• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police and your rights

Drowning Man said:
You really feel that standing up for your rights is belligerence? I have a right to remain silent. I have a right to be secure in my person, houses, papers, and effects. Not giving in to the unreasonable demands of cops isn't being belligerent. If I have no duty to do something...and in fact, the Constitution spells out my right NOT to do something, then there is no problem with me not doing it. Period.

And, again, no where in any of this am I defending people in breaking the law. The point is to follow the law...and have the cops follow the law, too.
Click to expand...

Defending the rights of drunk drivers (an example you supplied), and generally acting with a negative attitude toward police who a seeking the safety of all is belligerent for the sake of ego gratification. There is no loss of rights by being cooperative and courteous. Rarely are police demands unreasonable, that is merely another example of your belligerent attitude.

Show me where the US Constitution spells out your right not to do something. In fact the US Constitution leaves local policing laws and policies in state, county and municipal hands with exception by other Federal laws to guide Civil Rights. Not even a writ of habeas corpus is based on constitutional, rather English common law as determined by a court decision.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Defending the rights of drunk drivers (an example you supplied), and generally acting with a negative attitude toward police who a seeking the safety of all is belligerent for the sake of ego gratification. There is no loss of rights by being cooperative and courteous. Rarely are police demands unreasonable, that is merely another example of your belligerent attitude.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say anything about defending the rights of a drunk driver...although everyone has rights, drunk driver or not.

I gave an example of driving through a DUI checkpoint in third video I posted, but you do realize that not everyone who drives through a DUI checkpoint has been drinking, right? Actually, they tend to stop and detain quite a few people and catch very few criminals when they set these things up.

All police DEMANDS that are not mandated by law, are by definition, unreasonable. Hell, they are unlawful.

We have rights for a reason. And exercising those rights is NOT belligerence. No matter how much some boot-licker pretends that they are.

OldFatGuy said:
Show me where the US Constitution spells out your right not to do something.
Click to expand...

5th Amendment — right to not answer questions — You don’t have to answer most questions. About the only thing you are REQUIRED to say (depending on your local statues) is your name, address and possibly your birthdate if you do not provide a license (when driving, you’re required to show a license, but outside of a car, you’re not required to have one which is where you may be required to verbally identify at some point — usually after reasonable suspicion of a crime in stop and ID states, or upon arrest in non-stop-and-ID-states)
4th Amendment — right to refuse to be searched. This has been narrowed by the Supreme Court, especially when you’re driving a car, but still an officer needs probable cause to believe that there has been a crime to be able to search your car. If an officer ASKS to search your car (or even roll down your window), you have the perfect right to deny that request.

OldFatGuy said:
In fact the US Constitution leaves local policing laws and policies in state, county and municipal hands with exception by other Federal laws to guide Civil Rights. Not even a writ of habeas corpus is based on constitutional, rather English common law as determined by a court decision.
Click to expand...

You really need to research the law more. The US Constitution supersedes state and local laws and policies in states, counties and other local municipalities. State and other governments can give citizens more rights under those governments, but not less.
 
Drowning Man said:
Wouldn't be so sure...
Click to expand...

I'm positive they aren't your friend even when you are innocent. All the cops need to do is 'feel' you're guilty of something to kick in the asshole in them and pull that kind of crap.

My cousin the cop told me long ago, there's only us and them and if you ain't wearing a uniform, you're a them.
 
Drowning Man said:
I didn’t say anything about defending the rights of a drunk driver...although everyone has rights, drunk driver or not.
Click to expand...

Whether you accept it or not, you were defending drunk drivers.

The fifth amendment prohibits the government to force self incrimination. That doesn't guarantee a refusal to speak. The Miranda decision entitles attorney representation prior to speaking and during an interrogation. If one does not speak, one can be detained until an attorney is present during interrogation. Police if not satisfied with interrogation results, with other evidence for making a case, can then a arrest the detained party. The presence of an attorney is no guarantee of release.

The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. It does not prohibit search.

State laws vary regarding acceptable identification, and definitions of reasonable search. With refusal to allow search of a vehicle comes the possibility of being detained until a warrant allowing search is obtained.

Because you saw some bloviating fool on youtube, doesn't make that fool correct. The innocent have nothing to fear when cooperating with police, with respect and courtesy. Worried about receiving a summons for driving improperly, use that summons as an educational experience about driving. Police did not make anyone drive foolishly.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Whether you accept it or not, you were defending drunk drivers.
Click to expand...

