I think I see at least part of the communication problem. FTR, I’m gonna respond to your post responding to mine after I post this, but this may clear up the big confusion that I think I see clearly now.
You’re arguing that a police officer cannot possibly know all of the laws and all of the intricacies of the laws.
No one is saying they should.
What I, and many others are concerned with; is that these officers didn’t appear to know, or if they knew, they didn’t appear to follow, the laws that directly pertain to what they do every single day, for most of the day, that they are at work: talk to people and know when it’s proper to detain someone. A police officer ABSOLUTELY must be aware of what police powers are; it is incumbent on them by virtue of their privileged position with a gun and a badge.
That’s why I tried to ascertain whether or not you agreed that there WERE bounds on the police; after that it’s just determining where the line is drawn.
And that’s why I kept bringing up other professions and how you can expect an electrician to know the local electrical codes, contractors to know the building codes, pilots to have the knowledge to fly the planes they fly, etc. It’s part of the job to know.
My apologies for the error; I was at work on my iPad and neglected this link to the LAPD website.
(bolding mine)
Did I say that? I don’t recall saying that the officers knew the law. What I’m arguing is that they should have known what they were doing was illegal. I detailed that in the previous post, tho, so I doubt I need to rehash my thoughts on that.
I think I’ve narrowed down what the argument is about, and I agree that our systems should change when unacceptable results are brought to light.
Aye, sorry. I explained my error in the first part of this post. I was mystified when I first read your post; I had to go back and check my own post to see what the hell I had done. :smack:
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I’m not understanding the point, because it sounds like you’re saying “Well, it’s a fuckup, but police have a hard job and besides there are the courts.”
[/QUOTE]
Nope, not even close, but it must be me since it seems multiple posters in this thread aren’t getting what I’m trying to say. This is by far the worst strawman of my position yet though.
It’s nice that you can dictate not to fuck up. The rest of us normal humans, however, can’t simply dictate that. As for the second half of the sentence, that (ironically) IS pretty much what I’ve been trying to say…except scaled up.
Would that reality was this easy, and everyone was perfect like you, Hentor. Sadly, in the real world, change happens when society sees bad things happening, decides they ARE in fact bad, and then agitates for a change. If only we were all like you right from the start we wouldn’t have ever needed a civil rights movement, or anti-slavery movement, or any of the other various movements and groups that agitated for change, often in trying and potentially deadly circumstance, many of who gave their lives so that we could be where we are today. It’s sad that reality is so, well, full of bad shit and humans that NEED heroes to be there to fight, instead of just getting it right in the first place (why didn’t we all just think of that?? :smack:).
You can’t imagine that these police officers should have known some of the most basic aspects of their jobs, but you are willing to “imagine” that pictures of people who are fully clothed are having sex???
You seem predisposed, now, when I combine this with your “obvious” contention and your repeated denial that an officer should have been able to discern what kind of situation he was in and act appropriately, to favor the authorities.
I don’t concur with your last sentence, tho. I’d say we can say that none of the available photographic evidence even tepidly supports the contention that they were having sex. It does support the contention that she was sitting on his lap; I’ll agree to that.
ETA: I just saw this post and figured it illustrated my point that you seem predisposed to favor the police:
Why are you assuming the stories are true? You seem to be latching onto anything that will paint the officers in a better light, even going so far as to seem to characterize their (possible) ignorance as not a big deal. That, in particular, seems kind of incongruous given this website’s stated mission.
There’s also the potential of one civil rights “goof” begetting another. The judicial branch is no more immune to mistakes and errors of judgment than the executive branch is. If a cop dicks someone over (either by accident or intentionally), there’s nothing stopping a judge/lawyer from compounding this mistake and really screwing someone over. What then?
It’s also fine and dandy for well-salaried, middle-class people to recommend the court system for handling civilian complaints against the police. How many minimum wage workers have a lawyer they can call up? How many can afford to take a cab downtown and hang out in a court building all day? Not too many. People shouldn’t have to forgo wages or experience any other inconvenience to have their rights respected by the state.
It’s unfortunate that rude DMV employees and bullying, incompetent police officers are the face of government for so many people.
