By "understandable", I did not mean justifiable. I simply meant it is understandable why some law men operate outside the boundaries of the law when they see the media cheerleading for criminals who constantly get excused for doing much worse.
In an ideal world, all law men would have an attitude comparable to Tom Selleck on Blue Bloods. Even in today's world, they should strive for that same attitude. I'm just saying that people like you and Selleck's character will be increasingly harder to find, recruit and train given the wanton corruption in the law which is not only tolerated but celebrated by far too many of those entrusted to protect it.
Thank you. I was a maverick; meaning, I was a strict observer of due process. That is shunned by some, but it was invaluable to me, because I know what it means to lose your freedom - and I had many close, personal ties to *that* line of work.
I disdained abuses of authority, unlike some distant colleagues of modernity who do not understand how close to losing freedom, they could be - ie how “life trips you up.” I was much more informal, I refused to particpate in the compromising and abuse of authority. It’s a real uncomfortable feeling when a colleague goes even slightly rogue, if you’re a person who cares.
I preferred the company of the old guard, which were still around. A fellow, a really decent USSS, was also strict about due process. I asked him to run through the ID drill, and he complied exactly as he should. (I later saw him on Reagan’s detail before the 1980 November election.)
A proper ID display procedure by a fed, is to present two photo ID’s plus your shield. The formal USSS ID was, way back then, a splend array of almost all the requirements. It was all arranged within a small diploma-like booklet that you opened up -— I’ve never seen it portrayed in any movie. The shield, the statutes, and a good photo. The statutes state at least the authority to operate in the capacity of federal agent - the general scope of your duties. A second ID could be a federal drivers license ID.
I’ve completely forgotten all the statutes, it was so long ago (though for some reason, USC 1872 rings a bell). But I have not forgotten, that we were required to respond to questions from citizens. If a citizen stopped us and inquired, we *dutifully* ID’d ourselves and would explain some things.
The idea there, was that people relaxed when they realized, that they were in touch with the law ... instead of being bullied around or pushed around by some federal strumpet, Hollywood wannabe. It turns out, that people *like* knowing more about the law.
You had to be able to tell the *good* judge, that you saw in the countenance of the person, an acknowledgement of the authority that you represented. But usually before that, and always in my case, an explanation of things would get a person to *see the law* and do the right thing. I refused to bait or to nudge anybody toward the wrong direction. Instead, it was, “This statute says this, and then if you go to _____ then the consequence is _______” and the citizen did the math.
BTW, we were *required* to wear sunglasses. That is so, somebody has a bit more difficulty trying to claim that you oggled his daughter while seizing his contraband.
BTW2, I double check the procedures once in a while; I compared notes last, with a fellow who was on the protection detail for U.S. Senator “Pete” Domenici. An intriguing former deputy U.S. Marshal who had retired and then was asked to be on that detail; and then retired again; but returned to be a U.S. Air Marshal on U.S. < - > Central America flights for Delta Airlines.
BTW3, I made no career out of it, and my time was short, but instructive ... and in some cases, hard lessons learned: I was glad to get away from the bad eggs. I had been spoiled in a previous life (is how I have to put it), by men of greater integrity who risked much for our freedom.