The Glade 4.0

I can only speak for myself, but having been on the wrong side of law enforcement abuse of power (actually criminal activity), I never have an ancounter with law enforcement that does not include a heavy dose of suspicion and distrust.

I think the word you are looking for is professionalism and I am pretty sure we all do it every day.

_________________

Getting arrested made it all that much funnier! What's the problem?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Qualified immunity has absolutely zero to do with anything like this. You are wildly distorting what it means, especially since arresting someone is never assaulting or kidnapping them.

It is possible for someone to be assaulted in the process of being arrested, but the arrest itself is not assault.. ever.

It is also not kidnapping. The two are mutually exclusive. To kidnap someone the officer would need to simply take them somewhere and hold them with no official processes whatsover being conducted. You are trying to use the word kidnap for its impact when in fact it is a different concept from arrest, even false arrest.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm well aware of that, but plainclothes cops always identify themselves without being asked as a matter of course. To fail to do so is the height of lack of concern for one's own safety. A cop in uniform only really needs to say "I'm a police officer" if the person he's addressing can't already see him clearly.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I wish that were true.

Always get a name and badge #. It's the closest thing you can get to a receipt.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

You cannot assume "personal pique" with seeing into the cop's mind, and I doubt very much that the people complaining have researched the arrest history of the officer to know what he "normally does".

Furthermore, when people get irate at being addressed (without any paperwork being done) over a minor violation they talk themselves into tickets usually not because the cop is personally insulted but because their attitude indicates that because they personally feel the violation is too minor for a citation, it is therefore wrong if they are stopped by an officer. Essentially they are saying they have the authority to decide which laws they will follow and which they won't, as opposed to an apologetic person who recognizes they made a mistake.



Now you're introducing a very rare personal element into the situation. This is not representative of the type of incident we are talking about here, but even in this case, you're giving information for the scenario that cannot be known in an actual scenario. We cannot know what the officer is thinking and it would require some effort to learn his history with jaywalkers. EVen then, how would we know how many jaywalkers he has seen and what else he might have been doing that was more pressing at the time?

The only way out of this dilemma is to grant the ex-boyfriend a free pass with this cop just to avoid the possibility of some sort of bias, which is silly. The boyfriend should go to court, not expect to avoid a ticket.



Except that A) it is only an abuse of authority in your personal judgement because no law was broken by the officer and B) you are deciding it is an abuse based on information you could not or would find it very difficult to access.



Except that is not his reason. His reason is whatever charge is on the ticket. The person may be found not guilty but that does not mean there was no probable cause. You cannot claim authority was abused based simply on the cop's unknown internal motivations, nor is it valid to say he abused his authority because you would have done differently in his position.



Except that it is not an abuse of authority, unless he did something like lie about the charges, which is not the sort of case we are addressing. Just because he had a personal reason for issuing the charge does not mean his authority was abused as long as he also had an official reason. It does change the underlying nature of the action. Authority is either used in a lawful manner or it is not. We cannot claim authority has been abused based on internal motivations that cannot be known; this is simply a way of taking one's personal disapproval and attempting to grant it the force of law.

If you don't like what the law says then change the law. The politicians are to blame for the law, not the police. I'm not sure why that concept is so hard to grasp.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm not saying no plainclothes cop has ever failed to do this; clearly some are careless or stupid and hence why I said you should always ask if they don't identify themselves and show a badge. As a matter of course, however, they should and do.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Its rather pathetic that every time something like this comes up you pretend a word does not mean what it does in order to lessen the emotional moral charge that word justly brings with it simply because the law says something that you believe to be important here.

Remember tyranny is when the state considers actions just if done by its actors but unjust if done by others.

There is also a federal crime for these kinds of actions Official Oppression however Qualified Immunity and inept district justices usually elevate costs enough for those who can afford to move forward beyond even their means.


EVERYONE WHO IS NOT DE:
I fully encourage every individual reading to research Qualified Immunity and the cases where it was used to protect law-breakers who are LEO's from prosecution. I won't hide behind the rantings of what the law conisders to be just - judge for yourself.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Seriously? You think an arrest is kidnapping? WTF

He thinks an unjust arrest is kidnapping. Big difference.

Could be, but not necessarily.

It depends on where one draws the line when they define "unjust". From experience, the muppet draws it where it benefits himself and his philosophies the most and doesn't concern himself with others or their philosophies.

He's quite happy contemplating owning a pocket nuke, for instance...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. Still pretty far fetched.

An unjust arrest could be anywhere from unlawful detention to kidnapping.

One definition of arrest the courts accept is when a normal observer would consider you not free to go.

It has nothing to do with the words uttered by the LEO.

So why would it be that it is illegal for one person to (without legal authority) put you on the ground with a weapon drawn on you, or handcuff you, or threaten to commit battery on you if you move away (or towards) or to not comply with demands - yet it is not illegal for another person who also does not have legal authority (ie lacks the colour of law behind their orders)?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Not really, since he is reserving to himself, or to any given person, the decision as to what is unjust.

Any arrest with in the law should be assumed to be just. If not, the law is unjust, not the actions of the offcier. It is not the officer's responsibility as an agent of the executive to change the law; that violates separation of powers.

Elmo likes to pretend that any given person must adhere to his definition fo what is just and what is Constitutional, and claims that enforcing an "unjust" law is a violation of both one's oath and public trust, but this cannot be since A) The public does not agree to his definition of what is just or Constitutional and B) he ignores that questions of law are settled by the courts, and the Constitutio

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, what's pathetic is that you don't understnad what kidnapping is, and are trying to ignore several important elements of it in order to make it be what you want it to be. Furthermore, it is important what the law says and not what anything or anyone else defines as kidnapping because it is a crime. You cannot have rule of law without crimes being defined by law, and only by law.



