But some of the benefits extend to the family. My friend’s dad was a cop and got pulled over for speeding and he flashed a card he got from his dad and the cop that pulled him over asked him “does your dad know you drive this fast” scolded hima bit more, quizzed him on other people at his dad’s precinct and let us go without a ticket.
I’ve never seen a prosecutor decline to prosecute someone (or a judge decline to sentence someone) because they are an attorney. Heck, I don’t even catch a break in traffic court.
Well he said they “had” more class, but isn’t clear at what point. In later years, they were kinda jerks, in my opinion anyway, and I don’t care who that offends.
The problem, as illustrated in those three example cases I cited, is the unwillingness of juries to convict the officers. Making the penalties more draconian would make jurors even more reluctant to convict. What’s needed is cultural change.
I would describe it as a bit more than “rubs the public the wrong way.” That kind of makes it sounds like a public relations issue, when really it’s a question that goes to the heart of justice: do we believe in treating people equally, or not?
If we don’t–if we put people in charge of enforcing our laws, and then allow them to flout the laws with impunity–it indicates that at a very basic level we don’t believe in justice.
Of course police have certain powers that the rest of us don’t have. That’s all the more reason to monitor their use of those powers to ensure that they’re used only in the course of law enforcement, not used for personal gain.
And that would be pretty reasonable, in those cases. Note that the officers were indicted and brought to trial, and evidence presented against them; their departments were not able to stop this, or make the evidence vanish. The system seems to work (generally, it is true that charges weren’t filed against the officer who shot Andrew Lee Scott), the weak link is the jurors.
You had me, then you lost me. What you’re describing is denying the accused a fair trial.
Traditionally, the notion of checks and balances is supposed to mitigate if not eliminate the worst of it. However, there are few of those that apply to cops after the fact and none whatsoever while they’re in the process of power-tripping (and even fewer when the powers that be are content to have a loyal if incompetent/corrupt/brutal police force to rely on, meaning DAs and mayors and so on will only go after cops when they are left with no other possible option).
Citizens with cameras seem to be pretty efficient at removing other options, but then again 1) some places have made specifically that illegal, for some reason :dubious: 2) the cops themselves often don’t think twice about seizing or even destroying cameras and phones outright, as in the OP’s story. Prove they did in court, go on !
But none of them have any power to make your life utterly miserable. Well, except maybe the dentists.
Sick bastard takes an AR15 w/40 round mag into a crowded Walmart and decides today is the day people are going to pay for him being a looser.
Just so happens a police officer was in the store answering a shoplifting complaint. Officer gets into a violent gun fight with Mr. Massshooterwannabe, stopping him. Unfortunately, in the heat of battle, one of the officers rounds missed and hit/killed a shopper.
Officer prevented dozens of innocents from getting gunned down, but you want him executed because "there should be automatic and unappealable death sentences for police who kill innocent bystanders, no matter what their excuse".
“automatic and unappealable,” are two words that really give the middle finger to the law, fairness, common sense and humanity. Taking people’s lives based on “automatic and unappealable” is… well, it’s what the bad guys do in movies.
Nothing was obvious. You made a statement of absolutes, and then strengthened it by posting how you would lie by omission to get on a jury to insure a conviction, ignoring anything else except your agenda.