Police Standards Are A Problem

[ExiledInIllinois]

26 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The Thin Blue Line brotherhood is much more than just that.  A buddy of mine that works with me down here in Florida recently had his young daughter diagnosed with childhood cancer. He recently went up to Philly with her for treatment.  Yesterday,  a group of officers from a local Philly area PD brought his kids boatloads of gifts. All purchased out of their own wallets. They don't even know the guy,  other than he is a brother in blue, and his family is going through a very trying time this Christmas.  

 

I understand your sentiment about the negative applications of the brotherhood.  From my perspective,  that side of it is not as prominent as it once was.  If I stop an off duty cop,  or immediate family,  speeding or something non criminal - yeah they are getting a warning. Criminal stuff,  though? Sorry bud.  Your mistakes aren't costing me my career and pension. 

So basically, it's socialism on micro scale.

 

Nice!  I like it... Except for enforcing the law unevenly.  That's probably why people don't trust policing.  Milk the other one's.  It's a recessive tax for the non-privileged.

 

This is why socialism will never work.

Edited December 21, 2018 by ExiledInIllinois

[The_Dude]

33 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The Thin Blue Line brotherhood is much more than just that.  A buddy of mine that works with me down here in Florida recently had his young daughter diagnosed with childhood cancer. He recently went up to Philly with her for treatment.  Yesterday,  a group of officers from a local Philly area PD brought his kids boatloads of gifts. All purchased out of their own wallets. They don't even know the guy,  other than he is a brother in blue, and his family is going through a very trying time this Christmas.  

 

Good story. 

 

That kinda stuff only exists in two worlds: military and LE. 

 

Hows the kid?

25 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Individuals who don't evenly enforce the law don't deserve the respect afforded the duty.

 

It's no different than the likes of the Clintons living by different standards than they would impose on others.

 

Really? C’mon. 

 

After my first deployment I got pulled over in post. The MP was the wife of a bro in my platoon. She noticed booze in the back of the car. I wasn’t drunk and hadn’t had a sip that night (yet). She KNEW I was only 20. She did the right thing. She said hello and told me to have a good evening. 

 

While recruiting in Texas in my government vehicle every time I was pulled over for speeding I got a warning and a handshake. 

 

...had I been being question for carnal knowledge of a minor it would NOT have been a warning and a handshake. 

 

Theres nothing wrong with LE courtesy. 

 

Thats just how the world works. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

10 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Good story. 

 

That kinda stuff only exists in two worlds: military and LE. 

 

Hows the kid?

 

Really? C’mon. 

 

After my first deployment I got pulled over in post. The MP was the wife of a bro in my platoon. She noticed booze in the back of the car. I wasn’t drunk and hadn’t had a sip that night (yet). She KNEW I was only 20. She did the right thing. She said hello and told me to have a good evening. 

 

While recruiting in Texas in my government vehicle every time I was pulled over for speeding I got a warning and a handshake. 

 

...had I been being question for carnal knowledge of a minor it would NOT have been a warning and a handshake. 

 

Theres nothing wrong with LE courtesy. 

 

Thats just how the world works. 

My Godfather, uncle was a police officer in town.  I never dropped his name, I never expected special treatment... Courtesy when I was doing something wrong... It would be an embarrassment to Him and Myself.

 

Now... My older sister... Drop his name all the time.

 

Maybe currying favor is how the world works, but it's wrong in public service.  Look, we have a businessman POTUS that is turning public service ethics on its head.  And you thought the Clinton's were bad?  Public servants aren't businesspeople, and nor should they act like them.

 

Probably why we have a worsening mistrust of authority because the laws are being unevenly enforced.

 

The ticky tacky stuff... Is a recessive tax on the non-privileged elites.

[TakeYouToTasker]

27 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

After my first deployment I got pulled over in post. The MP was the wife of a bro in my platoon. She noticed booze in the back of the car. I wasn’t drunk and hadn’t had a sip that night (yet). She KNEW I was only 20. She did the right thing. She said hello and told me to have a good evening. 

 

While recruiting in Texas in my government vehicle every time I was pulled over for speeding I got a warning and a handshake. 

 

...had I been being question for carnal knowledge of a minor it would NOT have been a warning and a handshake. 

 

Theres nothing wrong with LE courtesy. 

 

Thats just how the world works. 

 

There is everything wrong with the enforcers having different standards for the rules they live under and the rules they impose on others.

 

It speaks to a lack of ethics, and such a lack of ethics is a disqualifier from service as it segregates those they propose to serve from equal justice under the law.

 

In other industries treating insiders preferentially is criminal.  The equivalent in my field is insider trading. 

