Posted on 11/26/2002 11:43:30 AM PST by mrustow
I don't think cops deserve special treatment. But I think it is in our best interests if existing laws that protect all citizens were enforced when they were violated against the persons of cops. Once they realize that no one is backing them up, they will either go bad on us or give up, neither of which is a pleasant scenario.
Civil liberties are hugely important, but there has to be some allowance made for situational realities that exist in the inner city. That allowance is *NOT* to give cops even more privileges, but to make carrying concealed firearms a reality for all law-abiding citizens, one that will not result in punishment for self-defense.
Videotaping sounds like a good idea. I think most people are predisposed to accept some degree of sleight of hand on the part of interrogators (within reason of course), because that is how interrogations have been portrayed on TV and in Hollywood for decades. The only reasons a jury would find such behavior reprehensible and worthy of acquittal per se would be if 1) it *was* that bad 2)they were going to acquit the guy anyway and needed an excuse (card-carrying democrats, perhaps).
I think, Poohbah, some latitude should be permitted within interrogations, and I think it is a fairly clear line between subterfuge and coercion. The accused have many recourses that are the counterpoint of such subterfuge, especially summoning a lawyer, the 5th amendment, due process...
On an aside, there was some government bigwig visiting the business school building of my university today, I don't know which bigwig but the guy who built the school (Huntsman) has such luminaries as Dick Cheney on his list of personal friends, so I can imagine. Anyway, when I went to park my bicycle out in front, I was summarily ordered to leave by some suit and his jackbooted (literally) police associate. No "Excuse me sir, but could you move your bike elsewhere" but rather a peremptory "Get out of here". Some long repressed hatred of authority welled up within me; I wanted to ask the trooper if he got his outfit at the Gestapo Surplus. But I moved quietly. Then as I went to meet with a professor there some bodyguard/secret service type guy dominating the hallway. Since when people stare at me I am wont to stare back, I was the focus of his attention. I know they were just doing their jobs, but I hate being treated like a criminal when I am so obviously just going about my business. Perhaps that is why my usual general affection for policemen is not there today...I dunno.
I never said "less". I just get sick of all the cheerleaders trying to make me care more. They're the same as the rest of us, no more and no less.
Here's the problem with your position: although a policeman's life is intrinsically no more valuable than anyone else's, not only do police widows think otherwise, so do crooks, and 95% of civilians. Treating cop killings the same as ordinary murders won't result in a much-desired evenhandedness, but will result in all murders getting second-class treatment.
I can't believe it.
Sounds like a GDed war zone!
Nicely put on the remainder of what you'd said, too.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Scanning a few of the topics at the geek's *archive* made me wanna puke.
~'nuff said.
One last thing, though.
You're not actually paying for that rag?
...are you?
Sounds about right to me. Also sounds like a recipe for chasing good men away from The Job.
He dealt with Mumia in an earlier article for the same outfit.
I don't think cops deserve special treatment. But I think it is in our best interests if existing laws that protect all citizens were enforced when they were violated against the persons of cops. Once they realize that no one is backing them up, they will either go bad on us or give up, neither of which is a pleasant scenario.
True.
Civil liberties are hugely important, but there has to be some allowance made for situational realities that exist in the inner city. That allowance is *NOT* to give cops even more privileges, but to make carrying concealed firearms a reality for all law-abiding citizens, one that will not result in punishment for self-defense.
Actually, since the Second Amendment applies to all law-abiding citizens, no special allowances need be made for the slums. We need only respect folks' Second Amendment rights the same in the slums as in the suburbs.
Although I no longer run around defending the police, that statement still sounds a bit one-sided to me.
"A few years later, Goetz, already penniless from his ordeal, was sued in civil court by the young man he shot twice and lost, to the tune of, I believe, $2,000,000."
Unbelievable.
I'm speechless.
"About five years later (ca. 1989), a middle-aged white man being beaten and robbed by a black gang, drew his weapon and killed one robber. For weeks thereafter, the NYPD pleaded with the man to turn himself in, but he fortunately had the good sense to ignore the cops."
Well, as I already said, my friend.
Won't take people too long to figure out what to do.
...&, more importantly what not to do.
Forgive my incoherence. What I meant to do was draw the contrast between what usually follows the first statement of that paragraph (either "so the police need to have the equivalent of martial law, zero tolerance, etc" or "so we have to understand the root causes of crime and help minorities bla bla bla") and what the actual solution is, which is removing arbitrary constraints from the citizenry. But I am pleased we are in agreement, even through my garbled prose.
What the heck is your problem? I already said I dont care what some court "ruled". I made no "legal claim" other than a claim based upon common law. Police claiming they have evidence, when they do not, is fraud. Plain and simple. If you wont realize you have a brain, and recognize this as fraud regardless of what some MEN "ruled", then you are beyond my help.
Very important point. As per the Constitution, on the federal level the solution to this problem flows from a better man getting elected, since it is the President who appoints federal judges.
Oops! I just remembered that socialists have a postmodern interpretation of the Constitution, according to which there is no author, and they can interpret it any way they wish. And their interpretation is that the choosing of federal judges is the sole prerogative of the Democratic Party. And so they subverted the President's prerogative for the past two years, and are still prattling on that he has gone from having "no mandate to govern" to having a "limited mandate."
(Not to mention their little game of trying to impose last minute, lame duck executive orders that they never had to endure on a GOP president.)
In any event, Bush must now cram four years of work into two years, with no rectification for the damage done the first two years. However, I think he's then going to get another four years to work on things. Now the question is, will he do the right thing?
On the local and state level, of course, the solutions are different. I live in New York City, which shall remain a law-free area for the foreseeable future.
What the heck is your problem? I already said I dont care what some court "ruled". I made no "legal claim" other than a claim based upon common law. Police claiming they have evidence, when they do not, is fraud. Plain and simple. If you wont realize you have a brain, and recognize this as fraud regardless of what some MEN "ruled", then you are beyond my help.
First, you made a veiled theological claim, but wouldn't come clean. Now you switch to "common law." Another poster made a simple, straightforward argument for the same position without playing your games.
Like I said, fraud is obvious to most people, and I had no wish to explain it to you. I like to use Biblical references because so many here like to use the Bible as justifications for all sorts of things. Hence, I ask "does a man-made court overrule the Bible?". Meaning, if a court says, "Sure, you can lie to get information from a suspect", then God's opinion on baring false witness is moot?
After all, we had seen them following a similar policy in the realm of criminal justice for years but had never dared to articulate the conclusion made obvious by the points of their agenda: the Left hates their fellow Americans, and they want us to die.
Yup. I'll add to that only that those lefties traditionally referred to as "dupes" or "sympathizers" are simply those who refuse to openly identify their loyalties, or rather disloyalties, and those who refuse to think out the consequences of their choices.
Like I said, fraud is obvious to most people, and I had no wish to explain it to you. I like to use Biblical references because so many here like to use the Bible as justifications for all sorts of things. Hence, I ask "does a man-made court overrule the Bible?". Meaning, if a court says, "Sure, you can lie to get information from a suspect", then God's opinion on baring false witness is moot?
The question "does a man-made court overrule the Bible" is not a legitimate question. The Bible says a lot of things, e.g., that an adulterer must be publicly stoned to death, and that certain fibers may not be used with others. Some say the Bible forbids the eating of pork, while others see no such prohibition. So, even the superficially simple answer of placing the Bible as ultimate court of appeal, instead of ending debate, only begins it. So, no, that won't cut it, on the issue of police deception.
And so I do not yet see a convincing argument against deception in dealing with the guilty.
LOL! Thanksgiving bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.