Straw man that’s already had the stuffing pulled out of it. Please continue in your delusions, however. Don’t let me get in the way of you mischaracterizing what I have to say...

OldFatGuy said:
The fifth amendment prohibits the government to force self incrimination. That doesn't guarantee a refusal to speak.
Click to expand...

Sure. Cite me one case where the cops forced people to speak and the evidence gained from that was upheld in court. I’m not talking about where someone says that they’ll remain silent and then doesn’t...but that someone who choose not to speak was prosecuted for not confessing to a crime, or where the cops physically forced someone to speak.

OldFatGuy said:
The Miranda decision entitles attorney representation prior to speaking and during an interrogation. If one does not speak, one can be detained until an attorney is present during interrogation. Police if not satisfied with interrogation results, with other evidence for making a case, can then a arrest the detained party. The presence of an attorney is no guarantee of release.
Click to expand...

First, the Miranda decision didn’t change any rights. It placed a burden on the state to inform an accused person of their rights under the 5th and 6th amendments. That is, that they don’t have to answer questions and they can get an attorney to represent them. At issue wasn’t wether people had those rights, but if they could effectively exercise them if they didn’t know they had them.

And, of course, the presence of an attorney doesn’t guarantee a release...

OldFatGuy said:
The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. It does not prohibit search.
Click to expand...

It means that when a cop asks, you can refuse to give consent to a search and unless other factors are met, the cop can’t search.

A cop comes your home and asks to come in? Nope. Not without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

OldFatGuy said:
State laws vary regarding acceptable identification, and definitions of reasonable search. With refusal to allow search of a vehicle comes the possibility of being detained until a warrant allowing search is obtained.
Click to expand...

Detentions can only last 20 minutes. After that, the cop must arrest or release.
There are some exigent circumstances that will allow a cop to secure a vehicle while they go get a warrant...but for the most part, where the property to be searched isn’t so mobile (like a house), they have to get a warrant first and then search.

OldFatGuy said:
Because you saw some bloviating fool on youtube, doesn't make that fool correct.
Click to expand...

Do I sound uninformed? I’m not going to necessarily listen to some “bloviating fool” on YouTube...or a message board, for that matter. I do the research.

OldFatGuy said:
The innocent have nothing to fear when cooperating with police, with respect and courtesy. Worried about receiving a summons for driving improperly, use that summons as an educational experience about driving. Police did not make anyone drive foolishly.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Police get it wrong and imprison innocent people. Hell, they sometimes even frame innocent people...
 
Drowning Man said:
Bull****. Police get it wrong and imprison innocent people. Hell, they sometimes even frame innocent people...
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing this with you any further. Simple enough, you are wrong and nothing will change your mind. Yes, there is abuse of police powers, but that is the exception, not the rule. Man is corrupt, police are human. Putting on a badge doesn't make anyone beyond reproach. No super powers come with the job. The job is to protect and serve the community. Contrary to all you've put forth, belligerence and paranoia are not the answer.

Put it to rest, have a happy, healthy New Year, appreciate the beauty in your life.
 
Scorps2000 said:
I agree with most of what you said, but please elaborate on "NOTHING you say to the police can ever be used to help you in court--- it can only be used against you".

Is that sarcasm or are you serious?
Click to expand...

It comes down to the roll of the prosecution by the time you are in court and in front of jury; their job is to prove you guilty not to prove you are innocent. So for example: suppose you told the investigating police officer during his interview of you some fact which might help you in court; but in court how does your lawyer get the officer to provide that information? He can't because it would not be allowed under the hearsay rule.

There is more to it than that, and of course the prosecution must provide any exculpatory evidence to the defense prior to trail. But they are not required to present that evidence in court is my point.

My personal policy is to never talk to the police without a lawyer.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I'm not arguing this with you any further. Simple enough, you are wrong and nothing will change your mind. Yes, there is abuse of police powers, but that is the exception, not the rule. Man is corrupt, police are human. Putting on a badge doesn't make anyone beyond reproach. No super powers come with the job. The job is to protect and serve the community. Contrary to all you've put forth, belligerence and paranoia are not the answer.

Put it to rest, have a happy, healthy New Year, appreciate the beauty in your life.
Click to expand...

I think it is probably the exception...but how much of one? In some areas of law enforcement, abuse is pretty wide-spread and systematic. Look up civil asset forfeiture.

