I am not going to start going nuts and insulting people. I think most of this crap is because of multiple misunderstandings…
If anyone still hates me, or wants to flame me, or has some kind of problem related to these threads. Please do so in here. I think I have cleared things up with most of the posters, but there may be a few left. Like Friedo…
So are we cool? Need me to explain something better? Want to insult me, correct my spelling (do you have all night), try to prove me wrong?
It is getting difficult to keep jumping back and forth between the two threads. So if you have a comment, bring it here…
THANKS… http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=34350 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=34398
Hey, Bear, I never hated you. Hell, I’ve seen you in action in a couple threads that made me want to cheer. Besides, don’t get too overly concerned about what happens in one thread… people here generally treat people on a thread-to-thread basis (there are, of course, exceptions on both sides of that rule :D).
I don’t want a fight but I do have a question. Over in the “Strawberry Fight Forever” thread, you made the point that police personell don’t make laws, they enforce them. You seem to say that if it is a law, it will be enforced.
Here in Miami-Dade, I see examples every day of selective law enforcement, or discretionary law enforcement, which ever name you like. I see automobiles running on the streets with inoperative taillights, I see people speeding with impunity, I see “right turn only” traffic lanes used by people who want to get a jump on traffic crossing an intersection, I see hookers, or what looks like hookers, conducting what looks like negotiations with people in automobiles, I see people parking in clearly identified No Parking areas, I see the turn signal and seat belt requirement laws routinely ignored and yet I don’t see police officers ticketing these people, even when the offence takes place virtually in front of the officer. Obviously I don’t see all these infractions during the course of each and every day, nor is there an officer beside me each and every time an infraction takes place. But I have seen police officers ignore each of the examples I have given.
So, my question is: Who decides which law(s) to enforce and which law(s) to ignore?
I completely agree with you LouisB, but the problem in the last couple of threads is that Bear_Nenno et al. have been damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
It’s a bit unfair (as well as foolish) to respond to “we’re just enforcing the law” with “that’s the Nuremburg defence” then to turn around and claim the law is being selectively enforced.
Maybe our cop dopers blew up a bit, but it’s not hard to see why in this case.
I don’t think anyone can argue that (some) laws are not selectively enforced and I recognize that an officer on patrol has to be allowed some discretion. But a raid on a nightclub like the one mentioned in the strawberry thread has to be, I would think, ordered by someone. I would be curious to know who ordered that (or any similar) raid and by what thought process they arrived at the decision to do so.
I am a former resident of Fort Myers, Florida and I still visit there on a regular basis. I can promise you that at any given moment there are any number of acts being performed that are much more worthy of a police response than any simulated (or real, for that matter) sex act in any nightclub. This is equally true for any municipality, I know.
Such raids seem to me to do nothing to further the public good, nor do I feel that such a raid protects me or the general public in any way.
The net result of such a raid seems to me to be that some young people now have an arrest record merely because they indulged in some sort of play, most likely brought about by a combination of youthful exuberance and alchohol. The club owner(s) may or may not pay a fine. I doubt their license will be revoked. The real beneficiaries of this raid will no doubt be the various lawyers who will be involved.
Nobody’s after your ass, babe. Just a brisk debate on morality vs. the law, that’s all, happens all the time here at the SDMB. You want hugs and kisses, stay in MPSIMS.
DDG, Just a brisk debate on morality vs. the law
Not looking for hugs, friend. The problem I had was that everyone was trying to bring me into a morality vs. law argument, when all I was trying to do was tell people to not be mad at the cops for enforcing the law. It is, afterall, illegal. I was not, by any means, trying to say the law was right because of the immorality of oral sex on stage. It was very frustrating to be talking with such inteligent people who were not grasping this. Had everyone been just a bunch of morons, I would have not even bothered.
LouisB,
Yes I understand that not all the laws can be enforced. Usually the discression is given to the officer as to what he wants to go after.
My point was that although seatbelt tickets are not given often, and it is a victimless crime, we should not attack the one cop that writes one. The cop is enforcing a real law. There is no reason to raise hell about him.
