Being Unreasonable
If you define over-exaggeration as not kow-towing to your opinions in everything, then sure.
I am aware of this fact, and further aware that the leeway does not include the leeway to do as you suggested the officer should do. It is a limited not limitless leeway, and it happens that what you suggested is on the wrong side of those limits.
Not legally they cannot. If a police officer tickets someone the officer knows has committed no infringement, that is illegal. If what you are claiming is true, then a police officer could tase you just because they do not like the colour of your shirt. That is obviously not something they are allowed to do and they might face legal action if it could be proven that they had done so.
I do. The truck driver was not obstructing the officer in the performance of that officer's duties, nor obstructing the course of law, nor wasting police time. I would be very surprised if the officer did not also know this, I expect the tow truck driver might also have known, you can be sure any judge presiding at the tow truck driver's trial would know, and I expect Internal Affairs might have a clue too.
Neither do I, but I do have enough to know that none of the suggestions you have made are remotely legal.
I stated exactly what I stated, I am not responsible for any non-implied and wild inferences you might choose to make.
Irrelevant. Police officers do have some discretion that they are allowed to use. An important element in exercising such discretion is whether or not to do so, strips someone of their rights. Who is being stripped of their rights when someone is assisted to get to a hospital in a medical emergency?
I wonder.. do you consider all legal authority to work in such absolutes?
I know that the law works by absolutes, it's not always absolutely clear which absolute applies, but the principal of law is that it is absolute. Of course another way to describe legal principals is 'legal fiction'.
Would you ignore a "Do not Trespass" sign in order to catch a thief, or avoid a beating?
No and yes. You see the absolutes of the law includes an absolute right to protect oneself. As to the first, in my country (although this does not apply to all countries) the protection of property is not protected in law as the protection of persons is.
I doubt it, I cannot see how my breaking into a house would prevent an assault.
Abide by the law of course.
Irritating nested quotes aside.. the points that stood salient here are: use your imagination a little more.. and sooner or later you will be victim of exactly this form of jobsworth bollocks. It happens to everyone, and your beloved law will screw you so hard you bleed, one day.
Oh.. and yank pigs can and do taze people for pretty much any reason they like. They will do whatever they feel like doing if it is in their own self-interest, or if it suits their by-the-book idea of "the rules".. but ask them to turn a blind eye for the sake of a victim, and it goes against every principle of the holy constitution...mm ok.
Have you thought about a career in law enforcement?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
I think we've gotten a little sidetracked here with issues of police powers, when that really is not the issue that I was trying to discus. I feel inclined to point out however, that a policeman is more than capable of using his position to enforce standards of behavior not explicitly covered by the law, without breaking it himself. Taking the example of the tow driver, it would have been very easy for the deputy in question to inform the driver that yes he legally could charge the woman not to tow her car, but if he did so in the future the police would single him out and enforce the law to it's full extent on him every time they saw his truck. There are thousands of oddball laws on the books that are usually not enforced, I was told in driver's ed of someone who was rude to the police and was issued 32 citations for such things as under inflated tires and improperly adjusted mirrors, everyone is always breaking some law or another. The police already do this to people who piss them off, I'm simply asking that they at least use this discretion in a positive way.
I would also like to mention that I happen to know a little bit about the roving tow business, and that it's a very ugly way to earn a living. Typically, the tow company has contracts with various parking lot owners and the city to impound cars, and the drivers "rove" around waiting for calls to come in, as well as cruising by the contracted properties looking for cars to tow. The usual arrangement is that the tow driver splits any impound fees 50% with the tow company, so they have a huge incentive to tow as many cars as possible. I view it as a parasitic industry, it doesn't create any value, it basically ransoms people's property back to them. In the example article, the tow driver was so fixated on his commission that he put aside any human decency he might have possessed, so I have no sympathy for him. I hope the negative publicity from this has hurt him personally, as well as his employer.