First you give the appearance of recognizing that you’re simply not making yourself clear. Then you go on to be a simpering bitch about not being understood.
Either man up, think hard and try to be clear or don’t.
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
You’re arguing that a police officer cannot possibly know all of the laws and all of the intricacies of the laws.
[/QUOTE]
Sort of, yes. Basically, I’m saying that police officers can’t know the deeper context or minutiae of the law. SHOULD they know exactly what to do in every situation such as what transpired in either of the situations discussed in this thread? I don’t know. When I see experts unsure, that leads me to believe that simple cops probably wouldn’t know the finer points. They aren’t paid enough, or trained enough to have such a deep understanding.
In hindsight, a lot of folks seem to be Monday Morning Quarterbacking here, thinking that they would easily be able to know what the cops could or should have done. I’m not arrogant enough to think that.
Obviously I disagree. Not with the basic statement…certainly cops should (and hopefully do) know broadly what their powers are and aren’t. They are trained after all. But I think this is a case of cops fucking up, not something we can or should automatically to assume they know better.
Well, of course there are bounds on the cops. And there damned well should be and have to be. Until and unless we are all perfect like Hentor we need checks and balances, and on cops especially, since they are given so much power and authority. When they fuck up we as a society need to know about it, and fix the issue. I hope that’s what happens out of these two messes.
Right, and that’s why I countered with the difference between a vertical expert and a journeyman and the difference in pay scales. You showed what cops in LA at the LAPD make, but what you need to compare that too is not others in the general population (even the general population of LA), but instead to lawyers in LA. Want to guess what the disparity is between those two groups?
I guess the crux of all of this is that you and most others in this thread seem to think that this is all something that cops should know and have been deeply trained on. Maybe you are correct. My impression on that was formed when I was watching this story initially unfold and seeing various lawyers or media seemingly uncertain themselves. To me, that says that what happened was maybe not so obvious after all, if even lawyers weren’t sure until they could sit down and think it through, maybe go online and look up the relevant laws, statutes and provisions. The cops, of course, didn’t have that time, nor did they have the training for a deeper understanding of the finer points of this specific permutation of their powers. Maybe I’m wrong about that…hell, I don’t have any special knowledge about any of this stuff, and I’m not a lawyer either. I work with a lot of cops (and lawyers, and judges), but I’m just the IT guy. I can say this though…whether the cops in LA should have known this or not, they know it now. There is enough media attention on this to make that more than likely, it’s a near certainty. And I know enough about police to know that someone high up and in charge is calling someone to the carpet about this, and that’s going to trickle down through the ranks and be part of training in the future, because cops don’t like to be embarrassed anymore than anyone else…well, except Hentor, who is perfect.
XT, you also keep invoking that the officers are “journeymen” and that this should absolve them if they were ignorantly oppressive rather than thoughtfully oppressive. Maybe you should have used “apprentice” or “student” instead.
(bolding mine)
[
](Journeyman - Wikipedia)Fully educated. If the cop is on the beat without being fully educated, then his superiors are ultimately at fault, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is something a cop should know.
From the [LAPD website:
](http://www.joinlapd.com/salary.html)So in the LAPD, you stop being a journeyman and become a Master (to borrow the terms) after a 12-month probation period. And you’ve been paid your full salary even while you were a lowly student/apprentice at the Academy.
So anyway, maybe you meant something other than “journeyman”.
Well, yes, it’s important. Improper procedures result in people who committed crimes being exonerated by the courts, thus wasting everyone’s time and a considerable amount of money.
Not to mention the potential to ruin lives, sometimes for a whole family, because the police didn’t know how to perform their jobs properly. What if Mr. Lollie had died, for instance? His children would be without a father, perhaps without financial support. Think about how that extends into the future and into the community, as the kids need foster care, counseling, etc. Do they grow up to hate police? Do they make it to adulthood, even?