YouTube
YouTube

You should also look up policing for profit in terms of speed traps.

When a citizen and a police officer go to court and it’s a “he said, cop said” situation, who do you think the court will believe? The cop, of course. It’s the same with complaints. You have to have some pretty good proof to take a corrupt cop down, and conversely, a corrupt cop can often take down an innocent citizen with very little effort.

Exercising your rights, including the right to not say anything, the right to refuse consent for searches and seizures, and the right to film your encounters with police, should help.

I’ll post this video again just for you. This just talks about why you shouldn’t talk to the police. I’m sure you didn’t watch it in my OP and I doubt you’ll watch it now...but, here’s hoping that you’re willing to educate yourself a bit.

YouTube

Again, it has the perspective of not only a law professor, but he also gives equal time to a police detective to tell his side of the story.
 
Drowning Man said:
I think it is probably the exception...but how much of one? In some areas of law enforcement, abuse is pretty wide-spread and systematic. Look up civil asset forfeiture.

YouTube
YouTube

You should also look up policing for profit in terms of speed traps.

When a citizen and a police officer go to court and it’s a “he said, cop said” situation, who do you think the court will believe? The cop, of course. It’s the same with complaints. You have to have some pretty good proof to take a corrupt cop down, and conversely, a corrupt cop can often take down an innocent citizen with very little effort.

Exercising your rights, including the right to not say anything, the right to refuse consent for searches and seizures, and the right to film your encounters with police, should help.

I’ll post this video again just for you. This just talks about why you shouldn’t talk to the police. I’m sure you didn’t watch it in my OP and I doubt you’ll watch it now...but, here’s hoping that you’re willing to educate yourself a bit.

YouTube

Again, it has the perspective of not only a law professor, but he also gives equal time to a police detective to tell his side of the story.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are new reports about bad cops. There are also vids and news articles of police officers going the extra mile.

poliice doing good things - Google Search

Your statement about who the "court" is going to believe is an opinion. Once a jury is in place, you basically are saying the average citizen is not capable of determining the truth based on facts given. Not true in my experience. Does that mean that an innocent person is never convicted. No, it means humans make mistakes at times.''

I agree with you that some law enforcement officers are bad and correct. In my dealings with LE, the good ones far outweigh the bad ones.
 
mike2810 said:
Yes, there are new reports about bad cops. There are also vids and news articles of police officers going the extra mile.

poliice doing good things - Google Search
Click to expand...

Never said that some cops don’t go the extra mile...but here’s the rub...when you meet a cop, how do you know if you’ve found a good one or a bad one?

mike2810 said:
Your statement about who the "court" is going to believe is an opinion. Once a jury is in place, you basically are saying the average citizen is not capable of determining the truth based on facts given. Not true in my experience. Does that mean that an innocent person is never convicted. No, it means humans make mistakes at times.''
Click to expand...

No, I’m saying that if it’s your word against the cops, the cop is going to win. And I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary.
 
Drowning Man said:
Never said that some cops don’t go the extra mile...but here’s the rub...when you meet a cop, how do you know if you’ve found a good one or a bad one?



No, I’m saying that if it’s your word against the cops, the cop is going to win. And I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

-If someone meets you on the street how do they know if you are a good or bad person?

- "Word against word" in most cases is backed up with other evidence or testimony. Without collaborating evidence it is just words.
example:
driver pulled over for doing 50 in a 25. Driver says I was not doing more than 30. LEO testifies a newly calibrated radar gun showed 50mph. Who you going to believe?
 
mike2810 said:
-If someone meets you on the street how do they know if you are a good or bad person?
Click to expand...

And the difference being that the cop has a lot more potential control over your life than the average person on the street, right?

mike2810 said:
- "Word against word" in most cases is backed up with other evidence or testimony. Without collaborating evidence it is just words.
example:
driver pulled over for doing 50 in a 25. Driver says I was not doing more than 30. LEO testifies a newly calibrated radar gun showed 50mph. Who you going to believe?
Click to expand...

Then you aren’t talking about a “he said / cop said” situation like I said. I specifically talked about a “word against word” situation, which does often come up in the courts.

But, just for fun, let’s take the example that you gave... Did the cop really bring more evidence, or just claim it? Did the cop bring a picture of the readout at the time of the incident that shows that it read 50mph, or did she just claim it? Did the cop show that the radar gun was pointed at the driver’s car rather than a different car at a different time, or did she just claim it? Did the cop really ensure that the radar gun was calibrated correctly, or did she just claim it?