Moving on, I've recently been reading a book about the Enron debacle, and it's struck many a chord with what I think is wrong with people's attitudes lately. Without going into too much detail, the root problem at Enron was perverse incentives, people were being rewarded for doing the wrong thing and punished for doing the right. For example, executives were given bonuses based on the size of the deals they pushed through, whether or not the deals were any good or not. I'm sure you can see where this is going... Billions invested in 3rd world projects that made no business sense, because the exec that pushed the deal through got a fat bonus, who cares if the company takes it in the shorts... That's the kind of attitude that drives me wild, whether it occurs in the corporate setting, or in more day to day encounters.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
I would also like to mention that I happen to know a little bit about the roving tow business, and that it's a very ugly way to earn a living. Typically, the tow company has contracts with various parking lot owners and the city to impound cars, and the drivers "rove" around waiting for calls to come in, as well as cruising by the contracted properties looking for cars to tow. The usual arrangement is that the tow driver splits any impound fees 50% with the tow company, so they have a huge incentive to tow as many cars as possible. I view it as a parasitic industry, it doesn't create any value, it basically ransoms people's property back to them. In the example article, the tow driver was so fixated on his commission that he put aside any human decency he might have possessed, so I have no sympathy for him. I hope the negative publicity from this has hurt him personally, as well as his employer.
Much what I have been trying to say in regards to the police.. and it seems your towing business is a little like our clamping business.. in no way reflecting the requirement to immobilise vehicles, but reflecting how much revenue can be made on releasing them.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
I do not have to use my imagination (a good thing since it is rather limited), I find it difficult to believe that anyone living to adulthood in modern society would need to use their imagination rather than their recall to bring to mind the experience you describe. And yet I still prefer a basis of democracy and freedom from tyranny be bolstered rather than weakened. Go figure.
What they can do and what they are allowed to do in accordance with law are two different things. It is for this very reason that many people believe they should restrict themselves to only what they may do in accordance with law. It is beliefs like your own that these people are acting on when the taze people in accordance with what the officer thinks is some greater good rather than what the officer knows the law to allow.
If no officer ever acted contrary to the law, no person would be tazed by police officers other than when it was lawful for the officer to do so.
Many officers do not adhere strictly to the law in the course of their duties, you of course have no evidence that this officer is corrupt, but tar him with the actions of who only knows which officer. So apparently in your mind every police officer is corrupt, and this is one of the reasons why you think they should take liberties whenever they please and screw the letter of the law. I would have considered such dismal beliefs about the people you advocate even greater discretion and freedom from the law for, good cause to restrict said discretion and freedom. In my view 'they already abuse the discretion they do have' is rarely a good reason to grant greater discretion.
No. Have you ever thought about living in a police state?
I do not have to use my imagination (a good thing since it is rather limited), I find it difficult to believe that anyone living to adulthood in modern society would need to use their imagination rather than their recall to bring to mind the experience you describe. And yet I still prefer a basis of democracy and freedom from tyranny be bolstered rather than weakened. Go figure.
What they can do and what they are allowed to do in accordance with law are two different things. It is for this very reason that many people believe they should restrict themselves to only what they may do in accordance with law. It is beliefs like your own that these people are acting on when the taze people in accordance with what the officer thinks is some greater good rather than what the officer knows the law to allow.
If no officer ever acted contrary to the law, no person would be tazed by police officers other than when it was lawful for the officer to do so.
Many officers do not adhere strictly to the law in the course of their duties, you of course have no evidence that this officer is corrupt, but tar him with the actions of who only knows which officer. So apparently in your mind every police officer is corrupt, and this is one of the reasons why you think they should take liberties whenever they please and screw the letter of the law. I would have considered such dismal beliefs about the people you advocate even greater discretion and freedom from the law for, good cause to restrict said discretion and freedom. In my view 'they already abuse the discretion they do have' is rarely a good reason to grant greater discretion.
No. Have you ever thought about living in a police state?