 

Only in government is this "acceptable", and it's only acceptable because in their arrogance the watchers know that no one is watching them.

Edited December 21, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

There is everything wrong with the enforcers having different standards for the rules they live under and the rules they impose on others.

 

It speaks to a lack of ethics, and such a lack of ethics is a disqualifier from service as it segregates those they propose to serve from equal justice under the law.

 

In other industries treating insiders preferentially is criminal.  The equivalent in my field is insider trading. 

 

Only in government is this "acceptable", and it's only acceptable because in their arrogance the watchers know that no one is watching them.

 

See, Emperor Galba. Learn his fate and why. And maybe learn and grow. Being overly rigid for the sake of being overly rigid will never lead to loyalty or sustained success. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

See, Emperor Galba. Learn his fate and why. And maybe learn and grow. Being overly rigid for the sake of being overly rigid will never lead to loyalty or sustained success. 

 

An argument in favor of a legal caste system under which the law givers are exempt from standards they impose on others is a terrible argument.

[The_Dude]

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

An argument in favor of a legal caste system under which the law givers are exempt from standards they impose on others is a terrible argument.

 

And your uncompromising objectivity to human nature is irrational. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, The_Dude said:

And your uncompromising objectivity to human nature is irrational. 

 

A gross mischaracterization made for the purposes of rationalizing a legal caste system and institutionalized corruption.

[The_Dude]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

A gross mischaracterization made for the purposes of rationalizing a legal caste system and institutionalized corruption.

 

Quite the rhetoric to describe coworkers being friendly. 

 

Lighten up Francis. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

Quite the rhetoric to describe coworkers being friendly. 

 

Lighten up Francis. 

 

The law is the law, and a system of government is unjust when it has different legal standards for different groups of people.

 

That you choose to describe corruption in the way to do speaks volumes.

[The_Dude]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The law is the law, and a system of government is unjust when it has different legal standards for different groups of people.

 

That you choose to describe corruption in the way to do speaks volumes.

 

Did you know butt sex and blowjobs are punishable under the UCMJ? Let’s kick out every servicrmember guilty of plowing butt, and getting a hummer! Not only would it be ethical, but also practical. 

Edited December 21, 2018 by The_Dude

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Did you know butt sex and blowjobs are punishable under the UCMJ? Let’s kick out every servicrmember guilty of plowing butt, and getting a hummer! Not only would it be ethical, but also practical. 

 

So... to be clear, you're argument is that the law givers should live under a different set of rules than they enforce because anal sex isn't permitted under the UCMJ?

 

That's an incoherent jumble on non-sequitur nonsense, but if that's what you want to go with, feel free.

[Alaska Darin]

2 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The Thin Blue Line brotherhood is much more than just that.  A buddy of mine that works with me down here in Florida recently had his young daughter diagnosed with childhood cancer. He recently went up to Philly with her for treatment.  Yesterday,  a group of officers from a local Philly area PD brought his kids boatloads of gifts. All purchased out of their own wallets. They don't even know the guy,  other than he is a brother in blue, and his family is going through a very trying time this Christmas.  

 

I understand your sentiment about the negative applications of the brotherhood.  From my perspective,  that side of it is not as prominent as it once was.  If I stop an off duty cop,  or immediate family,  speeding or something non criminal - yeah they are getting a warning. Criminal stuff,  though? Sorry bud.  Your mistakes aren't costing me my career and pension. 

I don't want you to get me wrong...I have been in the military.  I understand all of that and how far we go for each other based on our common bond.

[The_Dude]

39 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

So... to be clear, you're argument is that the law givers should live under a different set of rules than they enforce because anal sex isn't permitted under the UCMJ?

 

That's an incoherent jumble on non-sequitur nonsense, but if that's what you want to go with, feel free.

 

No. My argument is that uncompromising idiots never get their way because reason prevails. 

 

Nobody in LE is going to get in trouble for extending a little courtesy to their contemporaries, just as nobody in the military is going to get in trouble for getting a ***** despite both being against the law. 

 

I think you got my point quite well. You just tried to make it sound ridiculous once you realized how invalid it makes your idiotic argument. 

 

If you worked as a cop with “Frank” and pulled Frank over for going 10 mph over the limit you would NOT give Frank a ticket. You’d say ‘oh hi Frank, have a great day’ just as any other cop would. If you found that Frank was guilty of racketeering that’s another story. 

 

When you try twisting your opponents point you’ve lost the argument. 

 

Galba. Cato the younger. Cromwell. All uncompromising, rigid idiots who all eventually lost. Because they were uncompromising. 