Well, here’s a point that might best belong in the GD forum, since this is in no way a flame.
As much as it is nice of you not to write tickets all the time, or ever, where is it codified that the officer has discression to NOT write the ticket?
My understanding of the law is that the officer has discression as to whether the law was actually violated, as they are the professional on the scene who is charged with enforcing the law and the initial determination of whether a crime was committed. If an officer clearly knows the law is being violated, do they have discression NOT to enforce it?
I have the complete listing of all traffic (and firearms laws) in KS and Johnson County, and Olathe in front of me. Nowhere does it say (anywhere that I can find) that an officer has discression over whether or not to write a ticket. Yet, I’ve been the receipient of MANY warnings instead of tickets, probably on a 5:1 ratio of warnings:tickets.
You’d think it would be stupid to complain about not getting enough tickets. But, do you see what I’m saying? I actually DO get bothered to only receive a warning. I speed a lot, and if I get caught breaking the law, I expect my ticket - no whining or crying about it.
I just want to know - from what principle does the right NOT to write that ticket derive from? And is it actually, “legal” not to?
Check your books and see if you can find any instance where it states that an officer must arrest. See what I am getting at? I am sure (this is to say I am assuming that the laws in your state are similar to here.
You ask: "If an officer clearly knows the law is being violated, do they have discression NOT to enforce it? "
The short answer there, is YES! The long answer continues…
You also ask: "As much as it is nice of you not to write tickets all the time, or ever, where is it codified that the officer has discression to NOT write the ticket?
Trying my best to not sound argumentative, I ask you "Where does it say he MUST write a ticket? You are saying that according to the law, he has to write a ticket, and you are wonderin where in that law it says he can choose not to.
There is a section in Florida Statutes that explains when an officer can make an arrest. More importantly, it states when he MAY make one. That is the key word here.
“SS. 901.15 When arrest by officer without warrant is lawful.–A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant when:…”
See, here it is saying the officer MAY arrest. Nowhere does it ever say he has to. So there is no need to state that an officer has descretion.
There are some crimes like domestic violence where the statutes encourage an arrest.
"741.29 Domestic violence; investigation of incidents; notice to victims of legal rights and remedies; reporting.–
(2)When a law enforcement officer investigates an allegation that an incident of domestic violence has occurred, the officer shall handle the incident pursuant to the arrest policy provided in s. 901.15(7)(a), and as developed in accordance with subsections (3), (4), and (5). Whether or not an arrest is made, the officer shall make a written police report that is complete and clearly indicates the alleged offense was an incident of domestic violence. Such report shall be given to the officer’s supervisor and filed with the law enforcement agency in a manner that will permit data on domestic violence cases to be compiled. Such report must include: "
Officers responding to domestic violence call who come to the conclusion that a crime of domestic violence did occur but CHOOSE not to make an arrest, must document the crime and an explanation as to why an arrest was not made. Because of liability reasons, an officer will almost ALWAYS make an arrest. Besides, if you have to do paperwork anyway, might as well arrest someone j/k Honestly, when arrests are not made in domestic violence situations, there is a good chance that the wife will be beaten more and even killed. If not that night, maybe the next or the day after. You never know. So many wives were ending up seriously hurt or murdered from abusive husbands. When lawyers look at police reports and see that police responded to 50 domestic violence calls at their residence last year and made no arrests, it shows the police missed an oppurtunity to save someone’s life.
Anyway, that is why the law makes procedures a little different for DV.
Your final question: I just want to know - from what principle does the right NOT to write that ticket derive from? And is it actually, “legal” not to?
Hopefully what I have posted here explains this. Since no where does it say an officer must write the ticket, it is not necessary to state that he “does not always have to” or “may choose not too” or whatever.
… 'course I am a moron so this could all be bullshit that usually spews when I’m talking out of my ass. But trust me. I hope it is the answer you are looking for.
But, do you see what I’m saying? I actually DO get bothered to only receive a warning. I speed a lot, and if I get caught breaking the law, I expect my ticket - no whining or crying about it.