---%<---
>> Understandable but dangerous. A republic requires law officers that are
>> citizens first and cops second. Failing that we're better off with the
>> old hue and cry.
>
> Hmmm. Citizens manage to do plenty of killing -- in fact, most of
> it. I think you mean cops need to follow the law. Cops should not be
> criminals, which seems like a reasonable proposition.
Ideally they would not tolerate criminals among them.
> Cops, however, have special dispensation from the criminal laws that
> govern us ordinary citizens -- at least when carrying out their law
> enforcement duties. They can shoot fleeing felons under certain
> circumstances. We ordinary citizens can only shoot felons when they
> are in our homes committing felonies or when they are threatening to
> kill us or our friends. The "stand your ground" laws allow us ordinary
> citizen to shoot felon-ish people more freely -- which is good,
> because the planet is generally over-populated -- but certainly not
> when they are running away, or more often driving away. Cops can do
> that under the right circumstances, which is fine because some peoples
> just needs a kill'n.
It's not just legislation that makes judging cops different than
judging you and me, there is also ever increasing deference from the
courts, eg Graham v Connor for use of force.
> We citizens have decided through our republican representatives that
> cops should be given some slack when it comes to killing people. Now,
> cops don't get a free pass -- they can't kill people willy-nilly with
> ball-point pens like Jason Bourne or any character played by Liam
> Neeson. They must follow the law and only kill according to the rules.
> It's all about the rules.
What prevents them? Rules are great, enforcing them against the
enforcers is hard, and getting harder all the time.
> And about that hue and cry thing. Hueing and crying in the wrong
> neighborhood will just get you beaten and mugged by another five or
> six guys. They'll queue up behind the original perpetrator and wait
> their turn. It works sometimes, but not often. A lot of time the crowd
> is kind of creepy and just wants to watch.
That's exactly the problem with the hue and cry -- it only works when
you can rely on the mob called up to be on your side. It's great when
they're on you're side because the other guy is a thief, but it might be
be they're against him because he's not from around here, or he talks
funny, or he's the wrong color.
When the police act that way they're no improvement on the mob.
> Back in the old ambulance days, we used to get all sorts of creepy
> rubber-neckers who wanted to look at mangled people. I relied on the
> cops to keep them at bay. I relied on the cops for a lot of things.
Back in the day I played a lot of pickup volleyball with a bunch of cops
(my neighbor had a court by his house, and was a federal marshal). Good
times. I don't remember anyone going all Walter Sobchak, although
carrying (the ball) was rife.
> There were some people who really did want to help, but they usually
> weren't very helpful. I remember working a nighttime traffic accident
> way down on Monterey Road in SJ long before it was developed. This
> guy had been hit on his motorcycle and was lying in a ditch between
> the lanes. His girlfriend was elsewhere and being helped by my
> partner. I couldn't get any light on him from the rig and had to use
> my flashlight. He was unconscious -- which was a good thing because
> his leg was on backward and practically wrapped around his head, which
> would have totally freaked him out if he were awake. I had this
> helpful bystander hold my flashlight and illuminate the scene while I
> tried to untie the guy and get him in my groovy Hare traction splint.
> The light kind of wobbled, and then my helpful bystander passed
> out. So much for hew and cry. I got a cop to take over.
Once an ambulance dude asked me to lift the other end of one of those
collapsable gurneys. I didn't pass out, but there weren't any detached
legs to look at.
> You -- meaning you, and not the royal you -- have reason to distrust
> cops, and there is sure plenty of bad press about them killing people
> against the rules. I periodically have issues with cops, particularly
> the whole union protection thing and 24 hour wait before question (or
> sometimes 48). However, I relied on cops for many years to help me do
> my job and keep me safe in some really, really sketchy neighborhoods
> where citizens clearly did not follow the no-killing rules. I have
> some warm and fuzzy feelings about firemen, too (of course in a very
> hetero way. I mean, don't get me wrong . . . ).
I don't know where you get your ideas -- I am white, aging into
decrepitude, talk politely in a convincing American accent, live in a
nice middle class neighborhood ... I'm much more likely to be struck by
lightning than shot by a cop. You seem to be saying I shouldn't worry
for that reason, which is the kind of high standard that made the KKK
such an influential organization in our country.
I suspect few of your readers know what you mean about the 24 or 48 hour
wait, part of a "law enforcement bill of rights" negotiated by police
unions. A cop involved, say, in a questionable shooting, instead of
being hauled away immediately like an ordinary citizen, gets a chance to
go home, talk with his union rep and union-provided lawyer, and get his
story straight with all his cop buddies. It's a nice chance to turn "I
don't know" into "I feared for my life when I saw that autist reaching
for his waistband".
The biggest problem with police unions, in my opinion, is that they make
it way too hard to fire people who have shown by their behavior that
they're not cut out to be cops. Most of them don't belong in prison,
but they don't belong behind a badge, either.
--