Sorry, VT, but that question was not directed at you and as a result, your reply lacks both the contexzt of the discussion and, more importantly, it lacks XT’s perspective.
As such your reply is not wanted, necessary, or worth responding to except in this manner.
Well, I disagree with that. With the security cams, it appears he was not in the skyway when he was asked to leave by the security guard, he was on fully private property. 3 conditions for trespass:
On private property
Asked to leave by a duly authorized person
Don’t leave the property
The cop was told that all 3 applied when the call was received, was able to observe 2 of the conditions immediately, so it should be “reasonable” to think that the 3rd applied as well, at least when justifying a stop to investigate a crime in progress.
Who should be the person deciding whether or not a crime is fully investigated, the cop or the person accused of the crime? I don’t care if it’s the most nothing of nothing crimes, the minorist crime that ever crimed. If a cop has legally reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime, and the crime is on the books, you don’t get to leave unless the cop is satisfied that he’s investigated the crime.
I’m sure they don’t, but I’m going to suggest that they like checking people for warrants because it actually makes it possible to pick these folks up without having to put an enormous amount of time into tracking down a low level criminal.
You have your facts completely wrong, there was no skyway in this incident, no security guard, etc- what are you babbling about?
So you do feel that police are able to be taught and learn what is acceptable conduct during the course of their duties. Good; I do too. So why do you think that the particular bit about when they can and cannot detain someone is something that police cannot be taught properly?
True. And that’s why I engaged you rather than just ignore your posts. I don’t think you’re a complete idiot or that you’re opinions are intractable, nor do I think you’re simply wrong on every issue. So here we are, talking about our different perspectives. Neat, huh?
Ok, first, it’s not “obvious” at all to me that the police were ignorant here. What evidence do you have that causes you to think this? And secondly, I cannot believe that this isn’t something that a cop should know. Again, it’s a basic part of their job and the laws describe some limits on their behaviour. How can they NOT be expected to know when they can and cannot deprive someone of one of their most basic liberties: the right to move about freely? It’s just not reasonable to NOT expect someone to know their basic job requirements and procedures.
Rookie cops, first year, in LA make $50k/year. Cite.
A cop with just 3 years experience makes $70k a year, which is comparable to what many professionals make and more than enough compensation, IMO, for them to know the basic and relevant laws that impact their job performance. I mean, I have to keep up with industry changes in my own field; why shouldn’t police officers?
Many, if not most, police officers these days are college educated with degrees in Criminal Justice. They do recieve high levels of training and certification before they are able to secure a job as a police officer, in the form of Academy training, college, and other programs. Surely you don’t think that police officers are just recruited by giving everyone at Labor Force a badge and a gun, do you?
But this is sounding like a broken record. No sense in going back and forth on this round after round. My arguments are unpersuasive to you, and vice versa so why don’t we leave it at that? In the end, the cops were wrong, and the courts will decide (assuming any of these go to trial), and maybe things will change…and this problem will be fixed with new training and education on this point at the department level.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it’s because you don’t really have any arguments. Your argument that cops shouldn’t be expected to know the law is simply that statement and a lament that it’s “difficult”. Well, lots of things are difficult and people learn them all the time. I mean, do you think an officer shouldn’t know what a Terry Stop is, and when he is allowed to engage in one? If you don’t think it’s unreasonable to know this, what are you arguing about?
Whatever, dude. You’re the one making shit up in this thread, not me. If you can’t back up your assertions, maybe don’t make them.
Ah, well, sorry for that. When I read analogies as stupid as yours, I tend to instinctively react. Debates such as this tend to unleash a spectrum of idiocy, and it’s useful to establish boundaries at each end.
I do note that unique perspective or not, his reaction appeared to be similar to mine, i.e. “what the fuck are you on about?”
Please continue, with my blessing.
You two get a room. Otherwise I’m calling the cops. And you’ll be asked for ID.
Angry sex can sometimes be the best sex, eh?
We both had our clothes on, you racist.
It wasn’t an analogy. If you’ll read my post above-ish, you’ll see that I was trying to establish some boundaries for my discussion with XT.
But thanks for your blessing; I’ll keep it here on the shelf next to the blessings from FSM and IPU.
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
Rookie cops, first year, in LA make $50k/year. Cite.
[/QUOTE]
IN LA. Did you miss that part? Salaries vary widely from region to region and state to state (and even within states)…you know, just like for everyone else. Average salary for a Network Engineer with 20+ years of experience varies widely from the east coast to the southwest, based on my personal experience as well. Having actually lived in LA (gods help me), I can tell you that $50k a year would suck. But then, that’s just me…maybe to you that would be champagne and caviar.
