Ever-increasing restrictions on police use-of-force

[Sergeant Sabre]

Apologies Sabre.

I edited out my comment about your approval of violence but you beat me to it. Sorry.

Question.
You tell a rape suspect that his DNA has been found at the scene. Subsequently this is proven to be a convenient lie.

Does the suspect now have a case against the PD for the usual "stress, defamation" lawsuit?

It's no issue. I've edited out my comment about your comment now, too

About a suit, I really don't know. I would imagine that if the "stress" and "defamation" were within the guidelines of case law pertaining to interrogation techniques, that the suit would be baseless.

 

[Black92LX]

Black - Do you not see the enormous danger in your own argument. Allow the police to break the law to enforce the law.
If the police are proved to have broken the law to catch a criminal the criminal will walk away from his trial a free man - probably with significant compensation. Should the judge side with the police that it is OK for police to break the law then every freedom provided to the citizens of the United States by US law is in danger.

There is definatly a line. Police officers selling drugs as sting operations is NOT against the law in some situations. The courts have deemed that permissible therefore in that instance the officer selling the drugs is not a infiringment on the officer. So the point is moot.
Certain jurisdictions allow certain things based on case rulings. I in no have advocate police to be allowed to whatever they want. Of course not, but they should be allowed tools to be one up on the criminals.

As for your "****, ANARCHY, OH NOES!" worries if we were to reduce the authority of the cops, I wonder what happenned before the advent of the modern police? OH NOES!!! ANARCHY!!! Yet we managed to function as a society.

you can't possibly compare the two. Society is completely different. Back then people knew how to take care of themselves today people have no freaking clue. The vast majority of people rely on the governement to take care of their every need. Take a look at what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Our society functions no way like it once did. Unfortunatly in todays society people want more and more governemnt becuase they have no clue how to take care of themselves.
People call the police for everything. My 4 y/o is out of control, a tree fell in my yard, my dog ran away, my mom won't let my girlfriend come over to the house, blah blah blah.
This society would absolutly crumble without any form of Police. Sure it was managed back in say the early 1800s becuase people knew how to fend for themselves. It is not that way today. Hell people can barely even cook for themselves anymore.
We don't live in that mindset anymore. I wish we did life would be so much easier.

 

[ArmedBear]

Black92LX-

You're confusing causes with the results, at least in part.

Are we all just suspects?

Yes, at least where I live, that's how it works.

 

[thrasher64]

Any Law that they can break that doesn't harm any one else during "drug/prostitution stings" should not have been a law in the first place

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW the Bill of Rights EXISTS to restrict the police force and the police powers of our government.

The purpose of our government is not to provide efficient policing at the expense of the rights or lives of the innocent, nor to prioritize the convenience of police officers, nor should it ever be.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Any Law that they can break that doesn't harm any one else during "drug/prostitution stings" should not have been a law in the first place

Checking out a baggie of meth from the property locker, then "selling" said meth on the street while posing as a drug dealer in order to catch drug addicts doesn't harm anybody (maybe it harms the addict, in some perspective).

So should it be legal for people to sell methamphetamine?

 

[Lupinus]

So should it be legal for people to sell methamphetamine?

Yep

It isn't the goverments buisness to deny the right of someone to put something they want in their bodies into their bodies.

Harms that persons child if they turn into a full blown junkie? Fine deal with that for child abuse.

Uses the meth on their own time and remains a fully funtioning person? Then no, the goverment has no right telling that person what they can or can not put into their bodies.

Repeal drug laws and you cure almost all drug and drug related crime in the stroke of the pen. Ontop of that you keep it better in check.

 

[TonyW]

Interesting thread. I respect police officers and have had no negative personal problems with any of them. Yet I do worry about these things on occassion. As someone interested in the 2A and right-to-carry issues, why are there so many people who counsel you to shut up and not say anything to the police if you have to use violence to protect you and yours? Why would so many assume the police will lie and play buddy-buddy with you in order to get you in trouble? To me this demonstrates a lack of trust between the police and the people who should most support the police. Not sure where the fault lies but I think it's there.

I also worry about the militarization of our police forces. Too often, in my opinion, police departments use SWAT and other special teams where regular police would be better. I think the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror" has led to a militant attitude, an us-versus-them attitude. Too often you hear of a SWAT team kicking in the wrong persons door and bad things happening. (No-knock raids should be very rare.) If someone kicks in my door in the middle of the night I'm not going to assume they are the police.

This is always going to be a balancing act between the police to apprehend criminals (not protect you) and our rights as citizens. All in all I think they do a great job, and too often the bleeding-hearts out there want us to believe that some scumbags rights have been abused when they haven't. But this is something that we as a society always need to keep an eye on.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Yep

Go try some. Tell me how that works out for you. If you survive the addiction, we'll see if you still say "yep".