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
So in the LAPD, you stop being a journeyman and become a Master (to borrow the terms) after a 12-month probation period. And you’ve been paid your full salary even while you were a lowly student/apprentice at the Academy.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I’m using this in a different manner. A police officer (or an EMT) doesn’t go through a 12 month program and become either a lawyer or a doctor…they become full fledged police officers. I can see how that would be confusing…sorry about that.
Yes, I do. I’m not sure what the word for what I mean is. In my own context, there are help desk guys, network and computer technicians, network and computer engineers, and experts in networking and computer systems. As you move up the chain you gain more specific and deeper knowledge of how things work in the IT field, but not all help desk guys become techs, or techs become engineers or engineers become experts in their field. It’s not a perfect analogy, but what I was getting at is that I think it takes a deeper understanding of the law to work your way through the permutations of these two incidents, and that this deeper knowledge isn’t something regular cops (the equivalent of help desk techs in my own mental hierarchy) have or are trained on. I think that mid-level or high level cops MIGHT have that through more intensive training and/or experience, but that it’s really lawyers who would really know this.
Again, maybe I’m wrong about this. I’m certainly not explaining any of this well, as per Hentor’s man up comment.
ETA: Ugh, and as you can tell by my multiple spelling and word placement errors, posting from my phone is probably not helping my ability to make my meaning understood either.
Not only does this make you look like a passive aggressive little bitch, it makes you look really stupid, too, since what I said has nothing to do with being perfect.
I guess not being able to understand what others write goes along with not being able to express yourself coherently.
If I could simply wave my hand and make myself clear to you and the others, Hentor, I would. Sadly, it’s obviously beyond me. I don’t think me writing yet another long post as to WHY yours is the worst strawman of my position yet is likely to clarify things at this point, do you?
Bad strawman of your position, yes? Well Hentor, that’s exactly how I read it, even if that’s not what you meant. Sorry if that makes me a passive aggressive bitch in your eyes, but thems the breaks. As for looking stupid, well, since you’ve told me on numerous occasions that I AM stupid, it’s not exactly like I don’t know your opinion.
No one expects every situation to have already been encountered, documented and have an approved plan. I do expect officers to know the parameters of their job and to be able to employ at least SOME critical thinking skills and assess the situation he is in and act appropriately with regard to detaining people. It’s the absolute most basic part of their job, and these LA cops were either ignorant of it or exhibited VERY bad judgement… or they knowingly violated the law.
Because you defer to the police, automatically and unquestioningly. Your compliance is quick and complete, right? That’s the gist of what you wrote earlier isn’t it?
Come to think of it, did you ever answer my question about whether or not you’d let a cop search your car after he pulled you over for speeding?
I think the changing opinions and uncertainty on TV was a reflection of what happened in this thread: the information we had was incomplete and incoming, and some of the new information required adjustments to the discussion.
“I bought a new striped poodle today.”
“Is his name Fido? you should get a spiked collar with “Fido” on it for him.”
“It’s a girl; her name is Jenny.”
Perhaps a pink leash then?"
The respondent above isn’t an idiot, nor are the issues at hand overly complex, but, w assumptions that proved to be untrue have to be discarded and new information taken into account and sometimes that changes the talk from a butch named Fido to a bitch named Jenny.
On the question of office knowledge and training, here’s a bit from the website PoliceOne.com, which touts itself as “It’s the most comprehensive and trusted online destination for law enforcement agencies and police departments worldwide.”
An article under “training” entitled “Do misdemeanors constitute reasonable suspicion?” concludes
See, training on this subject can be pretty easily provided and doesn’t take a legal scholar to puzzle through.
Well that’s just your claim. It would appear from the professor quoted above that another exception might be when the suspect has been identified (which was not the case with Griggs).
Sadly, in the real world, change happens when society sees bad things happening, decides they ARE in fact bad, and then agitates for a change. If only we were all like you right from the start we wouldn’t have ever needed a civil rights movement, or anti-slavery movement, or any of the other various movements and groups that agitated for change, often in trying and potentially deadly circumstance, many of who gave their lives so that we could be where we are today. It’s sad that reality is so, well, full of bad shit and humans that NEED heroes to be there to fight, instead of just getting it right in the first place (why didn’t we all just think of that?? :smack:).
