Khross wrote:
Diamondeye:
Misconduct is probably too strong and too legal a word for that sentence. Favoritism might be a more apt description of the New York prosecutor's position.
Fair enough, although I maintain the problem is that the favoritism in this case was the officer getting treated as everyone else should be treated before a Grand Jury, but aren't.
Quote:
As for regular citizens not being afforded the same practices, I would suggest that our legal systems and Justice systems nationwide are too focused on outcomes and not enough on actual justice.
This much is obvious from the hordes or protestors indicating that only their preferred outcome would be "justice". It's very convenient to say "well, their should have been a trial in MO", but what people seem to have forgotten is that trials are public so that the public knows that trials are being conducted fairly - not to open judicial proceedings to public approval.
In much the same way, there's excessive focus on the feelings of the families involved. The feelings of the families in both cases should pretty much go without saying, but their evaluation of the proceedings is not important. We are not in the habit in this country of having revenge killings, blood money and other features of family-oriented justice systems, yet the press is going out of its way to create that.
Quote:
The recent glut of overturned convictions in high profile cases, particularly death row cases wherein exculpatory evidence was withheld, suggests this is a long standing problem. Other factors contribute to that opinion as well, such as the general avoidance of jury nullification and seeking retrials in cases where the original jury chose to nullify application of the law (rare, but has happened).
All of this again, speaks to what I just said - that there is a fundamental problem with a probable cause determination process that almost always finds probable cause.
There is also a case to be made that bail in general is too high and too hard to make. Conviction rates and ability to post bond seem to be inversely related; it is much easier to assist in your own defense if you are out of jail than in.
Quote:
Incidentally, it's not really bigotry to dislike the current state and practices of the law enforcement profession in the United States.
That isn't what you said. You said you had little use for police officers - of which there are over half a million - because ONE shot you.
Quote:
I don't have much use for police officers, so I take measures to avoid interactions with them.
Because one shot you
Quote:
I don't break the law;
Ever? Not even by mistake? You are an amazingly talented individual to avoid making even accidental traffic violations from time to time.
Quote:
I don't engage in suspicious or questionable behavior;
According to who? It's a common conceit that if my behavior isn't questionable to me, it therefore should not be questionable to any observer, and that if I only insist loudly enough and take enough umbrage, that suspicion must go away. Furthermore, it does not even need to be suspicious to the police. It can be suspicious to a neighbor or passerby for possibly absurd reasons, but nonetheless they then relate their concerns, possibly not even accurately to the police, who are then obliged to investigate.
If they do so, will you blame them? I suspect you will; like so many other people you will probably wonder why they did not dismiss the concern out of hand based on the circumstances from your perspective with all the information you have rather than understanding the situation
as it was presented to them.On the plus side, I hear that precisely this sort of misunderstanding gets academics invited to the White house along with the officer to have a beer with the President.
Quote:
I simply avoid involving the cops in my life and my life in theirs. That said, I've been working for universities for longer than you've known me, and I've seen enough law enforcement turn over and one job ponies to know that law enforcement attracts two major categories of people: those who want to serve and those who want authority. The latter are a problem, and it's my experience they don't last long. They're usually the one job ponies. Unfortunately for the other group, they give all cops a bad name.
I am not quite sure how you come to these categorizations. "Wanting to serve" is something of a tautology for law enforcement - law enforcement serves the community by.. enforcing the law. It's not really any different than firefighting which serves the community by... fighting the fires. It's quite common of people to simply beg the question when they don't like something law enforcement is doing with sarcastic references to "protect and serve", with the implication being "if you are not doing what I personally approve of, you are not serving". No one would ever think of treating a fireman this way though, probably because fire will brook no argument - but in many ways the jobs are the same. Criminals will be criminals just as fire will be fire and it is useless to insist that the system work differently in the face of the intractable reality of how criminals behave.
As to "wanting authority", authority accompanies responsibility. A person who does not want authority is not suited to responsibility either - they do not want to have to deal with the problems. A person who does not want responsibility is not suited to authority either - they do not want to be held accountable for their actions. Anyone who has any ambition to advance wants authority of some sort. Wanting authority is not bad as long as one accepts the accompanying responsibility.
Some officers do not want the responsibility, but they tend not to be able to handle the job - sometimes disastrously. Many other officers though, do want the responsibility along with the authority - but only a fool would want the responsibility without the authority or without the will to exercise it. "Responsibility without authority" is an untenable position in ANY job.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
