Question About Courtroom Practices.

[Airman1270 0]

...I wonder if any of you older cops out there rememeber back when the Cops actually were liked by the local citizens and there was mutual trust because you knew them and trusted their character?...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

EXACTLY! The blame here can be laid at the doorstep of liberalism.

Police work used to consist of helping people and chasing bad guys. Now, thanks (mostly) to liberal Democrats, their job description has taken on a third dimension, that of enforcing liberalism and dragging people into court for failing to do what a Democrat told them to do.(*) This puts police in the position of
hassling people in ways that would have been unthinkable just 30 years ago.

Also, their perfomance is measured according to the number of tickets/arrests they produce. We might think it's neat for a cop to finish a shift without encountering any reason to stop citizens. To us, it means things are going reasonably well in society. To the cop, it means he's under pressure to prove he's doing his job. If things get slow, he'll be more eager to stop passersby on the interestate to just check things out (hoping he'll find anything - drugs, a warrant, no insurance, etc. - anything to produce some paper and keep his superiors off his back.) Or maybe he'll write you up for a minor violation rather than allow you to proceed with a verbal warning. Sure, sometimes they're scumbags, but let's at least understand some of the pressure placed upon them to act like scumbags.

Please note the correlation between the enforcement of liberalism and the corresponding erosion of Constitutional rights.

(* I'm assigning blame here to Democrats because they provide the muscle for most of these stupid, recently-enacted laws. Yes, some Republicans are to blame for refusing to stand against this idiocy, but the fact is that, as far as personal liberties are concerned, if the Democrats don't want these intrusive laws passed, they don't get passed.
It's not the George Bush/Rush Limbaugh/Pat Robertson dimension of U.S. politics that has made it a crime for you to drive alone in the left lane without a seatbelt while carrying a loaded handgun in a gym bag on the car floor.)

Cheers,
Jon

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

These Terrorists Are Known!!
Bankers, Politicians, Lawyers and Priests!

You forgot Alien Reptiloids.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Quote

I know a guy who was arrested for "open container" back when he was 19. He was not drinking; he was the designated driver for two friends who had been drinking.

What purpose was served by arresting him? According to most citizens, he was doing exactly what those stupid, expensive taxpayer-funded PSA's were asking us to do: He was enabling his friends to drink responsibly & thus avoid a threat to public safety. (That's the motivating reason behind ALL police activity, right? Concern for public safety?)

In this example, your beef is not with the police, the courts, or the legal system – it's with the state legislature that passed the "open container" statute. The police were simply enforcing the law that was on the books. If the citizens don't like it, they should petition the legislature to repeal the statute.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


If "enforcing the law" meant dragging the guy into court to answer the charge, they could have written him a ticket. In theory your point makes sense, but how often have we seen citizens 1) demand that poorly-conceived laws be repealed, or 2) legislatures take them seriously?

To my mind, "enforcing the law" meant not allowing a drunk person to drive. Regardless of the circumstances that led to the stop, once the cops determined that the driver was sober they could have allowed him to proceed without filing any charges. This would not have compromised their mission to enforce the law.

I believe that "enforcing the law" means carrying out the basic intent of the legislature, which in this case was an attempt to prevent drunk driving. As there was no drunk driving taking place, there was no compelling reason to act like pricks and punish an innocent man.

Furthermore, nobody gives a damn whether anyone is carrying an "open container" as long as the driver is sober. Before this law was passed, there was no rising tide of public opinion demanding such a law, They just wanted people to drive sober. The law was another one of those legislative "Hey look at me, I'm doing something" grandstanding events which became impossible to argue against without being portrayed as being FOR drunk driving.

Perhaps we can't expect the lawmakers to act with some sober restraint, but I expect my cops to show a propensity for rational, logical thought, coupled with an attitude of trying to resolve a situation in the least-restrictive manner possible. This means that they make an arrest only in extreme cases, rather than contributing to this cycle of dragging a bunch of people into the jail and trying to get them bonded out as fast as possible to make room for the next shift.

While doing radio a few years back I spoke with a former police chief who told me the main reason he left the profession was becasue of the pressure to turn police work into a money-making venture.


Cheers,
Jon

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I wonder if any of you older cops out there rememeber back when the Cops actually were liked by the local citizens and there was mutual trust because you knew them and trusted their character?...

It's an interesting thing that in those days when cops were liked, cops would beat the shit out of perps. Think of Dirty Harry - an iconic character who was really a thug working for the good side. There was little difference between his techniques and those of the thugs he was going against.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Also, their perfomance is measured according to the number of tickets/arrests they produce.

Police Unions love high ticket counts as well. Great justification for more officers, which is more income for the union.

[hairyjuan 0]

a new book out by a Judge Napolitano entitled "Constitutional Chaos"


The Judge advises all in his Court, "The government is not your friend"



Goes right along with George Washington, "Government like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Thomas Jefferson, "when the government fears the people there is LIBERTY, When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

John Adams, "Fear operates most Governments"

if you tell the judge anything about 'your rights', you likely will be held in contempt, try it, you'll see.

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

"Unidentified sources say that an as yet unidentified witness saw the defendant eating the liver of the victim, who was still alive."

Fuckin hell when did that happen?!?!

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[hairyjuan 0]

the court system, check these out

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish