scumble on 6/9/2007 at 09:03
Quote Posted by Tocky
I had to produce my ID in order to prove to the narc squad that I wasn't someone named Red whose name and address was on a mailbox a block farther down. They threatened to shoot my dog who was going crazy. I held her because I loved that dog as much as she loved me. They didn't search the house because I made them understand through calmly answering every question the mistake they had made. They left. My wife and I tried to go back to sleep.
You did well there, but it's possibly towards the thin end of the wedge of police cock-ups in the War on Drugs. Quite a few people have lost their lives to shoot first, ask questions later tactics. As I think I said before, it's the attitude I don't like - threatening to shoot your dog because it was a bit spooked seems typical. "Behave like we think an innocent person should or we'll pump you full of lead just in case" seems to be the message coming out.
I suppose an additional thing about this is that this guy they were looking for might just have sold a bit of dope. I can understand that cops deal with human filth, but the whole drug thing is a different area of overblown enforcement. True, some drug dealers
are scum, but that's not really down to the drugs as such, it's just because the trade has been forced underground.
mopgoblin on 6/9/2007 at 09:14
Quote Posted by Tocky
I know cops have an awful job. I've talked privately to a friend of mine who is highway patrol (the superior of that peckerhead who bitched me out that I could have gotten in trouble) and listened with sadness at how he found the corpse of a young woman raped with a tree branch and tortured to death, of how, after catching the piece of shit, he complained the cuffs were too tight on the ride to jail. I marvel at good law enforcement and the ability to refrain from killing those who so richly deserve it. Store clerks have it bad? Please.
The ability to refrain from killing those you perceive as deserving is nowhere near sufficient to make you a good person. At best it's an aspect in which you're not a bad person. That's one of the big problems with the police - few people are truly suitable to begin with, and the nature of those people generally won't attract them specifically to a job that involves violence*. Furthermore, plenty of nastier people will want the job, because they <em>do</em> want to be in a position of power - some of these people are always going to slip through, especially when the standards drop due to a shortage of police, or politicians demanding more officers in order to appear "tough on crime".
The biggest problem, however, is the effect of violence - an unavoidable part of the job, at least in any town of significant size. Violence harms not just the person subjected to violence, but also the person who inflicts it. Anyone who spends too long in a job that requires the use of violence (and especially violence that they believe is justified) is in danger of becoming too comfortable with the use of violence by themselves and those in similar positions, and hence they risk losing their ability to make the right decision when violence is not justified, or to recognise and admit when their use of violence is shown to be unjustified. It's particularly dangerous when a culture forms within the police, as these corrupting effects on an individual can spread into the culture (accumulating and persisting even after that person leaves). This can eventually result in police officers abusing their power to protect each other when an officer commits or is accused of a serious violent crime. Ultimately, they may not even feel they're doing anything wrong.
There isn't very much to counter these problems at present, unfortunately. It is very rare for anything to effectively communicate to a police officer that an action is not justified. The most effective way to do this would be to deal much more thoroughly and harshly with unjustified use of violence, unjustified or spurious arrests, and other unreasonable actions taken by police, and to assume that police officers are not intrinsically more trustworthy than anyone else. This has to apply to all abuses of power, no matter how minor - indeed, the mere <em>existence</em> of the more serious cases shows that we're failing badly at this. I don't see any other way to prevent the formation of a culture of violence, or the emergence of a notion of infallibility regarding the police.
*By violence I mean "non-consensual use of (significant) force, whether justified or not". The word doesn't quite seem to express what I mean, but I can't think of a better term.
fett on 6/9/2007 at 12:24
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Breaking news: People not allowed to complain about something that is wrong and be taken seriously unless they meet arbitrary "I'm a good guy" set of criteria.
What would that extremely subjective and relative set of criteria be?
Turtle on 6/9/2007 at 17:15
People don't seem to understand that this is about rights.
