[Lawhobbit]

Rolem, on May 13 2005, 06:24 AM, said:

The main point I am trying to make is we cannot pick and choose when and what laws we will follow. When someone is wrong they are wrong. If they are right they are right. It doesn't matter what the PC crowd thinks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmmm....so if a law is passed requiring you to hand in all your firearms, instituting slavery, or sticking people in concentration camps (all laws which have passed in the US, so don't give me the "it can't happen here" line) you're saying we should just meekly shuffle off to do whatever our overlords have decreed?

[Rolem]

Quote

The thing I question is the direction law enforcemnent is taking. Do we want laws enforced by a bunch of mindless bureaucrats who will commit heinous acts of violence upon women and children in the name of "the law"?

Heinous acts no. I don't believe this was a heinous act. Actualy the direction of law enforcement is in a good on as a whole. If the officers from in the 50's and 60's were in that situation they probably would have used billy clubs to effect the arrest. It hasn't been getting worse. The reason it looks like it has is because of all the publicity and easy access to the media. Remember even when it comes to CCW the media only focuses on the bad and plays it up as much as possible.

[Rolem]

Quote

Hmmmm....so if a law is passed requiring you to hand in all your firearms, instituting slavery, or sticking people in concentration camps (all laws which have passed in the US, so don't give me the "it can't happen here" line) you're saying we should just meekly shuffle off to do whatever our overlords have decreed?

Those laws were in a totaly different time. With society now days it can't happen. I never said I follow all the laws to the letter. I have my faults also. But when I am caught I cooperate fully.

[MisterEd]

Quote

But how long should the officers stand by and wait before doing anything

No longer than it takes for him to say "have a nice day and drive carefully" and then he makes a note on the ticket "refused to sign" and then let the court decide on what to do. The officer is not "duty bound" to make an arrest on something as trivial as failure to sign even if he has the law on his side! just because she did not sign the ticket does not mean he has to "change his mind" She simply failed to sign and the pragmatic (and human) thing to do would have been to send her on her merry way and let the court decide what to do. Heck, a bride with a mental problem can fake her own kidnapping and get better treatment than this woman!

[Rolem]

Yes they could have done that. But would that be right also? Let someone break the law and not address the issue at the time? There are alot of kids in the schools that take full advantage of that. They know if they don't cooperate they won't be disciplined for some time if even then. They count on that. They are taught that since they are kids then they can do almost anything and walk away. If someone tries to stop them then that person is labled assaultive expecialy if the kid decides to fight. The behavior should be addressed at the time it happens not weeks or months later.

Let me step back a few. When I was talking about not being able to pick and choose what laws we need to follow. I should have been saying "We can't pick and choose what laws we are going to follow and not expect any repercusions."

[Rolem]

I feel I need to say this.

I hope nobody takes personal offense to what I am saying here. I do not mean to offend anyone. I do like a good debate sometimes. We all have differing views on the way things are and should be. That is what makes this country what it is. We may never aggree on some things but thats ok, as long we can still get along.

[Rolem]

I agree some of them do. What is frustrating is ALL the LEOs are being condemed for the actions of a few. But this is not limited to LEOs and it has been that way in alot of areas.

[ebd10]

Quote

Yes they could have done that. But would that be right also? Let someone break the law and not address the issue at the time?

You're confusing morality and law. No, it may not have been legal to allow her to drive away with nothing more than an admonition of the trouble to follow for not signing a ticket, but it would probably not have inspired such outrage.

[Rolem]

If we always did the PC thing would we ever get anything done? We always will have someone disagreeing with us no matter what is done. Remember morality is in the eye of the beholder. In another country it is moraly right and legaly right to cane a kid for vandalizm. So who gets to decide what is moraly right.

[Lawhobbit]

Rolem, on May 13 2005, 06:52 AM, said:

Those laws were in a totaly different time. With society now days it can't happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya know, they were saying things like that in the Weimar Republic back in the Thirties.

And if you haven't read, for instance, Michelle Malkin's work calling for internment (i.e. "sent to concentration camps") of Muslims, you haven't been paying attention enough.

[Lawhobbit]

USP45usp, on May 13 2005, 08:53 AM, said:

so I really don't have a dog in this fight

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But if you did, we'd taser it, too.

[Lawhobbit]

Rolem, on May 13 2005, 09:22 AM, said:

If we always did the PC thing would we ever get anything done? We always will have someone disagreeing with us no matter what is done. Remember morality is in the eye of the beholder. In another country it is moraly right and legaly right to cane a kid for vandalizm. So who gets to decide what is moraly right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll notice that those countries have less trouble with vandalism, too. Certainty of punishment equates to reduction in crime. That's Soc. 101 there. People who know they'll be caught and know they'll be punished are far less likely to act criminally.