You can’t believe and it’s not obvious…to YOU. Yeah, I got that already. How can they not know? Well, the folks at CNN legal didn’t know either, based on the fact that they came out the next day and said they thought the cops did have the right. And since I saw similar expressions from LAWYERS, I’d say it’s not nearly as much a no-brainer as you are making it out to be. Bricker, a lawyer initially was undecided, and only later came out strong that the cops were at fault.
Well, I’m not a complete idiot. 
And yeah, that’s kind of why I spent the time responding to you as well. Note, I haven’t responded to everyone in this or other threads.
I didn’t say it’s something they can’t be taught. In fact, I’ve said I think this is all good because it WILL teach them this limitation on their authority. I said I don’t think it’s an open and shut case that they should know all of the minutiae concerning every little vertical and specific of ever permutation of a stop and request for ID. They make the call on the scene. If it’s the wrong call, well, as I’ve said repeatedly, THAT’S WHAT LAWYERS AND THE COURTS ARE FOR.
I’d need to see a cite that most regular cops have degrees, but even if true, what sort of degrees are we talking about? I mean, pre-law degrees? Masters or doctorates in law? Do they pass a bar exam?
In fact, I actually know how cops are trained and given a badge and a gun in New Mexico anyway, and I can tell you that they don’t exhaustively go over law minutiae in that training, but only broadly go over various aspects of the law as it relates to their jobs. I can totally see how cops, at least the ones I know, would think they could demand an ID and detain someone who refused to give it in both of the situations presented in this thread, since it seems even lawyers were (and still are for all I know) initially uncertain on the topic until more reflection and consideration and thought. Someone IN the situation, with only a journeymans understanding of the law? Yeah, I could see them not knowing, and I think it’s unreasonable to feel they should have just known that stuff.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along. You disagree, so…
…why bother with continuing this then? I mean, if I have no argument then there is no point in further discussion of my non-point, right? Personally, I think you DO have an argument, even if I disagree with it and your conclusions, but if you feel I have none, then let’s just drop this and move along.
I know that salaries can vary widely from region to regions, etc., but since this happened in LA, I thought that knowing what LAPD salaries are would be relevant. I don’t agree that $50k starting pay is low, not even in California (it’s above the median for the country and is the median for the state, after all).
… and none of those people have a job that requires them to daily interact with and possibly detain members of the public, with the threat of force behind their actions and demands. So your argument here falls flat. I expect a lawyer to know how to file a case, what courtroom etiquette is, etc. A cop not knowing how he can deal with the public is like a lawyer that doesn’t know he can’t just start talking whenever he wants to in a seated courtroom: it means they are incompetent and not fit to do their job.
Do you have a cite for what caused you to form the opinion that it was “obvious that the police didn’t know” what they could and could not demand from a person? I mean, if you have a statement from one of the officers involved where they say: “I had no idea I could not do that”?
Why have you jumped right to the absolving statement “it’s obvious they didn’t know” when it’s equally likely that they knew but had gotten away with it before, so they had no problem lying to Miss Watts? What evidence that you have causes you to give such weight to the notion that they acted out of ignorance?
If it was ignorance, then I agree this will be a valuable lesson for them (and for many of their peers, I’d assume). And a lesson for the people responsible for making sure the police know what they can and cannot do. Once these officers names are released, I’d bet a gang (gaggle? brouhaha? clusterfuck?) of lawyers will be seeking another look at their clients’ arrest record, etc. That alone would cause some politician or bureaucrat to sit up and make disapproving noises.
I’ve continued the discussion because I’m trying to understand your point of view. I’d like to know how you came to conclusions you reached: what you read, what you watched, what you heard that I did not.
So far, you’ve posted your opinion and some assumptions, but no real facts that I can confirm or dispute. You asserted that “cop is a low-paying job” but the cite I gave shows that starting rookie pay for a HS Diploma cop is at the median salary level for the state of California. This makes your characterization seem inaccurate, which calls into question your conclusion.
The same goes for your “obvious” comment. It seems that the only rationale you have for forming this opinion is some kind of Hanlon’s Razor argument, but some of us (like me) find it difficult to believe that a professional, in any job, wouldn’t know laws, codes or regulations which applied to the vast majority of their job duties. Electricians are required to know electrical code, fire fighters are required to know fire codes; cops are similarly required, AFAIK, to know relevant laws concerning their jobs.
You’ve made multiple attempts to curtail this discussion; I hope you’ll continue, however.
Wow, you are extraordinarily tiresome, you little asshole.