 

[ArmedBear]

Checking out a baggie of meth from the property locker, then "selling" said meth on the street while posing as a drug dealer in order to catch drug addicts doesn't harm anybody (maybe it harms the addict, in some perspective).

It hurts people when people who AREN'T involved in the drug trade get shot.

That hasn't happened since last week, though, so I guess it's okay.

So should it be legal for people to sell methamphetamine?

It used to be. Pharmaceutical grade Methedrine wasn't the problem that dirtbag-grade Crystal is today, and legal channels of sales don't produce the same gangs, theft and violence that you see in the current black market. See Prohibition.

So frankly, I don't care. It's not like all this policing is stopping people from messing up their lives, anyway. Things would probably be a bit better if the stuff weren't underground as it now is: readily available, but illegal. If anything, it's unlikely things would be worse if addicts could get pharma-grade Methedrine (the old Burroughs-Wellcome trademark for the stuff, when it was legal).

Go try some. Tell me how that works out for you. If you survive the addiction, we'll see if you still say "yep".

Ignorance. I know a lot of people who have survived both casual and regular use of the stuff. They were messed-up people at the time, sure, but it wasn't the Meth that messed them up.

Again, I have never tried it, and I won't. But pharma-grade speed is used daily, around the world, by our military among others, and people survive unscathed. Ritalin, given to far too many of our children, is quite similar, in fact.

 

[Lupinus]

Go try some. Tell me how that works out for you. If you survive the addiction, we'll see if you still say "yep".

No thanks, I chosoe not to.

However, there are many that do.

BTW those people who going by the sound of your statment you need to protect from themselves who was it exactly that made them start? Yep, themselves. They made the choice to use that drug and continue making that choice when they get high.

 

[pacodelahoya]

I think it is more than the use of force that has people concerned about the percieved growing police state.

When the laws are written as such that anyone with a knowledge of english can tell that they are unconstitutional, yet the courts uphold them, that is scary.

When simply being a gun owner in some states is enough to get you pulled out of your car ala felony stop style, people are afraid.

When police refuse to move move from private property when asked (whether or not said property owner knows they are police), that is just wrong.

It's more of an ever increasing THEM and US attitude between the police and citizens.

The motor vehicle code is written so that you can be pulled over virtually any time you are in your car at the whim of the police. That's why we have driving while black and white boy in the hood stops.

The patriot act makes terrorists out of just about anyone and everyone, all you need to do is creatively apply the law.

The one thing in common with all of this is that the police are the ones enforcing the bad laws, yet time and again(to me at least) it would seem they are above the law except for capital crimes. (the state cops in Illinois with M-16's sticks out in my mind).

I think that if we could go back to only having laws against actions that actually and tangibly infringed on others(saying drugs destroys familys doesn't cut it, prostitution, nope,and lot's of other laws) all the while holding ALL members of the government to the same standards as the citizens, well then maybe we could heal this rift.

Or not.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Go try some. Tell me how that works out for you. If you survive the addiction, we'll see if you still say "yep".

I've tried it and I still say yep.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

I honestly don't care so much about the addicts that kill themselves. I do care about the others they victimize through property and violent crime while in the course of furthering their addiction.

I agree that they are their own victim in many ways. I also agree that "illegal, but readily available" is no solution. I disagree with you though, that the "illegal" part is the problem. I think the "readily available" half of the statement is the bigger issue.

Meth should go the way of Quaaludes. If you havn't heard of Quaaludes, that's because it's been almost entirely eradicated in this country. (I only add "almost", because somewhere there are probably a few people who still have / use a bit)

Meth is no crack, and is certainly no cocaine. I wish it were that benign of a substance.

 

[Lupinus]

Sabre-

Did it ever occur to you that if it wasn't illegal the gangs wouldnt be fighting over territory for it?

 

[ArmedBear]

I do care about the others they victimize through property and violent crime while in the course of furthering their addiction.

Think about this: those of us who don't wear blue uniforms to work don't particularly care to be victimized through the legalized equivalent to property and violent crime, perpetrated by law enforcement and the courts.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

Drug enforcement isn't worth that. It works no better to stop use than Prohibition did, and it creates crime. Legal users don't commit the same theft and violence that users of illegal substances do.

When was the last time someone killed someone over a pack of smokes or a sixpack?

Meth is no crack, and is certainly no cocaine. I wish it were that benign of a substance.

More ignorance.

Street Meth may be that bad, but pharmaceutical Methedrine was not. Similarly, bathtub gin poisoned people during Prohibition, but now that you can buy Bombay at the store, this doesn't happen.

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

That may well be correct. I acknowledge and agree that "prohibition" gives rise to many other undesireable things, as outlined above.

The crimes I am most concerned with are not gang turf-wars. Those tend to kill other gang members (of course innocents get caught up in certain instances, too).

The crimes I am most concerned with are those that people commit in order to further their addiction. Dangerous property crimes such as home invasion, for example. Robbery and armed robbery, for another example. The crimes that people commit against non-involved persons, whether to get money for their addiction, or some sort of victimization that arises from their altered state when they are on the tweak.