Except for the small percentage of true boneheads who never learn, but they're a different issue.

As for who decides what's moral, there are, actually, a number of cross-cultural morality bits. For instance, no social group allows murder nor injury between its members (except for occasional consensual matters). In order to DO murder or injury they dress those acts up with pretty names - "law enforcement," for instance.

And don't even get me started on tribal politics and sociology - I can glaze your eyes for hours on the topic.

[ebd10]

Quote

In another country it is moraly right and legaly right to cane a kid for vandalizm. So who gets to decide what is moraly right.

I don't live in another country. What they do doesn't concern me,. If I go visit one, I'll be sure to study up on their customs so as not to run afoul of the laws and cultural mores. As to who decides what is moral, I can tell you what does not and cannot decide morality; the government. Morals are determined by the whole of the group, regardless of legislation and law. For instance, the speed limit is 65mph on some highways. However, if you become the victim of road rage, are you going to do 65mph while some lunatic attempts to run you off of the road? If your kids are in the car, are you going to follow the laws that require you to slow down near construction sights? Of course not, and no one would blame you.

The problem is that when we introduce a "one size fits all solution" we are already headed for trouble because life is not linear and the solutions for situations are as varied as the people in them. The woman in this case made a bad decision. However, her decision did not cause anyone harm, nor was she a threat to anyone, including the cop. The cop introduced physical force for, from what I can tell, no other reason than this woman dared defy his authority and the authority vested in him by the state.

[Lawhobbit]

And for someone else's take on whether we're in a police state or not, let's turn to these fine folks:

http://jpfo.org/alert20050511.htm

[Rolem]

Quote

Certainty of punishment equates to reduction in crime. That's Soc. 101 there. People who know they'll be caught and know they'll be punished are far less likely to act criminally.

My point exactly.

Quote

In order to DO murder or injury they dress those acts up with pretty names - "law enforcement," for instance. 

Oww that hurt.

Quote

I don't live in another country. What they do doesn't concern me,.

This should. Just look at Mexico for just one example. Look at how much they influence our society. Legal and Illegal. Most everyone coming from another country is trying to change our country and the way we see things.

Quote

For instance, the speed limit is 65mph on some highways. However, if you become the victim of road rage, are you going to do 65mph while some lunatic attempts to run you off of the road? If your kids are in the car, are you going to follow the laws that require you to slow down near construction sights? Of course not, and no one would blame you.

MMMM I wonder. We think it is moraly right to defend ourselves and family. While on the other hand the liberals say its imoral to want to own and carry these killing machines. Nobody would blame us? Yes they would.

[ebd10]

Quote

MMMM I wonder. We think it is moraly right to defend ourselves and family. While on the other hand the liberals say its imoral to want to own and carry these killing machines. Nobody would blame us? Yes they would.

Wrong. Liberals may disagree philosophically, but in reality they are in lock step with us. Remember Carl Rowan? Biggest antigun blowhard in DC, right up until the moment he felt threatened. Then suddenly, he was all for using a gun to defend yourself. Using hypocrites to defend your argument makes you look silly.

Quote

Most everyone coming from another country is trying to change our country and the way we see things.

If we allow it to happen, then we deserve to have it happen.

The point is, the cop had a choice, the woman had a choice. The woman chose wrong, but her wrong was something that, by and large, is seen as a trivial thing. The cop, on the other hand, violated one of the first rules that men learn while becoming men; don't hurt women. ESPECIALLY pregnant women. As I quoted above, the law was in conflict with something that is felt on a visceral level.

[Lawhobbit]

Rolem, on May 13 2005, 02:45 PM, said:

Quote

Certainty of punishment equates to reduction in crime. That's Soc. 101 there. People who know they'll be caught and know they'll be punished are far less likely to act criminally.

My point exactly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Along with the need for the "punishment to fit the crime." Did her "crime" - and I use the term loosely since I don't agree that failure to kowtow to Authority is necessarily a crime just because the Authority says it is - receive a fitting punishment?

Rolem, on May 13 2005, 02:45 PM, said:

Quote

In order to DO murder or injury they dress those acts up with pretty names - "law enforcement," for instance. 

Oww that hurt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't make me break out the REST of my Awesome Lawyer Skills.

[Barak]

Quote

I agree some of them do. What is frustrating is ALL the LEOs are being condemed for the actions of a few. But this is not limited to LEOs and it has been that way in alot of areas.

There are a number of professions we say this about, but not all. Have you ever noticed that?

For example, we also say that some lawyers give the rest a bad name. We say that some politicians give the rest a bad name. We say that some used-car salesmen give the rest a bad name.

But we don't generally say that about barbers, for example, or dentists, or plumbers, or landscapers.