Edited December 21, 2018 by The_Dude

[LeviF]

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Individuals who don't evenly enforce the law don't deserve the respect afforded the duty.

 

It's no different than the likes of the Clintons living by different standards than they would impose on others.

 

I've been known to cut people who are associated with police, military, etc. breaks here and there...but then I've also been known to cut people breaks with no such associations.  If they do things the right way, that is.

 

Fun story, recently I did an overtime detail looking for one specific violation of the law.  The way the law works, the same offense is categorized under the penal law as a felony, and under vehicle and traffic law as a violation.  So whenever someone possesses this particular item, there are two options: ticket or arrest.  I always ticket for this unless it's in the furtherance of terrorism, significant fraud, or they're being a real *****.

Got one girl who was acting belligerent and talking about how her dad was a state trooper.  My response: "great, let me get his number."  Call him up and explain the situation to him, knowing he knows the law back and forth.  He understands completely and asks to talk to his daughter.  Her face went from smug to tail-between-the-legs really quickly, and I hear him screaming.  She hands the phone back to me and he says, "thanks for the heads up, we won't ask for a supporting dep." 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

I've been known to cut people who are associated with police, military, etc. breaks here and there...but then I've also been known to cut people breaks with no such associations.  If they do things the right way, that is.

 

Fun story, recently I did an overtime detail looking for one specific violation of the law.  The way the law works, the same offense is categorized under the penal law as a felony, and under vehicle and traffic law as a violation.  So whenever someone possesses this particular item, there are two options: ticket or arrest.  I always ticket for this unless it's in the furtherance of terrorism, significant fraud, or they're being a real *****.

Got one girl who was acting belligerent and talking about how her dad was a state trooper.  My response: "great, let me get his number."  Call him up and explain the situation to him, knowing he knows the law back and forth.  He understands completely and asks to talk to his daughter.  Her face went from smug to tail-between-the-legs really quickly, and I hear him screaming.  She hands the phone back to me and he says, "thanks for the heads up, we won't ask for a supporting dep." 

 

Discretionary policing is part of the job when done well, and uniformly.

 

This is entirely different than what I'm discussing.

 

 

17 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

No. My argument is that uncompromising idiots never get their way because reason prevails. 

 

Nobody in LE is going to get in trouble for extending a little courtesy to their contemporaries, just as nobody in the military is going to get in trouble for getting a ***** despite both being against the law. 

 

I think you got my point quite well. You just tried to make it sound ridiculous once you realized how invalid it makes your idiotic argument. 

 

If you worked as a cop with “Frank” and pulled Frank over for going 10 mph over the limit you would NOT give Frank a ticket. You’d say ‘oh hi Frank, have a great day’ just as any other cop would. If you found that Frank was guilty of racketeering that’s another story. 

 

When you try twisting your opponents point you’ve lost the argument. 

 

Galba. Cato the younger. Cromwell. All uncompromising, rigid idiots who all eventually lost. Because they were uncompromising. 

 

No, your argument is for a two tiered justice system, and used the existence of bad law as a justification.

 

That's both a poor argument, and a poorly made argument.

[The_Dude]

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

 

No, your argument is for a two tiered justice system, and used the existence of bad law as a justification.

 

That's both a poor argument, and a poorly made argument.

 

B-b-but the law is the law isn’t it? Every Joe who’s gotten his dick sucked should be dishonorably discharged by your logic. 

Edited December 21, 2018 by The_Dude

[TakeYouToTasker]

23 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

B-b-but the law is the law isn’t it? Every Joe who’s gotten his dick sucked should be dishonorably discharged by your logic. 

 

Again, you're making a poor argument, and doing it poorly.

 

The existence of bad law has nothing to do with the systemic unequal enforcement of law.

[The_Dude]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, you're making a poor argument, and doing it poorly.

 

The existence of bad law has nothing to do with the systemic unequal enforcement of law.

 

Sir, you inability to follow logic does not reflect poorly upon me, but it says plenty about you. 

 

A soldier not facing UCMJ consequences for an illegal sexual act (*****) while another soldier is punished by the UCMJ for wearing white socks is inarguably “unequal enforcement of law.” 

 

No commander however is dumb enough or “ethical” enough (by your standards) to implement the law equally because that would be retarded. 

 

 

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, you're making a poor argument, and doing it poorly.

 

The existence of bad law has nothing to do with the systemic unequal enforcement of law.

 

Correction: it shouldn't have anything to do with unequal enforcenemt.

 

As a practical matter it does, because too many people want laws - good and bad - amended or nullified by selective enforcement or non-enforcement.  See DACA, federal drug laws, etc.