Double Standard or Higher Standard

[Polishrifleman]

I wasn't going to post about this but other posts in regards to trials, evidence, and officers of the law have me changing my mind.

I had jury duty about a month ago. One day trial in the city I reside in. First off I can't believe I actually made the jury but that is another story.

Case was the city vs. an individual cited for DWI.

City had two witnesses, both officers.

Defense had the accused.

Here is where it is interesting. The accused and one of the officers were in a car wreck together. The officer was en route to an officer in need of assistance call when the accident occurred. The other officer was the officer on duty that needed to be called since there was an officer involved in the wreck. Officer involved in wreck questions accused and also investigates scene (is that appropriate)? They come to the determination that the accused was DWI (no breath analysis is brought up durning the trial at all) Anyway enough with the boring details.

What gets me is we get into to deliberation room, I am the forman so I keep my opinion to myself, 5 are not guilty and 1 is guilty. Why the guilty verdict? Well the main reason is that they feel we should support our police force and a not quilty verdict would be contrary to that. I step in and say that it isn't a matter of trust or support it is that they are in the publics trust and should be held to a higher standard.

Is that a bad position? Should the public hold law enforcement to a higher standard?

Thanks ahead of time for the input.

 

[MuzzleBlast]

<-- Former police officer

Is that a bad position? Should the public hold law enforcement to a higher standard?

In answer to that question, undoubtably yes. When a person assumes the authority to enforce the law, they themselves should be damned near spotless. Otherwise they are hypocrites.
As far as the case is concerned, the two officers need to have evidence to present to prove that the other guy was DWI. You can't just take the police officers' word.

 

[Polishrifleman]

I really don't want the case to be an issue per say, but the other jurors comment that they didn't want the police to feel like we wern't being supportive if we went against them is what caught me off gaurd. I was taught to look at the evidence and not those involved.

 

[svtruth]

Standards

Caesar's wife, as Willy the Shake put it.

 

[jefnvk]

Finding him guilty, simply to show support for the police, is not right.

 

[fjolnirsson]

This was one area where I didn't see eye to eye with my instructors when I attended the academy in CA. This is what ultimately led to my abandonment(for the time being, at least) of my lifelong goal of becoming a peace officer.
If an officer is to enforce the law, he must be above reproach. It's an ethics thing. Several of my instructors felt that a black and white cruiser gave them carte blanche to break whatever laws they chose, under the protection of the department. Their feelings were, so long as they didn't cause an accident, no problem.
But, see, it is a problem. If you are in uniform, you don't speed, you don't make illegal turns, you don't drive the wrong way down a one way street. You drive according to the law. If you're on the way to a call, exceptions can be made. They should be exceptions , not the rule.
The same thing goes for ego. When you are in uniform, there is no place for ego. If someone is disrespectful, you suck it up, because it's part of the job. As a peace officer, you should be above such petty concerns.
When someone wears that uniform, their actions reflect upon all officers, not just themselves or their department. As I said before, they must be above reproach in their behavior.

In answer to your question, yes. The public should hold LE to a higher standard.
More importantly, Law Enforcement should hold themselves to a higher standard.

 

[Sindawe]

Finding him guilty with out any evidence of a crime (here no BAC analysis) just to support the police is more than not right. It is misscarrage of justice, and makes a mockery of our courts and the basis of our society, namely that we are a nation of laws, not men.

 

[HankB]

In the absence of evidence like a breathalyzer test, I hope the guy was ultimately acquitted.

Yes, I believe LEOs ought to be held to a higher standard. I don't expect a saint, but I do expect LEOs to demonstrate law-abiding behavior themselves, both while in uniform and off duty.

A husband-wife team - both local LEOs - here in the Austin, TX area recently killed themselves in a motorcycle wreck. The man tested 3x the legal blood alcohol limit, his wife, 4x the legal limit. They'd just left a bar FULL of other LEOs - not one of whom made the slightest effort to stop them.

Incidents like this don't do much to polish the image of police or foster respect for the law and its enforcers.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Should the public hold law enforcement to a higher standard?

Nope. There should be only one standard: absolute honesty and integrity.

 

[Jeff White]

Here is where it is interesting. The accused and one of the officers were in a car wreck together. The officer was en route to an officer in need of assistance call when the accident occurred. The other officer was the officer on duty that needed to be called since there was an officer involved in the wreck. Officer involved in wreck questions accused and also investigates scene (is that appropriate)? They come to the determination that the accused was DWI (no breath analysis is brought up durning the trial at all) Anyway enough with the boring details.

Actually without the boring details, we can't really judge what happened.

I will say that around here, most agencies have another department, usually the sheriff or state police if it's a municipal department, investigate any accidents involving any department employee (sworn or unsworn) or a family member of an employee. It's done that way to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

What gets me is we get into to deliberation room, I am the forman so I keep my opinion to myself, 5 are not guilty and 1 is guilty. Why the guilty verdict? Well the main reason is that they feel we should support our police force and a not quilty verdict would be contrary to that. I step in and say that it isn't a matter of trust or support it is that they are in the publics trust and should be held to a higher standard.

Everyone should be held to the same standard. If the police didn't make their case that the driver was DUI, then they didn't make their case, it's just that simple. I wouldn't want to live in a system where the police were automatically assumed to be right.