Has the cop in the above example really given more evidence than just “cop said”?
 
OldFatGuy said:
Defending the rights of drunk drivers (an example you supplied), and generally acting with a negative attitude toward police who a seeking the safety of all is belligerent for the sake of ego gratification. There is no loss of rights by being cooperative and courteous. Rarely are police demands unreasonable, that is merely another example of your belligerent attitude.

Show me where the US Constitution spells out your right not to do something. In fact the US Constitution leaves local policing laws and policies in state, county and municipal hands with exception by other Federal laws to guide Civil Rights. Not even a writ of habeas corpus is based on constitutional, rather English common law as determined by a court decision.
Click to expand...

You’re misunderstanding how rights work.

A good test of a “right” is if you DO NOT have a duty to act. The 5th amendment is the best example.

The Constitution limits the government in its actions.

If you’ve done nothing wrong and there is no reasonable suspicion that you may have, you have zero responsibility to talk with the police. Providing the required paperwork for operating a motor vehicle is all that is required.
Being at a random set of lat/Lon coords does not surrender your 4th amendment rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Drowning Man said:
This is a great video from the perspective of a law professor and a police detective, about why you should never talk to cops:

YouTube

This is a video of Philip Turner who does a great job of not giving the cops anything on their fishing expedition:

YouTube

One of the biggest rights that you have is to shut the frak up... Unfortunately, people are bad at exercising this right. But you generally have to tell the police very little. In my state (which is a stop and ID state), I am required to tell the police my name and address when detained under suspicion of a crime.

That's it.

No, "Where are you going?" No, "Where are you coming from?" No, "Have you had anything to drink, tonight?"

Nothing.

You don't owe the police common courtesy, they aren't your pals or your friends. Just shut the frak up or at most say, "Respectfully, sir, I'm not going to answer that question"
Click to expand...

Hmm... perhaps you are confused about what "common courtesy" is all about. Hint - it is not something which is limited to "your pals or your friends". If you, by your actions or attitude, establish an adversarial relationship then you will likely be treated accordingly.

I have been pulled over/stopped and briefly questioned by police much more often than I have been ticketed/arrested. That, I suspect, is largely because I do not initially (immediately?) assume that I am going to be ticketed/arrested and do my best to present a respectful and cooperative attitude.

IMHO, the vast majority of LEOs are not "out to get you" and are more apt to give you the benefit of the doubt if you show them "common courtesy" regardless of their power/authority to give you a hard time. After all, LEOs would much rather not have to do the paperwork involved in citing/arresting you - don't give them reason to think that you need to meet a judge to have your attitude adjusted.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... perhaps you are confused about what "common courtesy" is all about. Hint - it is not something which is limited to "your pals or your friends". If you, by your actions or attitude, establish an adversarial relationship then you will likely be treated accordingly.
Click to expand...

Investigating cop vs. citizen, IMO, is inherently an adversarial relationship. The cop is looking to charge you with a crime. It is your job to stand up for your rights.

ttwtt78640 said:
I have been pulled over/stopped and briefly questioned by police much more often than I have been ticketed/arrested. That, I suspect, is largely because I do not initially (immediately?) assume that I am going to be ticketed/arrested and do my best to present a respectful and cooperative attitude.
Click to expand...

I would challenge that presumption. I’d like to see some facts. I think most people are very courteous and cooperative with the police. Yet, many, many tickets are still written. I’ve seen folks be not so courteous with he police, and they are not ticketed.

See my second video as an example in the original post. Philip Turner doesn’t give the cops anything. He won’t even completely lower his window when the cops ask repeatedly. He is not ticketed.

If the cop is out to write you a ticket, they will, no matter how much you stand up for your rights. Conversely, if a cop is out to write you a ticket, they will, no matter how much you lick their boots.

BTW, I think there is some confusion when I say that you don’t owe the cops common courtesy. I’m not saying that one should be belligerent. I’m saying that if a cop asks you a question, it is common courtesy to answer. You don’t need to extend that common courtesy. If a cop asks to come in to your house to talk about something, it is common courtesy to invite them in and play host (get them a drink of water and leave them to search your living room while you get it). You don’t have to do that. You don’t owe them that common courtesy. But that doesn’t mean that I think you should start all conversations with, “**** the pigs!”

