It means “if they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second time either”.
That’s probably it.
Regards,
Shodan
You seriously expect an electrician with a year or two of installation experience to know what a EE knows? I mean…seriously? Why go to school and get a degree in electrical engineering when you could just have someone trained for a year or two to do the same thing (oh, and pay them a hell of a lot less)??
Because that’s the equivalent here. I wouldn’t expect an electrician with a year or two of training on installation to know the finer points of and electrical system…I’d expect him or her to be able to install stuff they were trained on and that’s pretty much it. And I’d pay them accordingly. I pay the big bucks for the double E to handle the deep thinking/knowledge stuff.
And you’d be wrong.
It was asshole Watts who introduced the racist angle. What part of the Watts incident do you claim was racist?
The same way you get to Carnegie Hall, kid.
[/QUOTE]
:golf clap:
And afterward, her boyfriend said to Watts, “You must have really enjoyed that - I could see your toes curling up with every thrust” and she said “No you just forgot to take off my pantyhose.”
Regards,
Shodan
We could actually come up with some “murky” situations and have all sorts of complex discussions about them. The real issue in the Lollie and Watts cases is not actually the supposedly complex legal questions but the behavior and choices of the cops.
Here were two situations in which when the cops arrived on scene, there was no danger to the public, no threatening or disruptive behavior, and no flagrant violations of the law. The cops could have showed up, looked around, and left without doing anything at all, and this is something that cops do all the time on a day-to-day basis.
So what’s really at issue is why did these cops—especially in the Lollie case, in which we have a full recording of the encounter—choose to be intrusive and authoritarian—when they could have just let it go and everyone would have been better off?
Black woman involved in a controversy. Tardville goes into a posting frenzy.
We don’t pay the cops to “let it go”.
Right. And here is where I think focusing on legality can cause us to miss the forest for the trees.
Even if we posit the cops did not break the law (and I think in both cases, they did), they chose to create conflicts were none were needed.
In Watt’s case, instead of peppering the couple with loaded questions that put them on the defensive (“Who is she?”, What are you to her?") and instead of demanding to see their ID, the cops could have simply advised them that public sex was a misdemeanor and then went on their merry way. Very non-intrusive way to maintain order without violating anyone’s space.
In Lollie’s case, instead of treating the guy like a suspect without even trying to establish first whether a crime had been committed, the cops could have determined that the incident had resolved by the time they reported and there was nothing more they needed to do. What they ended up doing is creating a violent scene that ended up getting them and their department in hot water.
Other professionals are expected to temper their behavior so they aren’t using a sledgehammer to do what a smaller, less traumatic instrument can manage. Is it unreasonable for cops to do this? I don’t think so. It’s not just our safety that is stake, it’s theirs. If Lollie had been armed, he would have been in his rights to hurt the cop who tazed him.
They were probably following standard procedures.
For your own sake, you had better be a troll. Because I wouldn’t wish anyone to be this stupid for real.
We pay the cops to follow the law, though.
In the Watts case, they did not. They seized Watts in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights, when the only crime they were investigating was a misdemeanor that (if it happened) was completed prior to their arrival and did not impact public safety, and which therefore by the reasoning in US v. Grigg, 498 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir 2007), did not qualify as a basis for a Terry stop.
Do you agree?
The vast majority of this post is an example of excluded middle arguments and strawmen. It’s not unreasonable to expect cops to know every aspect of the law that governs how they interact with the public, including how they interact with suspects and/or arrestees. IT’S THEIR JOB. What other profession are willing to cut some slack? Is it okay for ambulance personel to have no more working knowledge of human physiology and biology than you or I do? I mean, they can’t possiblt be expected to know every last thing about human biology, right, so it’s not their fault they gave you 10,000 mg of crystal meth to try and stop your heart attack, is it?
How many other professions will you exempt from knowing how to conduct themselves during the vast majority of their workday? Pilots? Surgeons? Civil engineers?
No one can read what you didn’t write. Since you won’t defend your assertions, we’ll just assume that they are baseless and without foundation in fact, like so much of what you write here.
If so, then these standard procedures should be amended.
Bricker, could you address the link in this post by F-P?
Still nope.
I don’t expect ambulance personnel to know surgery or the finer points of medicine, I expect and pay them to be able to give first aid and life support to get them to the doctors that I pay a lot of money to know the finer points. I don’t think I’m doing either excluded middle OR strawmen here. I think you and some others have an unreasonable expectation that police should know what lawyers know, even though they don’t get paid nearly as much as lawyers and even though their jobs require them to be trained on a lot of other things that don’t include the finer points of the law.
All high paid specialized jobs, so kind of a strawman there (ironic, no? :p). I don’t expect an EMT to know what a surgeon knows, I don’t expect a flight attendant or grounds crew to know what a pilot does, and don’t expect someone on a road crew or building worker to know what a civil engineer knows. And I don’t expect a police officer to be as conversant in the finer points of the law as a lawyer.
This doesn’t excuse the cops for doing something wrong. Again, this is exactly why we HAVE COURTS AND LAWYERS. When the cops do something wrong because either they didn’t know or they deliberately did something fucked up we have courts and judged and lawyers to review what happened, to argue both sides, to look up regulations and precedence and to make a ruling on it.
Then the standard procedures are wrong. This is something that can be easily fixed.
It seems so. But I am not sure if the Cop should be penalized. Clearly he had the right to REQUEST. It seems doubtful he had the right to DEMAND. It’s a rather fine point, that I dont know if we should DEMAND a mere Sergeant should be able to differentiate.
Indeed some experts differ, as Fotheringay-Phipps cite shows.
He was quite calm, and Watts playing the race card and the “Do you know who I am?” card would tempt the patient of a saint.
Everyone? I suppose everyone would have been better off if the snitches who ratted on the couple fucking in public and the guy refusing to leave private property had kept their mouths shut and just let the misdemeanors go. Nobody is being hurt, they’re just breaking the law, but everybody would be better off if the cops didn’t get involved. Let it go.