U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2013, 12:23 AM
 
38 posts, read 16,346 times
Reputation: 63
Default Are Law Enforcement related indivuduals treated differently than the average citizen?

Let me preface this with acknowledging the outstanding work of the hundreds of thousands of great police in our country. It only takes a few idiots to pull the positive light to them!

This is a different question, however. Do you think that Law Enforcement is treated differently in the judicial system? I understand that during duty, police work under different constraints than a civilian. Many of those constraints are to safeguard and benefit the public, however (and this is a big "however"), I have seen a BUNCH of times in the media where cases just seem to disappear, or an officer is put on a desk for a week and right back out on the street.

If I beat someone with a night stick in legitimate self defense scenarios (or even produced one to protect my self), my happy butt would be going to jail in most circumstances. If I, as a Concealed Weapon's Permit holder, even display a gun in a life and death scenario - that is considered by most law as implementation of a deadly weapon. Not so with law enforcement in either situation.

Last, LE should be able to be video taped immediately anytime a violent situation occurs between the public and LE. Actually, to cover their A##, they should wear a go pro camera to make sure they are never able to be called into question. It just seems reasonable that would do that to cover themselves from law suits.

I know I have missed a bunch of points, but let me know how you feel.

Thanks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2013, 05:52 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
4,191 posts, read 2,705,366 times
Reputation: 2653
One study that I have never seen is the correlation between more cameras and less tenure. It is extremely hard to be on camera 24/7 and never offend anybody. One company, that I currently work for, has over 800 cameras on it's campus. There are very few employees with more than five years tenure. If you go back thirty years; there were many employees with 10/20/30 and more years tenure. It could just be a fluke and the economic realities of today's modern life?

I just think that it is very easy to insult somebody today. Or it is very easy to forget some of your training. At the same time; I presume that we are moving in the direction of everybody working 24/7 under big brother.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2013, 07:21 AM
 
4,261 posts, read 3,128,753 times
Reputation: 11327
One of my complaints about modern life is that since cameras started to become readily available, now a big chunk of the population seems to think that everything should be videotaped. A corollary to this becomes: If it isn't videotaped than they won't accept that person's version of what happened.

We are a long ways as a society from having cameras everywhere despite the fact that such systems are generally available in public buildings and public places. Many people feel for privacy reasons that cameras shouldn't be everywhere.

I refuse to lead my life along the lines of paranoia and suspicion. A police officer undergoes background screening and substantial process when he is hired. His actions are reviewed when he uses a gun or engages in violence. Sometimes bad apples slip through, but its comparatively rare.

For the most part, we should trust the men and women who patrol our streets and enforce our laws. The ones I know have earned that trust.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2013, 08:41 AM
 
18,870 posts, read 13,488,400 times
Reputation: 24727
A citizen is in a different category than an officer. Take the Zimmerman situation for example, an officer would have every right to ask Martin what he was doing. The issue is, would a law enforcement officer have even bothered a black teen?

In the Rodney King issue, I felt the officers were excessively violent. BUT, I believe King brought a lot of that on himself, by running, and not being compliant in the beginning.

Officers expect compliance. Immediately. Attitude will get you trouble. The issue is, attitude is not readily visible on a camera. We can see things, but not always hear dialogue.

I have respect for law enforcement officers. People who work in the jail, prison system, not so much. But, that is my experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2013, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Miami/ Washington DC
4,592 posts, read 4,639,307 times
Reputation: 2146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12 View Post
A citizen is in a different category than an officer. Take the Zimmerman situation for example, an officer would have every right to ask Martin what he was doing.

Officers expect compliance. Immediately. Attitude will get you trouble. The issue is, attitude is not readily visible on a camera. We can see things, but not always hear dialogue. .
An officer does not have more of a right to ask Martin what he was doing here, over Zimmerman. Both have the right to ask exactly the same thing and Martin had the right to not say a word. A police officer does not have any more rights until there is reasonable suspicions or probable cause that a crime has occurred or will occur. Officers who expect compliance right away for anything are the bad apples in the bunch and they need to go back to learn about that constitution they swore to uphold and protect. Down here in South Florida we have an above average amount of morons/criminals. At the same time we have an above average amount of power tripping, abusvie police officers. The criminals there is not much we can do about sometimes, the officers need to be held to the highest regard and taken off a pedestal when it comes to who they are.

As to the original question I somewhat agree. There is a little bit too much protecting other officers in police departments. For example police departments investigating accidents involving their own officers. That is nuts. Any car accident involving an officer should be investigated by a state agency. I get the brotherhood thing, and I do think it is needed in departments and its a good thing to have, but sometimes it goes too far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2013, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
4,191 posts, read 2,705,366 times
Reputation: 2653
Any public employee can abuse their power. This should not be just a question about law enforcement. It can start off small. About twenty years ago my father had our local District Representative in front of him at our local Post Office. There was a sign on the wall that clearly stated "No Checks Cashed". Our Representative basically told the Post Master that he would not have a job if he did not cash his check.

In PA we had our own local scandal with "Kids for cash": Kids for cash scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We have two judges currently locked up for deliberately imposing harsh sentences just to fill empty jail cells.