The guy has the right to walk out of the store without having his property checked.
The store, in turn, has the right to tell the guy that he's no longer welcome to shop there if he won't follow their rules.
The police do not have the right to demand his ID, because he is not involved in the investigation of any crime, or suspected crime.
Tocky's case was different, because the police were carrying out an investigation which let them to believe that he may be the person they were looking for. A mistake, sure, but a situation where they are within their authority to ask for ID to ensure that he's not that person.
Mazian on 6/9/2007 at 17:30
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Breaking news: People not allowed to complain about something that is wrong and be taken seriously unless they meet arbitrary "I'm a good guy" set of criteria.
I don't get it, what specific "wrong" are you guys talking about? Is it the fact that this guy was not informed of the receipt check before he checked out, or the fact that the receipt check is (in his and your eyes) an implication of guilt, and, by extension, a violation of his "rights"?
Frankly, this whole receipt-checking business is number 487 on my list of what's wrong with Big Business today (not to mention that this shit has never happened to me at Best Buy). I've also personally witnessed someone trying to walk a stereo system out of a Wal Mart in a cart without paying for it, so this situation strikes me as being the latest shot fired in the war of escalation between shoplifters and businesses.
Besides, why isn't everyone up in arms over those anti-shoplifter tags that are on so many products? Surely that's a presumption of guilt, how is that better than a receipt check? "I'm not a shoplifter WHY IS THIS TAG ON THIS SHIRT!!!!" :mad:
SubJeff on 6/9/2007 at 19:44
Quote Posted by fett
What would that extremely subjective and relative set of criteria be?
I don't know twoco, you're the momo laying them out.
I was talking about this:
Quote:
but I wonder how involved he is with Amnesty, or the One campaign or any other movement/organization that actually fights for the civil rights of people who are being violated in worse ways? I'll bet none.
Recognise it?
fett on 6/9/2007 at 20:46
I thought you were saying that I couldn't complain about the guy (theoretically) not being involved in actual civil rights causes unless I was involved in them myself. Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm just pointing out that there are far worse civil rights violations than a cop asking to see your DL (though he was justified in refusing to do so). It seems like he picked a pussy issue upon which to make a 'civil rights' stand.
Pyrian on 6/9/2007 at 21:00
Quote Posted by Turtle
People don't seem to understand that this is about
rights.
I just don't believe that some of these things are rights at all.
Quote Posted by Turtle
The guy has the
right to walk out of the store without having his property checked.
He does not have the right to walk out of the store without having store property checked. I'm dubious as to whether he has the
right to walk out of the store without even his own property being checked; "unreasonable search and seizure" does not usually extend that far. Certainly I've never heard of any right to not be frisked for weapons, which is what that "right" would imply.
Quote Posted by Turtle
The police do
not have the right to demand his ID, because he is not involved in the investigation of any crime, or suspected crime.
He
was involved in the investigation of a
suspected crime. I mean, c'mon, both sides were blunt about the cop being surprised that the bag he didn't want searched didn't contain contraband.
SubJeff on 6/9/2007 at 21:17
Quote Posted by fett
I thought you were saying that I couldn't complain about the guy
No, I was ridiculing your "bet he doesn't give to the widdle children" nonsense.
Sure, there are far more serious rights violations going on all the time. Being asked to get out of a seat on a bus isn't really that big of an issue compared to many of the rights violations that were going on at the time and which continue worldwide. But that's just it - it's not what it IS, it's what it represents.
LesserFollies on 6/9/2007 at 21:32
But that's a valid point, whether fett meant it that way or not. If the guy wants to be seen as--and you want to lionize him as--a true crusader for rights as opposed to just being a disagreeable, stubborn, bloody-minded butthead (we all know the type), what's wrong with wondering about his past and current contributions to the cause? The quiet, non-glorious kind, as opposed to making a big scene in public, acting like a tough guy, and being able to write about it and be thought of as a hero?