Tyranny is not the sole property of the police. Anybody with a degree of authority can be tyrannical. In this case, the towtruck driver. Clearly he was being a complete cock, yet you defend his right to act like an utter heartless bastard. You claim that you do not wish the police to rise above the law and become tyrants, but you are quite happy to see private citizens become tyrants. Fair do to you, but I would rather live in a world where the police make human and humanitarian decisions, and get it both wrong and right, than in a world where any jumped up hitler in a high-vis vest thinks he's king of his own private world.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
I do not admire the implied absolute authority of either the cops or tow truck drivers and appreciate that both would moderate their legal rights in the light of decent civil behavior. But in defense, at least to a degree, of the police, it should be mentioned that they are the absolute interface between the citizens and the law and in many cases the law can seem extremely unjust to a citizen who violates it. The police, even if they are very decent human beings, and I assume most are, are in a very difficult psychological position. Probably they are under pressure to issue a certain number of tickets or make a certain number of arrests to conform to their job specifications. When confronted by a citizen who may even legally object to police treatment the cops have no problems inventing legal reasons to subdue the citizen, even using extreme force that may be totally unnecessary. If a cop permits an objector to successfully resist police demands it sets a president for further weakening of police power and the police usually are very intolerant of that. That's just the nature of the business and I see not much help in mitigating it without superior surveillance of a bad situation which citizens can manage with hand held and cell phone cameras but do not expect the police to be happy about that.
The law exists to protect us. Its officers are there to uphold it.. ie to protect us. When the law cannot do that, the law has failed, and so have its representatives.
As an example of a singular area....Early release for rapists and murderers is technically legal, but is releasing over 300 of these people into society from UK prisons since 97 upholding the law or protecting the people? (Considering many have served less than a decade, I think not.) Is it even good justice? Nope.. but it is all legal and above board.
What is legal and what is right are not always the same thing.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
As an example of a singular area....Early release for rapists and murderers is technically legal, but is releasing over 300 of these people into society from UK prisons since 97 upholding the law or protecting the people? (Considering many have served less than a decade, I think not.) Is it even good justice? Nope.. but it is all legal and above board.
What is legal and what is right are not always the same thing.
The concept that ten years in prison is insufficient to frustrate active gonads but maybe perhaps eleven or twelve or - some unknown length of time will modify criminal hormones is as beautifully insane a concept as I have ever come across. Of course time in prison as a cure-all for pickpocketing, child molestation, rape, theft, murder or whatever you can come up with is about as effective as snake oil for curing cancer.
As an example of a singular area....Early release for rapists and murderers is technically legal, but is releasing over 300 of these people into society from UK prisons since 97 upholding the law or protecting the people? (Considering many have served less than a decade, I think not.) Is it even good justice? Nope.. but it is all legal and above board.
What is legal and what is right are not always the same thing.
The concept that ten years in prison is insufficient to frustrate active gonads but maybe perhaps eleven or twelve or - some unknown length of time will modify criminal hormones is as beautifully insane a concept as I have ever come across. Of course time in prison as a cure-all for pickpocketing, child molestation, rape, theft, murder or whatever you can come up with is about as effective as snake oil for curing cancer.
Who said anything about adapting behaviour? I'm talking about removing dangerous individuals to a place where they can do a great deal less harm for a very long time. You can't molest children in an adult prison. If they get rehabilitated whilst serving a LIFE sentence that actually uses up a fair chunk of their life then thats an added bonus.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
As an example of a singular area....Early release for rapists and murderers is technically legal, but is releasing over 300 of these people into society from UK prisons since 97 upholding the law or protecting the people? (Considering many have served less than a decade, I think not.) Is it even good justice? Nope.. but it is all legal and above board.
What is legal and what is right are not always the same thing.
The concept that ten years in prison is insufficient to frustrate active gonads but maybe perhaps eleven or twelve or - some unknown length of time will modify criminal hormones is as beautifully insane a concept as I have ever come across. Of course time in prison as a cure-all for pickpocketing, child molestation, rape, theft, murder or whatever you can come up with is about as effective as snake oil for curing cancer.
