Police behavior

[Valjean]

I would always like to hear both sides of the story. Also that was an event that occurred almost ten years ago. You may not realize it but crowding in jails is much worse then than it is now. Where I live one gets a pass if all the police find on someone is 2 grams or less of any drug:

http://mynorthwest.com/912497/drug-users-snohomish-county/?

Also I find it a bit dubious that his family could not afford three hundred dollars to spring their son. In case you did not read the bail was $3,000.00. If they had that much money they could have put that up themselves and they would have gotten it back when their son went to trial. Or else they could go to a bail bondsman that charges ten percent, that money is gone forever, and they often work financing plans with suspects or families where they have to pay half of that down and then pay the rest over time. This is almost as bad as a creationist pulling up a poorly sourced and out of date paper.

We're speaking generally now, about myriad cases of overzealous policing; about a long standing, institutional mind-set. There are plenty of more recent cases, and plenty of older ones. Yes, in some regions police are calm and helpful, but the job tends to attract authoritarian types, and the police are constantly dealing with a very vexing demographic. They're angry, they're annoyed, they're impatient, they're short-tempered and they're afraid. Many take it out on the community. The community, in turn, fears them.

Rare exceptions do not make your case. The officer that threw Patel down was arrested and will probably lose his job:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...es-awry/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8c64f74b2a4f

But this is not a rare exception. This happens -- and has been happening -- every day, all across the country.
Perhaps you haven't had much negative contact with the police. Maybe you're white, with short hair. Maybe you live in an upscale neighborhood. But this is the experience of many, many people.

 

[Shad]

I highly doubt that to be case.

I was providing an example of regulation which could be possible as she was sitting in a hall. A lot of government officials have their hands tied due to regulations and policy. The resolution you want may not be possible due to a regulation or policy.

 

[Shad]

I thought this was a social services office.

Yes. Hence it is not a "Sit where you want office"

 

[Koldo]

I was providing an example of regulation which could be possible as she was sitting in a hall. A lot of government officials have their hands tied due to regulations and policy. The resolution you want may not be possible due to a regulation or policy.

I highly doubt that those cops knew why they had to do any of that. Most likely someone just told them to do it and they obeyed. Reasonable application of the law didn't cross their minds.

 

[Shad]

I highly doubt that those cops knew why they had to do any of that.

The staff policy itself? Sure I do not think cops would know it. However cops would know about trespassing laws which is why they were called.

Most likely someone just told them to do it and they obeyed. Reasonable application of the law didn't cross their minds.

You are conflating reasonable force with application of law. She was trespassing there is no doubt about that.

 

[Koldo]

The staff policy itself? Sure I do not think cops would know it. However cops would know about trespassing laws which is why they were called.



You are conflating reasonable force with application of law. She was trespassing there is no doubt about that.

Not at all.
I am arguing that the proper application of the law ( any law) must extend beyond the letter of the law. Otherwise one will misinterpret its intent and not properly apply it.

 

[Shad]

Not at all.
I am arguing that the proper application of the law ( any law) must extend beyond the letter of the law.

Wrong. Cops are not granted the authority to interpret then apply that interpretation as law. A judge can and will determine if cop action followed the law or not and pass recommendation on to those involved for policy changes.

Name the law in question..... Make your argument for the applicable law not some generalization

Otherwise one will misinterpret its intent and not properly apply it.

Nope as your very idea above enables this to happen as you are spouting generalization instead of specific which I corrected you on already. More so trespassing laws are not open to interpretation. The only issue here is use of force, nothing more. Your babble opens up a lot to people to danger from citizens and cops due to your misguided idea of allowing cops to interpret law.

 

[Koldo]

Wrong. Cops are not granted the authority to interpret then apply that interpretation as law. A judge can and will determine if cop action followed the law or not and pass recommendation on to those involved for policy changes.

Name the law in question..... Make your argument for the applicable law not some generalization



Nope as your very idea above enables this to happen as you are spouting generalization instead of specific which I corrected you on already. More so trespassing laws are not open to interpretation. The only issue here is use of force, nothing more. Your babble opens up a lot to people to danger from citizens and cops due to your misguided idea of allowing cops to interpret law.

Anyone that enforces the law has to interpret it. There is no way around It. Otherwise how would they know what to enforce ?

For instance, what's your take on nullum crimen sine iniuria and minimis non curat praetor ?

 

[Shad]

Anyone that enforces the law has to interpret it.

Nope. Cops are not even required to take any course in laws. Ergo they are unqualified to interpret law. Courts interpret law as they are not only qualified by education but by professional requirement and government standards.

There is no way around It. Otherwise how would they know what to enforce ?

Knowing a law is not the same as interpreting a law.

For instance, what's your take on nullum crimen sine iniuria

This has nothing to do with cops interpreting the law

and minimis non curat praetor ?

This undermines your point.

 

[Curious George]

Anyone that enforces the law has to interpret it. There is no way around It. Otherwise how would they know what to enforce ?

For instance, what's your take on nullum crimen sine iniuria and minimis non curat praetor ?

I think you may be talking past each other. The principles that you are asking about matter in court. However police officers do have discretion. They can choose not to make an arrest for instance. This doesn't mean that their departments do not require them to write a report when someone is breaking the law. For traffic violations or other infractions cops can choose not to pursue any action. Bit the more involved the contact and the greater the crime, the more likely they will be required to make a report even if they do not make an arrest. The D.A. can later decide to pursue charges or the police can later start an investigation (as long as it is within the statute of limitations).

 

[Shad]

I think you may be talking past each other. The principles that you are asking about matter in court. However police officers do have discretion. They can choose not to make an arrest for instance. This doesn't mean that their departments do not require them to write a report when someone is breaking the law. For traffic violations or other infractions cops can choose not to pursue any action. Bit the more involved the contact and the greater the crime, the more likely they will be required to make a report even if they do not make an arrest. The D.A. can later decide to pursue charges or the police can later start an investigation (as long as it is within the statute of limitations).

I am using interpretation as a legal standpoint. Koldo is confusing interpretation of law with interpretation of events as being legal or not. Cop do the later not the former. Judges do both. While it seems like talking passed each other it isn't. It just mean I am using context and Koldo isn't.

 

[Koldo]

Nope. Cops are not even required to take any course in laws. Ergo they are unqualified to interpret law. Courts interpret law as they are not only qualified by education but by professional requirement and government standards.



Knowing a law is not the same as interpreting a law.



This has nothing to do with cops interpreting the law





This undermines your point.

You can't enforce the law if you can't interpret the law. Period. How do you get to know the law if you can't interpret it ?

Please do expand what's your take on both of those terms. If there's no significant injury or threat , where is the crime ?

 

[Curious George]

I am using interpretation as a legal standpoint. Koldo is confusing interpretation of law with interpretation of events as being legal or not. Cop do the later not the former. Judges do both.

I think that he is just thinking about a police officers discretion to not arrest or give a citation. This is most often seen with traffic laws and status offenses. However police can also use this discretion in other crimes as well and how much discretion they have is determined by the department. The police may not ultimately make a decision regarding interpretation or whether to pursue criminal charges, but their choices can certainly have an effect on the outcome. A police officer must determine for instance whether or not to arrest a person for "obstructing an investigation." If the police choose not to do so, then a DA is less likely to try to prosecute. And if the DA does not choose to prosecute no judge will ever interpret any law in the case.

It is almost semantics. The police do have discretion, they must make decisions regarding probable cause and arrest. The prosecutor must in turn make decisions regarding whether to prosecute, and the judge/jury must make decisions regardimg facts. While only the judge is "interpreting law" it is undeniable that the officers choices do impact many outcomes.

 

[Shad]

I think that he is just thinking about a police officers discretion to not arrest or give a citation.This is most often seen with traffic laws and status offenses. However police can also use this discretion in other crimes as well and how much discretion they have is determined by the department. The police may not ultimately make a decision regarding interpretation or whether to pursue criminal charges, but their choices can certainly have an effect on the outcome. A police officer must determine for instance whether or not to arrest a person for "obstructing an investigation." If the police choose not to do so, then a DA is less likely to try to prosecute. And if the DA does not choose to prosecute no judge will ever interpret any law in the case.

That isn't an interpretation of law but policy regarding consequences. The person still broke the law, they are not being punished for it.

It is almost semantics. The police do have discretion, they must make decisions regarding probable cause and arrest.

No. Discretion is not an interpretation of law

The prosecutor must in turn make decisions regarding whether to prosecute, and the judge/jury must make decisions regardimg facts. While only the judge is "interpreting law" it is undeniable that the officers choices do impact many outcomes.

Which covers far more than merely interpretations of law.

 

[Shad]

You can't enforce the law if you can't interpret the law.

Wrong as cops do not interpret the law they enforce interpretations of it

Please do expand what's your take on both of those terms. If there's no significant injury or threat , where is the crime ?

Injury and threats are no longer contained to the physical. Ergo financial laws such as fraud.

In context of this case or in general?

 

[Curious George]

That isn't an interpretation of law but policy regarding consequences. The person still broke the law, they are not being punished for it.

I don't think i said different.

No. Discretion is not an interpretation of law

Not quite sure what no means here as your point is not contrary to what I said.

Which covers far more than merely interpretations of law.

Yes, but you would have to really be trying to not understand him.

 

[Koldo]

Wrong as cops do not interpret the law they enforce interpretations of it

They still need to interpret the interpretations. Potato, patato.

Injury and threats are no longer contained to the physical. Ergo financial laws such as fraud.

In context of this case or in general?

This case in particular.