While legalization would undermine the black market for drugs, I am not convinced that the legal market would undermine the above-mentioned types of victimization.

I agree whole-heartedly that our National drug policy is broken, inneffective, and often ill-concieved. I am just not convinced, but am open to the possibility, that legalization is the best solution.

 

[50 Freak]

The Police are the law and do sometimes they need to go above and the Law to catch the bad guy

That logic is up there with "Let's shoot the guy to prevent him from committing suicide".

 

[Lupinus]

The Police are the law and do sometimes they need to go above and the Law to catch the bad guy

BTW the police are not the law. They are enforcers of the law made by those we elect. Last time I checked I didn't elect the guy giving people speeding tickets for going ten mph over the limit on a deserted stretch of highway.

 

[bowline]

If you really do have DNA and it comes back a negative match, the guy walks because he obviously didn't do it.

You wanna tell that to the DA in Durham?

 

[Libertylover]

you can't possibly compare the two. Society is completely different. Back then people knew how to take care of themselves today people have no freaking clue. The vast majority of people rely on the governement to take care of their every need. Take a look at what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Our society functions no way like it once did. Unfortunatly in todays society people want more and more governemnt becuase they have no clue how to take care of themselves.
People call the police for everything. My 4 y/o is out of control, a tree fell in my yard, my dog ran away, my mom won't let my girlfriend come over to the house, blah blah blah.
This society would absolutly crumble without any form of Police. Sure it was managed back in say the early 1800s becuase people knew how to fend for themselves. It is not that way today. Hell people can barely even cook for themselves anymore.
We don't live in that mindset anymore. I wish we did life would be so much easier.

So basically, you're saying you want to go ahead and play along with the nanny state because the retards around you suck at life? Well, that's your choice. Please do what you can to keep away from NH so that your nanny state tendencies don't spill over into my back yard. You've just provided one more example of why autonomy or even secession is often the only viable way to avoid terrible conflicts.

I agree with you that most people in American society generally suck at life and are like helpless little sheep bleating for big brother to help them out. But that's no excuse to feed into their mentality. If anything, it makes the case to cut their umbilical cords and see how they do on their own.

As to Sergeant Saber's assertion that he's just concerned about the property crimes and violent crimes that drug users commit, that's a step in the right direction. I hope you advocate for laws which hold legitimate self defenders unculpable for their acts of self defense in both criminal and civil courts. I also hope that you support the castle doctrine.

And while their addiction to the drug may fuel their need for money, and thus the need to commit crimes to obtain that money, I still feel that prohibition is the root of the problem. If it weren't illegal, the market price would drop as there wouldn't be the risk of having product siezed, or the risk of the makers or distributors going to the can for a goodly chunk of their lives. As with the alcohol prohibition case, the market would work to ensure more product safety, and your street grade crank would probably disappear lickidy split in favor of safer stuff.

Will there still be problems? Well, yeah, of course there will. I know a lot of people who messed up their lives and families, and a few who ultimately killed their livers - and thus themselves - with alcohol. But I also didn't get stuck with a bill to incarcerate them, nor did I get stuck with the bill to treat them, and them living near me didn't put me at risk for being killed by some trigger happy tacticool mall ninjas-in-blue at 3am on a rubber stamped no-knock "warrant" because they got the wrong address.

 

[bowline]

As someone interested in the 2A and right-to-carry issues, why are there so many people who counsel you to shut up and not say anything to the police if you have to use violence to protect you and yours? Why would so many assume the police will lie and play buddy-buddy with you in order to get you in trouble?

Because the police will lie to you in order to get a conviction. The prosecutor will lie to the grand jury, the judge, and the jury, in order to get a conviction. The police will lie about you, in order to avoid prosecution. Happens every day.
Anybody remember when police thought of themselves as 'Peace Officers' rather than 'Law Enforcement'?
That, I think, is the problem.

 

[jcoiii]

How do you tell the difference between a cititizen, a victim and a suspect?

Is it OK to lie to a victim?

Is it OK to lie to a citizen?

Are we all just suspects?

Is it OK for a citizen to lie to a cop?

"OK" and "legal" are not necessarily the same. And I sure have no problem with, for example, telling a suspect that their buddy has started talking and naming him as the criminal. An innocent person knows it's not true, and the guilty person can be more likely to confess. Boohoo.

 

[Clipper]

...And when some poor, uneducated schmuck is given the choice of 15 years for a confession of something he didn't do, or life if he makes them use the testimony of this person they're lying about, that's OK, 'cause he was too dumb to call their bluff? That's beautiful... :banghead:

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Need For Police

Society is completely different. Back then people knew how to take care of themselves today people have no freaking clue.

Yes.

And we sure wouldn't want to go back to having people know how to take care of themselves.

Think of all the people that would put out of work.