If XT’s point is that it’s too much to expect cops to know when they’re breaking the law while performing their duties (an idea that looks quite ridiculous as I type it out, so I hope he’s not really opining this), then all that means to me if that we shouldn’t blindly defer to them. We should be encouraged to question them when they issue an order, not intimidated.
And if it’s that difficult for them to know where their authority stops and our constitutionally protected rights begin, then they should be trained to tread very carefully unless there is an imminent danger to public safety.
Prior practice has in fact not been to do away with civil liberties if cops and citizens can’t remember them, but to have the cops read from a little card (e.g., Miranda rights) in order to make sure civil liberties are respected.
I have exchanged a couple of e-mails with Paul Bergman on this issue. I’ll ask if he has any objection to my posting or summarizing the content of our discussion here.
Yes, exactly. If it is really so hard for them to understand their legal boundaries, then they don’t deserve deference.
You’re not the boss of me.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
If XT’s point is that it’s too much to expect cops to know when they’re breaking the law while performing their duties (an idea that looks quite ridiculous as I type it out, so I hope he’s not really opining this), then all that means to me if that we shouldn’t blindly defer to them. We should be encouraged to question them when they issue an order, not intimidated.
[/QUOTE]
Again, this is a strawman of my position on this. I don’t know guys…I THINK I’m being perfectly clear, but obviously not.
Let me try a different tact. Our system is one of checks and balances. Cops are given a certain amount of power in our society. To balance that, we have the courts, for when cops do something that is beyond their authority or out and out illegal. Seems simple enough to me.
In addition, the law in the US is a living thing that requires years of focused and vertical study. Even lawyers specialize in TYPES of law, because, you know, it’s complicated and in many cases non-intuitive. That’s why they make a lot of money, because it’s not something that the average citizen who doesn’t have the training and depth of knowledge can just do on their own. It’s ridiculous…RIDICULOUS…to believe that the average beat cop equally has that depth of knowledge at their beck and call for every situation and permutation. Which is why we have courts and lawyers.
Seems simple to me. What about the above do you all NOT understand? I mean, ok, you might not agree, but what makes this hard to grasp as a concept or a point? Because based on the responses there has to be some disconnect here.
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
I know that salaries can vary widely from region to regions, etc., but since this happened in LA, I thought that knowing what LAPD salaries are would be relevant. I don’t agree that $50k starting pay is low, not even in California (it’s above the median for the country and is the median for the state, after all).
[/QUOTE]
sigh Your link is for the average salary for the STATE. LA isn’t the state, it’s a specific part of the state. The average salary for LA, IIRC, is in the 60’s. And that would still suck for living in LA, where everything costs a lot. Again, that’s just my personal experience…YMMV. But you are comparing apples to oranges.
I have as much of a cite for my conclusion as you do that they did know. Perhaps they did and are so used to getting their way that they just did it one time to many. Unless you have a magical brain wave lie detector thingy, or a cite of your own that these officers or their department has had this exact circumstance come up before and ignored it to do it again I think we are pretty much at an impasse on this. I can say that CNN didn’t know, despite having a legal staff to consult with, so to me it’s not a big stretch to consider that if THEY didn’t know (and other lawyers didn’t know or weren’t initially sure), then some beat cops maybe didn’t know either. But then, I don’t think beat cops can or do have the same level of knowledge and understanding of the nuances of the law that full lawyers do…something that is obviously a huge shock and dispute with others in this thread.
Well, what’s the argument then? That’s how our system works, progresses and grows. It’s a feature, not a bug.
To me, my point has been clear, and it’s frustrating to keep seeing it batted back in a distorted form. Maybe that’s not what ya’ll think you are doing (and, hell, maybe the disconnect is mine…remember when you were trying to tell me I was being condescending by using ‘old boy’ and I didn’t get it? :p), but it seems pointless to me to continue on. Though a pit thread, I don’t want to hijack it endlessly with this seemingly tangential discussion about what I think and you think about what knowledge cops should or should have.
Your cite showed nothing of the kind. It was about California, one of the most expensive states in the country to live in, and one where average salaries are distorted upward by that fact…trust me, I LIVED THERE. In addition, you were talking about LA then produced a cite for the whole state, which is apples to oranges…outside of the major metropolises (such as LA) the costs of living, and thus salaries, goes down. Some of the small towns in California are just like rural towns anywhere wrt salaries (and not very pleasant to live in or visit, either…lots of beach, no water though :p).
Well, it’s frustrating. Also, I don’t want to hijack things on this tangent. However, if you really want to talk about it, I’m game if it’s not bugging anyone. Or not if I’ve equally frustrated and exasperated you. 