Just because an individual is in law enforcement, judicial or Representative should not mean that they have special rights. Yes we should respect the job that they do; but we should not be blind. If there is a judge or law enforcement officer speeding along on the highway; they should be subject to the same consequences as the average citizen. There should be no exceptions. I always wonder how many off-duty police officer get tickets and suffer no consequences?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2013, 03:59 PM
 
38 posts, read 16,346 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
Any public employee can abuse their power. This should not be just a question about law enforcement. It can start off small. About twenty years ago my father had our local District Representative in front of him at our local Post Office. There was a sign on the wall that clearly stated "No Checks Cashed". Our Representative basically told the Post Master that he would not have a job if he did not cash his check.

In PA we had our own local scandal with "Kids for cash": Kids for cash scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We have two judges currently locked up for deliberately imposing harsh sentences just to fill empty jail cells.

Just because an individual is in law enforcement, judicial or Representative should not mean that they have special rights. Yes we should respect the job that they do; but we should not be blind. If there is a judge or law enforcement officer speeding along on the highway; they should be subject to the same consequences as the average citizen. There should be no exceptions. I always wonder how many off-duty police officer get tickets and suffer no consequences?

You are hitting the point that I was trying to make. You did it much more eloquently that I.

Fact is, there is a difference in the legal system that somewhat defines our cultural norms. Again, please know most of out LE is great, and they place their lives on the line everyday for our security and freedom. However, I see the "bad police" as making the head lines quite a bit.

Although I know they should be spotlighted, little attention is paid to the hundreds of thousand of cops that do a great job.

The "bad police," however, make me feel like a state of martial law is in effect. I have not had a run in with the law, but I know one family member that was drug into court on non-sense firearms accusations. The legal team spent more than $3 million and an entire week on his trial. In the end, because of his wife's perfect paperwork and testimony, it took the jury only 45 mins to deliberate and find him "innocent." Not "not guilty" but innocent of the charges. My mom spent $30,000 helping him with the defense on the case, and all the firearms that were seized were "lost." The grand total of the defense expenditures of the travel, lodging and the lost investment in the firearms cost my family almost $135,000.

This type of thing makes me extremely nervous regarding the legal system. Just wanted to share my story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2013, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,814 posts, read 1,638,566 times
Reputation: 3838
Ok, as a police officer of 25 yrs, I shall TRY and address your comments. I am doing so from a point of view of working in California.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. In fact, a police officer will face much more criminal prosecution then the average person. The problem is: YOU and the average person do not see it. At the sametime, just look at the headlines of police officers being arrested, charged, etc. You NEVER saw that 20 yrs ago. NEVER.

District attorneys are SCARED of allowing police officers to "skate" on minor criminal charges these days, based upon public backlash. A simple fight, etc is taken to such a major degree, it isn't even funny; this includes all public officials.

Lets take a simple DUI. If you worked a Jiffy Lube and were pulled over and your blood alcohol was .07 and .08 the case WOULD NOT BE CHARGED. It would be dropped. Every criminal defense attorney knows a breath test has a .02 variance. A police officer? It would be charge and yes, I know several who have been. The DA's stance is: Yes, I don't care I wouldn't normally charge it. I did, in case the media gets ahold of it and complains.

The simple fact of the general population of the US is they want two different justice standards: Those for them, those for police officers. The statue in front of every court house is supposed to be blind and the weights equal. There is no clause that says "unless you are police officer." But that is what the general public wants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2013, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
4,191 posts, read 2,705,366 times
Reputation: 2653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
Ok, as a police officer of 25 yrs, I shall TRY and address your comments. I am doing so from a point of view of working in California.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. In fact, a police officer will face much more criminal prosecution then the average person. The problem is: YOU and the average person do not see it. At the sametime, just look at the headlines of police officers being arrested, charged, etc. You NEVER saw that 20 yrs ago. NEVER.

District attorneys are SCARED of allowing police officers to "skate" on minor criminal charges these days, based upon public backlash. A simple fight, etc is taken to such a major degree, it isn't even funny; this includes all public officials.

Lets take a simple DUI. If you worked a Jiffy Lube and were pulled over and your blood alcohol was .07 and .08 the case WOULD NOT BE CHARGED. It would be dropped. Every criminal defense attorney knows a breath test has a .02 variance. A police officer? It would be charge and yes, I know several who have been. The DA's stance is: Yes, I don't care I wouldn't normally charge it. I did, in case the media gets ahold of it and complains.

The simple fact of the general population of the US is they want two different justice standards: Those for them, those for police officers. The statue in front of every court house is supposed to be blind and the weights equal. There is no clause that says "unless you are police officer." But that is what the general public wants.
Just out of curiosity; does your department have the tenure that it had twenty or thirty years ago? I know that you state that you have been with the force for 25 years. But, I am wondering if police officers are being fired or quitting quicker today than in the past? That is what is happening in the private sector.

When it comes to DUI and harsh punishment; truck drivers have always had to answer to higher standards - we are bigger and uglier and more dangerous. With the three companies that I drove for; even a trace would take us out of service and give us a mark on our record.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2013, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
483 posts, read 485,075 times
Reputation: 264
In my home state I think the LE community is treated differently (more lenient), but I think this is largely due to nepotism. There has been some really strange and tragic cases within the last few years here in Connecticut involving LEO.

In regards to cameras I think LEO should be wearing them 24/7 and they should broadcast it on TV. I think they could make some good money on that. I would also think wearing cameras 24/7 would stop false charges against LEO.

On the subject of cameras I've noticed something over that last few years that may be coincidence, but I do find it strange.

Dashboard cameras catch a lot of random events such as car accidents. However, most times when the police roll up to an event they roll up in a way that the dashboard cameras cannot see/record whats happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top