No it isn't.



Except that none of this is true. You don't have the foggiest idea what qualified immunity is. Police officers who misbehave severely are regularly convicted for it.



Except that it isn't being used to "protect law breakers." By definition, qualified immunity comes into play where there was no clear law in place.

qualified immunity



In other words, qualified immunity kicks in only when it was unreasonable to expect law enforcement officers to know their conduct was illegal - by shifting blame onto the government. This in no way "shields law-breakers"; the government as a whole is still held accountable for its failure to make clear law, and it cannot be used where there is clear law.

As usual, Elmo is simply inventing whatever is convenient for him and misrepresenting it as some system of protection by which no one is ever held accountable for anything.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'll just point out that the type of person who might be drawn to this position is likely the sort of person who wants the authority to assert their dominance over others with minimum resistance.

The position of slave master was never filled by a kind and gentlehearted man.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No, it could not be kidnapping. It could only be kidnapping if no official action whatsoever were taken against the person; no booking, no charges, no court, nada, as if int he officer simply threw the person in the car and kept them hidden somewhere like in an actual, you know, kidnapping. If the person arrested is in any way afforded any access whatsoever to the justice system it canot be a kidnapping since kidnapping on the part of anyone else also would not afford access to the justice system.



Which has nothing to do with whether it is kidnapping.



Actually it has everything to do with them, since those words have a great deal to do with whether you consider yourself free to go or not. The courts have also held that a brief investigative detention is not an arrest.



Because that other person has legal authority. That should be blindingly obvious. The ORC definition of kidnapping is to deprive another of their liberty without privilege to do so. Police officers have privilege to do so by virtue of having legal arrest authority. In some cases, everyday citizens do in fact have arrest powers as well. By virtue of that legal authority, an arrest is never a kidnapping even if it violates other laws. It is goverend by different laws - the laws of arrest, just like murder is governed by different laws than manslaughter even though they both relate to the death of a human being.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'll point out that the sort of person who takes your position values the rule of law only when it works for him. Clearly, a belief that separation of powers is important means one wants to "assert their dominance over others."

Nice veiled personal attack, by the way.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't believe in law for the sake of law, and I certainly don't belive in the enforcement of unjust law.



No, you've changed my words to convey a different meaning. I said likely, which is intended to leave room for exceptions. You changed that to "clearly" which rings of absolutism. While there are a percentage of police officers who have white knight personalities, a noteworthy percentage have been shown to have a bully's personality; and even without the studies confirming it, I think this would have been fairly obvious. People are drawn to careers that suit their basic desires, and fulfill their view of themselves; and the most basic aspects of police work appeal to both of those archtypes.



I wasn't attacking you. I think I know you well enough to say that I believe you to be a good-hearted and well-intentioned man, and are much more inclined to want to help people in need than to impose your authority blindly. This is the difference between "likely" and "clearly".

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I don't beleive in law for the sake of law, but I do beleive unjust law must be enforced until it is overturned through the normal process. Individuals should no be permitted to decide what laws will be enforced unless they have been selected by their fellow citizens to do so through the processes society has established.

Yes, this may suck for some people. Perfect solutions are not available.



First of all, I didn't change your words at all. I stated that it violates separation of powers if the executive or his agents do not enforce laws on their own judgement that they are unjust. You then stated that someone who thinks this "likely the sort of person who wants the authority to assert their dominance over others. First, you have no basis to say that this is the case ever, much less that it is likely, and second, since it was a response to what I was saying, I am not in any way changing your words by referring back to what I was originally saying.



Irrelevant, since you have no basis for "likely". Furthermore, I did not say it was absolute; it can also refer to the most common outcome, and since you said it was likely, it was reasonable to think that by "likely" you meant" most common outcome.



Pointless tautology. Obviously there is "a percentage". So what? What is a "white knight personality"? What is a "bully's personality"? All you're doing is pointing out that some unknown proportion of police officers may have a certain personality or another or some third unmentioned one; personalities so vaguely described as to be meaningless.

I have never argued that all cops are perfect so why you are pointing out the blindingly obvious in such a manner as to be utterly worthless for further discussion is beyond me.



What studies confirming what? Is there a study out there that seriously uses the term "white knight personality"? If so, I shudder to think what would cause you to take it seriously. There's a study showing that certain percentages of polcie officers have certain personalities or behave in certain ways? Ok, so what? We know that just fine without any.



Do they? I don't think you know a whole lot about the basic aspects of police work. You clearly have your assumptions but quite frankly bullies and white knights are not the sorts of people most other polcie will like very much; white knight types (based purely on my assumption of what this term is supposed to mean) tend to be overconfident, unwilling to listen, and very difficult to work with, while bullies are likely to drag someone else down with them when they inevitably get in trouble.



While I much appreciate the clarification, when I make a point and it is immidiately followed by a value judgement about what sort of person would think that, it makes it pretty clear on the face of it that it's an implication about the person making it. Perhaps it would serve your purposes better to address the point made, rather than talk about what your assumptions are about the people who commonly hold such a view, and we could avoid these pointless discussions over personal attacks.



Quite. However, "clearly" does not mean "always" it could also mean "most commonly", and in any case, I see no reason to think that what you stated is even likely.

In any case, I compliment you for at least attempting to actually debate the issue.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Damn I'm good

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Sounds to me as if you're critical of the beast you continue to feed. Why not just quit feeding it?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

He's just fattening the Camel for slaughter ...

_________________