someone who fancies a Louis Vuiton (sp?) handbag and so steals one despite having the money to pay for it if they choose.

I'd suggest that the cops playing a video game and stealing a few cents worth of electricity, (AND defrauding their employer, i.e. the state, of their wages for the time in question, strictly speaking), is worse than the former but better that the latter but, tbh, even that isn't really my point.

My main complaint is that the issue isn't even considered and that's because the people committing the transgression here, the police, have power whilst the people at the ssharp end of the 3 strikes rule, DON'T. That's why I mentioned the difference in approach to someone on welfare defrauding the state whilst someone I know was doing the same thing as an investigator and it didn't even OCCUR to her that she shouldn't look down on them because SHE was stealing MORE than they were.

It's the lack of self-awareness that sticks in my craw. The ability to consider others as being of a lower standing and value than we are.

 

I thought about responding to MasterShake's post but then thought "what's the point?"

In other news, apparently the drunk NYPD officer who killed a lady with his car, wasn't drunk, at least by the time they did a blood draw on him. His BAC was .000.

 

Well, actually, the way you've described is pretty much how I imagined it working. In fact, how could it be otherwise. The point is, of course, that white collar crime is generally done by people with at least SOME intelligence who will probably be ultra careful not to do it a third time which is, to be fair, the point of the law of course but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that there are no, (or next to no), people in prison for 25+ years on the 3 strikes rule for white-collard crime

Of course, the point of criminal punishment is to provide a deterrent and the reality is that the sort of person that commits the theft of a slice of pizza and gets 25 years in prison because of it is clearly so monumentally dumb that ANY sentence is almost worthless because they're, apparently, too stupid to understand the consequences of their own actions.

However, knowing that and knowing something of equal deterrence, (read: unnecessary harshness), could be applied to white collar crime, (where it would probably be more effective in truth), why not have a minimum sentence of, say, 25 years for tax evasion with no possibility of a 'bargain' being done. That would probably cut tax evasion in half in pretty short order.

Of course, back here on planet earth we all KNOW that ain't gonna happen, don't we... and we also know why.

 

What if Archer Daniels Midland, Inc. were convicted of a third price fixing felony? How would we be permanantly put out of their misery?

 

Well, again, that raises an interesting question, doesn't it.

As I understand it a couple of executives went to prison for a while but a punishment of equivalent severity to the 3 strikes rule might be if ALL the officers of the company, (the directors in UK parlance), were sentenced to 25+ years in prison.

Again, I'd suggest that no one holds their breath waiting for that to happen and yet it's thought they and their co-conspirators, cost the world's economy, (including the poor), BILLIONS of dollars.

 

The penalty is so severe that no one would ever grow, possess or distribute them!
Well, possibly in Virginia: http://www.southernexposure.com/productlist/prods/24109.html

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/phoenix-family-lawsuit-cops-shot-homeowner-intruder/story?id=8756441

 

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Pittsburgh G20/civil liberties situation

Some dude had a police scanner (not a crime?) and twittered the locations/actions of police (basically informing protesters to avoid getting beat over the head)

Now he's facing jailtime. For basically exercising free speech.

Seriously - WTF is up with that? I have no love for anarchists who cause damage during their protests, but now its a crime to say "hey, there's cops over there"?