I’m talking about calmly and respectfully, yet firmly, exercising your rights.

ttwtt78640 said:
IMHO, the vast majority of LEOs are not "out to get you" and are more apt to give you the benefit of the doubt if you show them "common courtesy" regardless of their power/authority to give you a hard time. After all, LEOs would much rather not have to do the paperwork involved in citing/arresting you - don't give them reason to think that you need to meet a judge to have your attitude adjusted.
Click to expand...

Cops make serious money for their local government, justifying their existence, by writing tickets. Again, see the videos I posted above about civil asset forfeiture and policing for profit. Paperwork is just part of the job.
 
Drowning Man said:
And the difference being that the cop has a lot more potential control over your life than the average person on the street, right?



Then you aren’t talking about a “he said / cop said” situation like I said. I specifically talked about a “word against word” situation, which does often come up in the courts.

But, just for fun, let’s take the example that you gave... Did the cop really bring more evidence, or just claim it? Did the cop bring a picture of the readout at the time of the incident that shows that it read 50mph, or did she just claim it? Did the cop show that the radar gun was pointed at the driver’s car rather than a different car at a different time, or did she just claim it? Did the cop really ensure that the radar gun was calibrated correctly, or did she just claim it?

Has the cop in the above example really given more evidence than just “cop said”?
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase it for you. Testimony should be backed up by other evidence. That helps reduce the word against word you seem to be hung up on.

Since you want to play the game. Yes their was a photo of the radar reading with a date/time stamp and gps coordinate. The records of the radar gun showing when it was last calibrated and who did the service. All done by a industry leading reparable company. The company provided the tech at the court hearing to testify. The car in question was the only car on the road. A private witness also came forward with a video of the incident. There video backs up the LEO's testimony 100%.

In your narrative on my example asking did the cop bring a picture of the readout. Turn it around, did the driver bring evidence, like a gps log of speed to court? Did the driver have any other evidence to back up what they are claiming?

My personal and work experience with LEO's and other first responders has shown me that the vast majority of them are good people. Of course there are/ can be bad apples in the law enforcement organization. That is no different than any other organization or business. There are some shady people in the world.

It is clear you must have been wronged or someone you know wronged by a LEO sometime in your life for you to have such a negative attitude.

I do agree that a person should know their rights when dealing with law enforcement. A person should also educate themselves of what the laws are in the jurisdiction they are living, working or visiting.
 
mike2810 said:
Let me rephrase it for you. Testimony should be backed up by other evidence. That helps reduce the word against word you seem to be hung up on.

Since you want to play the game. Yes their was a photo of the radar reading with a date/time stamp and gps coordinate. The records of the radar gun showing when it was last calibrated and who did the service. All done by a industry leading reparable company. The company provided the tech at the court hearing to testify. The car in question was the only car on the road. A private witness also came forward with a video of the incident. There video backs up the LEO's testimony 100%.
Click to expand...

You’re kind of making my point for me. How often do you think that the above is presented as evidence when a speeding ticket goes to court? Or, does it happen that the cop says that they caught the person on radar and the only evidence is the cop’s word on all of that?

mike2810 said:
In your narrative on my example asking did the cop bring a picture of the readout. Turn it around, did the driver bring evidence, like a gps log of speed to court? Did the driver have any other evidence to back up what they are claiming?
Click to expand...

I think you’re forgetting which side has the burden of proof.

mike2810 said:
My personal and work experience with LEO's and other first responders has shown me that the vast majority of them are good people. Of course there are/ can be bad apples in the law enforcement organization. That is no different than any other organization or business. There are some shady people in the world.

It is clear you must have been wronged or someone you know wronged by a LEO sometime in your life for you to have such a negative attitude.
Click to expand...

Interesting presumption, but wrong. I’ve never been arrested, although I did go to jail once (got to tour a jail for a philosophy of crime and punishment class in college). The only speeding ticket I received was over 20 years ago and I didn’t contest it.

mike2810 said:
I do agree that a person should know their rights when dealing with law enforcement. A person should also educate themselves of what the laws are in the jurisdiction they are living, working or visiting.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both counts.
 
Drowning Man said:
This is a great video from the perspective of a law professor and a police detective, about why you should never talk to cops:
Click to expand...

Notice how these types of videos tend to focus on never speaking to the authorities, but let your lawyer do it.
Videos made by lawyers who make money by speaking to the authorities on the behalf of people...