Who said anything about adapting behaviour? I'm talking about removing dangerous individuals to a place where they can do a great deal less harm for a very long time. You can't molest children in an adult prison. If they get rehabilitated whilst serving a LIFE sentence that actually uses up a fair chunk of their life then thats an added bonus.
Interesting. Then you would automatically sentence every felon to life imprisonment until there was absolute proof that the prisoner would be guaranteed not to engage in criminal activity. The USA already has more people in prison than any other country not earning a living and living off the government. This probably would outdo welfare by a large percentage but it sure would keep criminals off the street.
There are certain jobs that I consider parasitic, off the top of my head I would list parking enforcement, roving tow and currency speculating, but there are many more. None of these jobs create any value, they simply siphon money at someone's expense. Roving tow and parking enforcement in particular also seem to erode the soul, people who can tolerate working at either job for any length of time tend to be both unpleasant and unreasonable based on my experience. Both jobs have a confrontational air to them, and require virtual legal extortion, most decent people simply cannot do these jobs. Technically, both jobs are supposed to be for the greater good, keeping things orderly, but the commission based pay has created perverse incentives to act in a manner not designed to benefit others, but take their money. When I go to work and get paid, I'm not taking money out of anybody else's pocket, these people are, so I wouldn't feel too bad for them.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,583
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
Yeah, kind of like being a repo-guy? One of our friends had that position and I've noticed that you almost have to be the kind of person who likes getting into trouble a bit to actually stay with that for any amount of time. He had some pretty wild stories about it and yeah, it sounds almost like being paid to loan-shark for the banks.
I think it is kind of telling in the sense that it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.
^
I would consider being a repo-man to be more ethical than being a meter maid or a roving tow driver, at least the repo-man is stealing back what is in essence stolen property. The other two are enforcing an often arbitrary and unreasonable penalty on people for making small mistakes that they are likely unaware that they are even making.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,583
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
Correct. I think out this way we just don't have a lot of that, ie. meter maid and parking enforcement people. Maybe a little bit in downtown Cleveland, when I was in college though I always got a parking pass just because all the meters were strictly 2 hour feed and I didn't want to have to keep running downstairs and through the snow half the time just to get a few more quarters in.
But yeah, I certainly don't see repo work as unethical either. Being a meter maid is rather directly being a tax-collector for the city and doing it by picking at people over small matters. I don't think I could do that or be a telemarketer but, I also understand that there are people out there that desperate to make a living so its a hard call.
As an example of a singular area....Early release for rapists and murderers is technically legal, but is releasing over 300 of these people into society from UK prisons since 97 upholding the law or protecting the people? (Considering many have served less than a decade, I think not.) Is it even good justice? Nope.. but it is all legal and above board.
What is legal and what is right are not always the same thing.
The concept that ten years in prison is insufficient to frustrate active gonads but maybe perhaps eleven or twelve or - some unknown length of time will modify criminal hormones is as beautifully insane a concept as I have ever come across. Of course time in prison as a cure-all for pickpocketing, child molestation, rape, theft, murder or whatever you can come up with is about as effective as snake oil for curing cancer.
Who said anything about adapting behaviour? I'm talking about removing dangerous individuals to a place where they can do a great deal less harm for a very long time. You can't molest children in an adult prison. If they get rehabilitated whilst serving a LIFE sentence that actually uses up a fair chunk of their life then thats an added bonus.
Interesting. Then you would automatically sentence every felon to life imprisonment until there was absolute proof that the prisoner would be guaranteed not to engage in criminal activity. The USA already has more people in prison than any other country not earning a living and living off the government. This probably would outdo welfare by a large percentage but it sure would keep criminals off the street.
And you then have a fabulous crime-solving theory that prevents the victims of crime from being the repeat victims of crime? Or that prevents crime being caused by people provably known to cause crime? That involves neither the insane and unworkable magic potion of rehabilitation, or the costly, space-wasting and time-burgling incarceration?
And it matters not if you do, my example still stands. The law, as legal as it may be, is not always right or moral.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]