Being Unreasonable

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, thats exactly what I was suggesting, but not for that reason. I was not saying the officer was trying to obtain possession of anything, but merely prevent this jobtard from hauling the car away or charging a fortune for it. Its a concept called White Lies.. a small deception to prevent greater harm.

From the point of view of the law, he would have taken possession unlawfully of the vehicle (if he did as you describe) before transferring possession back to the owner. To do so he would have engaged in corruption and abuse of his authority/power. I cannot approve of such methods and such conduct.

bwahaha. oh man was that hilarious

I think I'll just weigh in on this to say there was no right way to solve the issue.

If the driver had done as he was asked he would be risking his job, if the police officer had insisted on using his position as leverage or used threats he would be risking his job, if the lady had tried to argue the fact with the tow truck driver the officer would have been forced to arrest her.

The lesser evil was just for the guy to do his job and let the police officer do his (which would be to ensure the lady was home and safe). The matter of repayment (if she had chosen to pay to have the vehicle left) or the waiving of fees (if it was towed) would have to be left for the various parties involved to deliberate and work out at another time since no one at the scene had the authority to decide.

The consensus seems to be moving towards economic satisfaction and an unjust law. Morality and decency as always must take a back seat to these.

Excellent summation Fraya.

Sand, I do not see a consensus toward unjust law. Describing what the law is not the same as advocating that it should be as it is.

I cannot see such a law being passed, but I believe the state should pay if a vehicle is towed in the course and as a direct result of someone attempting to report a criminal act to the proper authorities. The state have an interest in the prompt reporting of such crime, so it has an interest in removing barriers to do so (such as expensive towing fees), and the towie/tow business are obviously not responsible, so they should not bear the cost. Ideally the person who car is towed should be able to send a receipt in for reimbursement, and if an officer is present, they should be able to take authority over the car, and issue the towie with a receipt that the tow-business sends in for reimbursement.

They already do.. I just think it would be nice if it happened for a GOOD reason, rather than personal profit.

Actually, many who do, started with a (in their opinion) GOOD reason, but if the reason is that GOOD then the community will so empower officers to act accordingly. It is up to the community to describe the limits and range of the authority of police officers, not officers themselves. Because what is GOOD to one, is not necessarily GOOD to or in the opinion of all, and because most of us do not want to live in a policeocracy, the community sets the rules (including limitations on the authority and power of police officers), and being a police officer is not excuse for disregarding these standards.

Being a police officer does not convey a right to over-rule the community's laws based on one's own subjective opinion about what is GOOD. On the contrary, it entails a duty to uphold those rules.

The conclusions indicated in this discussion bring to mind the time I spent in Tennessee in the early 1960's as a member of CORE where we picketed a facility that would not serve my black friends. It was, of course, against the law to serve black people there but my sense of decency and justice indicated very clearly where the law must not be obeyed. This poor raped woman certainly did not deserve to be treated so monstrously callously no matter where the law stood. There is a point when the law should be disobeyed whatever the penalties and this discussion and the conclusions arrived speak very clearly to me how "independent minded" these aspie minds here are compared to the population in general. I cannot say I am particularly gratified to put myself in the aspie classification.

And jobsworth behaviour causes as many problems as it solves. Besides, the car could potentially be evidentary in a case against the assailant, and as such could have been provisionally kept as evidence. Its not breaking the law, its curving it a little for altruistic reasons.

You do not see the difference between the person who has voluntarily undertaken to uphold the law breaking it, and those who have entered into no such obligation breaking the law? Should all police officers make up the law as they go along in accordance with their own morals?

What raped woman?

An automobile and/or less than two hundred dollars is not something of sufficient import to justify an officer of the law breaking said law. It's not someone's life, limb or human rights at issue. It is less than two hundred dollars cash.
[quote="Lady Macbeth]
And jobsworth behaviour causes as many problems as it solves. [/quote]
I strongly doubt it.

There is no such thing as provisional evidence whereby an officer can take possession of an item from one person and hand that possession to another. Either it is evidence and is taken into police custody (the woman does not see her car for quite some time) or it is not, and the officer is acting illegally and committing fraud, not to mention a complete abrogation of his obligations as a law-enforcement officer, if he pretends in any way that something is 'evidence' in order to obtain possession of it, even if only for the purposes of transferring said possession to some other party.

It most certainly would be breaking the law. The officer has no right to take possession of the vehicle as a private individual, as a police officer, if he took possession on the grounds you describe, then the vehicle is in police custody, and disposing of possession of evidence in police custody is obviously illegal (evidence tampering for instance).

I doubt there is anything you could posit that would convince me that an officer of the law should ignore the law, break the law, or make up the law as they go along, over less than two hundred dollars.

Thanks for confirming my judgment.

I strongly doubt it.

There is no such thing as provisional evidence whereby an officer can take possession of an item from one person and hand that possession to another. Either it is evidence and is taken into police custody (the woman does not see her car for quite some time) or it is not, and the officer is acting illegally and committing fraud, not to mention a complete abrogation of his obligations as a law-enforcement officer, if he pretends in any way that something is 'evidence' in order to obtain possession of it, even if only for the purposes of transferring said possession to some other party.

It most certainly would be breaking the law. The officer has no right to take possession of the vehicle as a private individual, as a police officer, if he took possession on the grounds you describe, then the vehicle is in police custody, and disposing of possession of evidence in police custody is obviously illegal (evidence tampering for instance).

I doubt there is anything you could posit that would convince me that an officer of the law should ignore the law, break the law, or make up the law as they go along, over less than two hundred dollars.[/quote]

And you yourself are demonstrating exactly the sort of jobsworth attitude that causes such problems. Its exactly BECAUSE it is such a small amount that a small deceit would suffice.
But obviously you are a fan of the letter, not the spirit.

To briefly summarize my feelings, it seems like in the past the letter of the law may not have been followed in order to preserve the spirit, but now it seems that the opposite is more often true. Police officers have a certain amount of discretion in the way that they choose to apply the law, whether to give a warning or write a ticket on a traffic offense being just one example. This is one of those times when I feel that the second half of the police motto; "to protect and serve", has not been carried out. The easy path was what this officer chose, to hide behind procedure and allow the spirit of the law to fall victim to the letter. This is one of those situations that calls for the officer to use his judgment in addition to the rule of law, thought that's getting harder and harder to do in these litigious times.

It's the same over here, not just with the police, but with the myriad of jobsworths who are employed to hound us.

I could not agree more. Police are people and the law permits them to act harshly if the occasion demands but to act unthinkingly because the law permits betrays a fundamental lack of basic morality.