I think the difference is that people in the first group are paid to do stuff to you by people or organizations that don't necessarily have your best interest at heart; people in the second group are paid by you, so that if they don't keep you happy their chance for repeat business goes down.

Police currently work for the government. What their job is, how they do it, how much they're paid, whether their mistakes are tolerated, all that is politically determined. No one can say for sure how much the work they do is worth, because they're not paid voluntarily by folks who can decide how much they'd like to pay for the service. Perhaps they're worth much more than they're paid, but the government can't extract any more from the taxpayers without fear of revolt. Perhaps they're worth much less than they're paid, but they can't be pay-cut because their salary is coercively set. Nobody knows; the only way to find out would be to subject their pay to the free market and see what was voluntarily agreed on. I'd speculate that given a particular police service, some folks would probably willingly pay much more for it than they do now, and others would pay much less, or even gladly do without it entirely. Now, though, it's coercively (and inefficiently) provided to everyone regardless.

I think the solution here to objections about the police is to move the police from the first category to the second. Privatize the service of law enforcement, so that the police work for competing agencies that (like lawn-care companies) are hired or fired by individuals. Police would be able to set their own price, as long as A) their customers thought it was worth paying, and B) they didn't get undercut by a competing agency. They'd be able to offer different service packages to different communities, or different neighborhoods, or even different individual customers, for different prices. Since the police would be working directly for their customers, any unpleasant incident initiated by them would be a business liability resulting in a reduction of their company's bottom line, and perhaps an enhancement to the bottom line of a competitor.

One side effect of this would be the effective elimination of victimless crimes. Congress could pass all the laws it wanted, but it'd be much more common for a customer to say to an agent, "Hey! This guy is mugging me! Arrest him!" than it would for a customer to say, "Listen: I'm about to smoke some pot. As soon as I light up, arrest me."

Depending on where you stand on such issues, this might be either a good thing or a bad thing.

[SiG Lady]

It's the "one (or two) bad apple(s)" that habitually ruin it for everyone else. I'm trying VERRRRRY hard right now not to have a bad attitude about the Eugene police but my each and every experience with any of them--let alone the horrid things I read about concerning them--continues to reinforce my aversion to 'em.

And now we read that the Eugene PD is still resisting full disclosure and investigation about why the Magana and Lara sexual abuse cases got so far outa hand before these clowns were finally thrown into jail. As if the Eugene PD needed these two cases on top of the already shaky reputation the PD seemed to have!

I'm all for public caning of burglars and carjackers (and a few other crimes now on the county's "can't afford to prosecute" list). That'd make a big difference in crime. And cheap, too, I bet.

OTOH, the Lane County SO is a pretty reasonable bunch of folks, albeit a bit destitute. FYI, I'm endeavoring to obtain permission to do a feature story of some kind in the quarterly newsletter (fall issue, most likely--at the latest)) about where our SO funding actually comes from (what little there is) outside of a few random federal grants and such. Inquiring minds wanna know.

[ebd10]

Barak says:

Quote

One side effect of this would be the effective elimination of victimless crimes.

Is there such a thing as a "victimless" crime? I mean c'mon, if we allowed people to smoke pot and buy hookers and stuff, wouldn't our country collapse under the weight of immorality???

Welcome to the forum, Barak. Let the fun begin!

[Barak]

Quote

Is there such a thing as a "victimless" crime? I mean c'mon, if we allowed people to smoke pot and buy hookers and stuff, wouldn't our country collapse under the weight of immorality???

Sigh.

Yer baitin' me, brother. You're very good at it. I might even refer to you as a master baiter.

Whyn'tcha gimme a hand instead? What do you think about the issue of victimless crime?

[ebd10]

Quote

What do you think about the issue of victimless crime?

Same as I always have, what somebody does with or to their own bodies or property is none of my business. I hate the fact that I have to pay for people to enforce stupid laws against people that have done no one harm. I try to live by the Golden Rule, and the way I want to be treated is that I want to be left pretty much alone by the morality police (and all other police, for that matter).

To dedicate valuable resources to the pursuit of someone who is engaging in a private contract with a prostitute, or indulging in some substance within the privacy of their own home, while murderers, rapists, and child molesting politicians run around loose (couldn't resist the jab at Goldschmidt) is, to me, an abomination and an affront to liberty.

The woman about whom this thread was started had indeed broken the speed limit. But, when the cop pulled her over, the problem was solved. She was no longer speeding and, no doubt, knew that she shouldn't do it again, especially since she now knew that the cops were around. From the point where the signature on the ticket became an issue, it rapidly deteriorated to a struggle between the authority of the state, embodied in the cop, and common decency.

[Barak]

Nice job. Well stated.

Hear hear.