Peace officers could help bridge the gap that is widening between themselves and those they serve by being more conscious of how little things look to the public. Many places offer free coffee and soft drinks to on duty officers. They usually do that as an incentive for the officers to stop in and check on the place and some people even do it because they just want to pay them back for their service. Many officers accept this minor graft as a perk of the job, without even thinking about how it looks to the public. I got into a long discussion about this with the manager of a convenience store one night when I insisted on paying for my Diet Pepsi. She finally took my money after protesting that it was company policy, and that the fountain soda was so cheap that she was making a few hundred percent profit on what she sold. She later tried to turn the tables on my arguement by refusing to take my money the next time I came in off duty and out of uniform though.

The public notices your driving too. It's pretty boring to ride with me when I'm on patrol, average speed is probably 20. You really can't see what's going on around you if you're driving much faster then 30.

An officer needs to be aware that everyone knows him, even if he doesn't know them, so on and off duty conduct needs to be above reproach. That might be why it's said that the wildest bunch you'll ever party with is a bunch of officers 100 miles from where they work .

That said, peace officers are human and have the same weaknesses that everyone else does and sometimes they mess up. So the same standard for everyone is right.

Jeff

 

[noonanda]

IMO, the police should be held to a higher standard of conduct. Not some walk on water unreachable standard, but a higher standard than joe somebody off the street. Just like the military, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. There are always going to be people that mess it up though. people like the Abu Grab mistress(cant remember her name but the one holding the leash) screw up our image and how the public veiws us.

Im sure that police hold themselves to a higher standard. It is the ones that let it go to their head or think "do as I say, not as I do" that screw it up for the rest of the police. We have the same problems in the military.

 

[1911 guy]

My humble opinion

is merely a restatement of a previous post here:

There should be only one standard: absolute honesty and integrity.

That's right. Make your judgements about folks on a one at a time basis. Right is right, wrong is wrong, it doesn't matter what your job or station in life is. That is my beef with SOME cops, they want absolute immunity for their actions because they feel the end justifies the means. Not true. If you are a good LEO, I'll support you when the time comes for me to add my opinion. If you're a thug in uniform, don't expect anything other than contempt. Same goes for anyone in any walk of life. Do right by me, expect the same from me.

 

[griz]

The accused and one of the officers were in a car wreck together. The officer was en route to an officer in need of assistance call when the accident occurred.

Am I understanding this correctly? An officer needs a ride to an assistance call, and rides with an officer that is drunk? If that's right, the witness/investigator showed an incredible lack of judgement in riding with the accused in the first place. I just can't imagine a scenario where he didn't know his ride had been drinking. Even if he didn't know, it sure seems like he would be too close to the situation to investigate it.

I agree with your position BTW.

 

[sumpnz]

griz - The accident involved two cars. One driven by a cop who was en route to provide assistance to some other (unnamed, uninvolved) cop. The other car was driven by Joe Citizen who happened to get in the way.

A second cop shows up to investigate the accident. The second cop, and the cop involved in the accident decide Joe Citizen must be drunk, and so arrest him for DWI. Neither cop was ever in the car driven by Joe Citizen.

 

[HankB]

The public notices your driving too.

Good comment - something like 98% of the time when I'm on the road and a police/State Trooper/sheriff's dept car is behind, alongside, or in front of me, they're driving at or below the posted limit.

But every once in a while, a car (usually sheriff's dept) blows past me like I'm standing still, with NO lights or sirens . . . if there's traffic, I see him tailgate the car in front until the guy pulls over and lets him pass.

And I can't help but wonder - late for shift change, or is there a special at Krispy Kreme?

 

[griz]

OK, I think I see it now. Thanks Sumpnz.

 

[roo_ster]

With power comes responsibility. If those two are not hitched together, it will lead to either:
1. Abuse of power (power > responsibility)
OR
2. Unjust outcome (power < responsibility)

The right of every free man or woman to carry the means (firearms, whatnot) to protect themselves and what is theirs comes with the responsibility that those means be used reasonably, for defense (not offense, as in a robbery), and with deference to the life and property of others.

The power to arrest/stop/search must be balanced with the responsibility to use that power according to due process, reasonably, and without violating the natural rights of citizens.

So, should their be a higher standard for peace officers? Yes, certainly in the exercise of their police powers. The homeowner who nabs a burglar in their house at 2AM & holds him for the police should be cut more slack with regard to his "arrest" of the burglar than your everyday peace officer on the street.

In other areas of life/law, I would say "it depends." Am I going to be up in arms if a patrolman gets nabbed in a neighboring state for driving 70MPH in a 55MPH zone on the interstate? Not likely. A traffic enforcement officer, OTOH, who spends his day handing out speeding tickets needs an azz-whuppin' for such.

How about cops & 'roids? I've known some who I would bet juice, and I don't mean with the as-seen-on-tv "Juice-Man" juicer. Well, since 'roids are treated about the same as cocaine, I would be pretty cranky about Super Narc getting a pass on his 'roid use while busting crack heads.

Cops & their organizations are like most operations: the top 20% does the lion's share of the work and are high performers. The middle 70% in necessary, but plods along, doing what is required & little more. It is the bottom 10% that gives them a bad name or whose actions actually impede the efforts of other cops to to their jobs well.

 

[1911 guy]

Ethics

The only problem I see with the above post is that our morals and ethics are not something we compartmentalize. We either adhere to them or we don't, on duty or off. I understand that some leeway is normal, take the speeding for instance. A habit of speeding, though, shows a disregard for the law the officer holds everyone else to.