So seen it before, but realizing that life does not have the certainty that these videos claim to offer.
Standing by your rights could also motivate an irritable officer to either cite you for something he was otherwise going to let go, keep an eye out for you in the future, or if you are really unlucky, frame you for something you didn't do. You may or may not statistically incur the same possibility of harm by standing 100% by your rights and assuming that the system works perfectly, as acting the fool will. There is no surefire way of avoiding trouble, and the imperfect system has more power than you do. Remaining polite at all times, and talking as little as you reasonably can get away with, without being a jerk about, it is probably the best bet.
 
HK.227 said:
Notice how these types of videos tend to focus on never speaking to the authorities, but let your lawyer do it.
Videos made by lawyers who make money by speaking to the authorities on the behalf of people...
Click to expand...

The first video I posted featured a police detective who agreed with the law professor. The second video I posted was of a civil rights activist, not a lawyer.

HK.227 said:
So seen it before, but realizing that life does not have the certainty that these videos claim to offer.
Standing by your rights could also motivate an irritable officer to either cite you for something he was otherwise going to let go, keep an eye out for you in the future, or if you are really unlucky, frame you for something you didn't do.
Click to expand...

The police can and do both charge people who don't stand up for their rights, and frame people who don't stand up for their rights. Standing up for your rights makes it harder for the police and the justice system to convict you, however. And in the case of filming the cops, can be the only thing that takes a bad cop down. Remember, when it's your word against the cop's, you're going to lose.

HK.227 said:
You may or may not statistically incur the same possibility of harm by standing 100% by your rights and assuming that the system works perfectly, as acting the fool will. There is no surefire way of avoiding trouble, and the imperfect system has more power than you do. Remaining polite at all times, and talking as little as you reasonably can get away with, without being a jerk about, it is probably the best bet.
Click to expand...

I would say, "remaining calm and respectful", rather than "polite".
 
Here's an exmaple:

 
Drowning Man said:
The first video I posted featured a police detective who agreed with the law professor. The second video I posted was of a civil rights activist, not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
I know. It was in fact the very first video I ever saw on the subject, back in 2013 I believe. :)
And he is quite right to endorse the professor, from a purely legal perspective.

Drowning Man said:
The police can and do both charge people who don't stand up for their rights, and frame people who don't stand up for their rights. Standing up for your rights makes it harder for the police and the justice system to convict you, however. And in the case of filming the cops, can be the only thing that takes a bad cop down. Remember, when it's your word against the cop's, you're going to lose.
Click to expand...
They certainly do. But motivation varies and plays a part in the statistics.
You have to take into account that all legal systems on the planet are imperfect and weighed in the systems' own favor. If a cop *really* wants to screw you over, all that is stopping them is imperfect execution.

I would venture to suggest, that unless you are dealing with a completely corrupt police force, feelings of hostility and anger is a primary motivator for cops dealing more harshly with citizens than would have otherwise been the case. So doing what you reasonably can to prevent those feelings would have to be taken into account. At least if the goal is to achieve the perfect balance in the zone between between screwing yourself over by neglecting your own rights and being a douche to people with guns and the power to screw you over if they really want to.


Drowning Man said:
I would say, "remaining calm and respectful", rather than "polite".
Click to expand...
Fine by me, though I personally believe that for respect to have value it has to be earned, whereas manners and politeness are free.
 
HK.227 said:
They certainly do. But motivation varies and plays a part in the statistics.
You have to take into account that all legal systems on the planet are imperfect and weighed in the systems' own favor. If a cop *really* wants to screw you over, all that is stopping them is imperfect execution.
Click to expand...

And not giving up your rights makes it harder for cops to perform a "perfect execution", right?

HK.227 said:
I would venture to suggest, that unless you are dealing with a completely corrupt police force, feelings of hostility and anger is a primary motivator for cops dealing more harshly with citizens than would have otherwise been the case.
Click to expand...

I would venture to suggest that if a cop deals with someone more harshly through some form of retaliation, they are a corrupt cop, by definition.

HK.227 said:
So doing what you reasonably can to prevent those feelings would have to be taken into account. At least if the goal is to achieve the perfect balance in the zone between between screwing yourself over by neglecting your own rights and being a douche to people with guns and the power to screw you over if they really want to.
Click to expand...

I would argue that calmly, respectfully but assertively standing up for your rights isn't being a "douche". It may bruise the ego of some cops that folks won't automatically role over and give them exactly what they want, but they are supposed to be law enforcers, not ego enforcers. All of what I'm suggesting is firmly within the bounds of the law, that they are tasked to uphold.
 
Drowning Man said:
And not giving up your rights makes it harder for cops to perform a "perfect execution", right?
Click to expand...
Of course. But is that any guarantee of not getting screwed?
Execution is execution. Motivation is another thing entirely.

Drowning Man said:
I would venture to suggest that if a cop deals with someone more harshly through some form of retaliation, they are a corrupt cop, by definition.
Click to expand...
If you are anything like the average Human being, consider how many times in your life you have either bent a rule or followed it to the letter, depending on the desired outcome. Do you consider yourself corrupt because of that?
So that would be where the "completely" qualifier came in. If you expect any Human to be perfect, you are quite within you rights, yet I would still say you were deluding yourself.

Drowning Man said:
I would argue that calmly, respectfully but assertively standing up for your rights isn't being a "douche". It may bruise the ego of some cops that folks won't automatically role over and give them exactly what they want, but they are supposed to be law enforcers, not ego enforcers. All of what I'm suggesting is firmly within the bounds of the law, that they are tasked to uphold.
Click to expand...
The two are not mutually exclusive. And while I don't think any person of average intelligence would intentionally be a douche to an armed stranger with near legal immunity, there is always the possibility of either having it perceived that way or being so unintentionally. That is a risk you would want to minimize.

I conclusion, I think the arguments you present are not only correct, but also legally and ethically principled.
But in the real world, I never rely on anyone being 100% principled and able to resist temptation at all times, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to either.
If we can agree that noone is perfect, then we are just arguing about how to optimally balance various risk factors to achieve a desired result (not getting shot, fined, or put in jail).
 
HK.227 said:
If you are anything like the average Human being, consider how many times in your life you have either bent a rule or followed it to the letter, depending on the desired outcome. Do you consider yourself corrupt because of that?
So that would be where the "completely" qualifier came in. If you expect any Human to be perfect, you are quite within you rights, yet I would still say you were deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

Humans are humans, but we pay cops a lot of money to act professionally. Just like when you go to a restaurant, no matter how you act, the cook should never **** in your food, a cop shouldn't charge people because their ego is bruised.

HK.227 said:
The two are not mutually exclusive. And while I don't think any person of average intelligence would intentionally be a douche to an armed stranger with near legal immunity, there is always the possibility of either having it perceived that way or being so unintentionally. That is a risk you would want to minimize.

I conclusion, I think the arguments you present are not only correct, but also legally and ethically principled.
But in the real world, I never rely on anyone being 100% principled and able to resist temptation at all times, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to either.
If we can agree that noone is perfect, then we are just arguing about how to optimally balance various risk factors to achieve a desired result (not getting shot, fined, or put in jail).
Click to expand...

I think we agree on more than we disagree. That being said, I think it's extremely sad that you don't feel like you can stand up for your rights because you fear retaliation. I think that shows a glaring problem with law enforcement in this country.
If we don't use our rights, we lose them.
 
Drowning Man said:
Humans are humans, but we pay cops a lot of money to act professionally. Just like when you go to a restaurant, no matter how you act, the cook should never **** in your food, a cop shouldn't charge people because their ego is bruised.

I think we agree on more than we disagree. That being said, I think it's extremely sad that you don't feel like you can stand up for your rights because you fear retaliation. I think that shows a glaring problem with law enforcement in this country.
If we don't use our rights, we lose them.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention restaurant. I'm *never* rude to people who handle my food, no matter how they are supposed to act. :)

There is a place and time for everything. I also don't exercise my right to walk around bad neighbourhoods at night, wearing out of place clothing and expensive jewelry.
I guess that means I've lost that right (de facto if not de jure), which I suppose is sad from a communal point of view, but there are limits to what I can accomplish as an individual. As appealing as the thought is, going Bronson and executing faceless criminals en masse, cleaning up the city and scoring the babes, just isn't in the cards. What I'm supposed to do is vote for someone who will use communal power to fix the problem, but for that to happen, I have to rely on other people to do the same. So until that happens, I have to improvise and get along as best I can.

But other than that, I also think that we are in agreement.
And I certainly don't consider it an even balance between the exercise of legal rights and clinical paranoia. More like a 90/10 split that is more about a dose of healthy cynicism than law enforcement specifically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom