Emmanuel Goldstein

The COVID thread

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Colirio said:

 


You seem to be giving ample latitude to the officer’s actions based on the thought process that he simply made a mistake. An error in judgment shouldn’t warrant harsh action in your opinion. I would agree with you in this thought process. 
 

My understanding, however, is that the department admitted that there was overreach. I interpret that as meaning he did not act appropriately given the situation. In other words, he didn’t do what he should have done. He didn’t follow protocol. He broke the rules. 
 

There needs to be a stiff recourse of action towards people in authority who abuse that authority. 

I would interpret the situation differently.

The police department gets a call.  The call says that 12-15 people are gathering in the park (as per the reports in the news).

The police get there and tell people they have to leave.  The REASON they give is that the park is closed due to the stay-at-home.  This is actually incorrect.  They understood one thing, but it was incorrect.  HOWEVER, there was STILL the distancing order, so technically, even though the reason was wrong, the people were STILL breaking the order.

Most of them dispersed, however one man did not. He stayed along with his daughter at the field.

Now, onto speculation on my part.  He felt that as there was no one there, he was keeping the social distancing order.  The police still thought the park was supposed to be closed, and as it was government property that they felt was officially closed they arrested him for disobeying.  At this point, seeing some contention at the park, a city council member (if I understand right, and WHY did the council member NOT correct them or inform them of the right instructions as technically the department would be under the city council.  This stinks of politics).

Back to the non-speculation.  They cuffed him and put him in the back of the car and called it in.  Conversation took place and they found that they had to release him.  They did so.  It took around 10 minutes in the back of their car. 

The video goes viral and people complain.  The department releases several statements over the next few days. 

Now, speculation again.   Was it over reach?  Probably.  Why?  Because, though they individuals were supposed to disperse as per the social distancing orders, once they were all gone, the father and his daughter were techinically in the right.  He should not have been arrested on that ground.

Does it set a dangerous situation for the police.  Yes.  If they had ALL not agreed to disperse, and remained a crowd, not only does the risk of infection rise, but then all of them are disobeying the governor's order and the man and his daughter would be in violation of it along with everyone else.  If everyone took the same stance as the man in all they do, then the spread of infection rises dramatically which is what the governor's orders were to try to avoid in the first place.

I can see how legally the police did an over reach and legally, on a technicality, this man was correct and his arrest was an overreach.  In a broader sense, if every citizen took this stance they would all violate the order.  Hence, while he was correct because everyone but him obeyed the social distancing ideas, if they had not, he would actually have been in the wrong.  The ONLY reason he is legally right is because EVERYONE ELSE did what they should, while HE...did not.  Thus, they left while he stayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

HOWEVER, there was STILL the distancing order, so technically, even though the reason was wrong, the people were STILL breaking the order.

 

Your entire argument is based on this premise and you are 100% incorrect.  Please read the order before you make false statements.  I've pointed this out to you already.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grunt said:

Just detained.  To be fair, I believe he was detained because he refused to identify himself.  I read that in one report, and if true that would give the police reason to detain.  
 

This goes to my earlier point of escalation based on a false belief on behalf of the officer.   

In Colorado the law is

Quote

In Colorado, this law gives law enforcement officers the authority to require you to identify yourself if the officer reasonably suspects you are committing, have committed or are about to commit a crime.

At the time, they had asked the crowd to disperse.  They crowd did so, this man did not.

The REASON they gave was that the park was officially closed.  The law may have included this at one time but at the moment this was not in the government's orders. Thus it was incorrect.  HOWEVER, social distancing rules were. 

It appears he refused to leave, and in doing so the police felt he was breaking the current laws.  They asked him to show identification.  This does not mean they were going to arrest or detain him at that point.

This is similar to a traffic stop.  IF you get pulled over, the police can ask for identification.  When someone refuses, it raises suspicions.  In some departments, when this occurs, the regulation is to either get the identification or detain the individual until they can actually check out who they are. Part of this is due to the war on drugs.

In our area, the Highway patrol regularly pulls over vehicles and asks for identification.  If they refuse (for example, by saying they broke no laws) the police do the same thing, except they ALSO normally use it as justification for a vehicle search for drugs.  They arrest a LOT of people with drugs in this manner (and something I do not agree with, they also seize a LOT of vehicles this way).  It does not matter if you committed a crime or not in your eyes, whether you claim it or not...they still do this.

In this situation, rather than argue with them, my best advice is to either comply, or get ahold of a lawyer as quickly as possible and stay quiet.

in that, they were incorrect in their assumption he was committing a crime (and I feel it was due to a technicality), but when he refused to present ID, that creates an instant suspicion for many officers due to training on various things drug traffickers and others do to avoid arrest.

Is this a problem with our current justice system (with or without the current pandemic)?  Possibly.  I do not agree with the idea that police departments can seize property indiscriminately and sell it just due to the suspicion of a crime, but unfortunately, that is how it works in some areas of our nation today.  Detainment works for other measures to in cooling people down, letting tempers cool a little, and other items to avoid deadlier encounters later.  Is it overused in some instance?  Perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

In Colorado the law is

At the time, they had asked the crowd to disperse.  They crowd did so, this man did not.

The REASON they gave was that the park was officially closed.  The law may have included this at one time but at the moment this was not in the government's orders. Thus it was incorrect.  HOWEVER, social distancing rules were. 

It appears he refused to leave, and in doing so the police felt he was breaking the current laws.  They asked him to show identification.  This does not mean they were going to arrest or detain him at that point.

This is similar to a traffic stop.  IF you get pulled over, the police can ask for identification.  When someone refuses, it raises suspicions.  In some departments, when this occurs, the regulation is to either get the identification or detain the individual until they can actually check out who they are. Part of this is due to the war on drugs.

In our area, the Highway patrol regularly pulls over vehicles and asks for identification.  If they refuse (for example, by saying they broke no laws) the police do the same thing, except they ALSO normally use it as justification for a vehicle search for drugs.  They arrest a LOT of people with drugs in this manner (and something I do not agree with, they also seize a LOT of vehicles this way).  It does not matter if you committed a crime or not in your eyes, whether you claim it or not...they still do this.

In this situation, rather than argue with them, my best advice is to either comply, or get ahold of a lawyer as quickly as possible and stay quiet.

in that, they were incorrect in their assumption he was committing a crime (and I feel it was due to a technicality), but when he refused to present ID, that creates an instant suspicion for many officers due to training on various things drug traffickers and others do to avoid arrest.

Is this a problem with our current justice system (with or without the current pandemic)?  Possibly.  I do not agree with the idea that police departments can seize property indiscriminately and sell it just due to the suspicion of a crime, but unfortunately, that is how it works in some areas of our nation today.  Detainment works for other measures to in cooling people down, letting tempers cool a little, and other items to avoid deadlier encounters later.  Is it overused in some instance?  Perhaps.

False.  This is not similar to a traffic stop.  Driving is a privilege that requires licensure.  Existence is a right that does not.  

The fact that refusing to identify yourself creates suspicion with an officer is irrelevant.  He was not required to identify himself as he was not committing a crime.  He was a former police officer himself.  He knew the law better than these police.  

You're arguing just to argue.  He was violating no law.  He was violating no fake "social distancing rule".  He was completely within his right to do everything he did.  They overstepped their authority.  The police department admits this.  I'm not sure why you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
23 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You're arguing just to argue.

Welcome to the internet bud. First day here?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Your entire argument is based on this premise and you are 100% incorrect.  Please read the order before you make false statements.  I've pointed this out to you already.

I did a little bit more research into the matter since I was last in the thread to be better informed.  The order actually, in my opinion, that is currently out, would justify the police actions FAR more to be honest.

Colorado governments official stay at home page 

 

Quote

All people in Colorado must follow the letter and the spirit of these orders. Do not try to bend the rules or find loopholes. It’s up to us all to keep people safe and build up our health care system so we can treat people who are sick and save lives.

In addition

Quote

What does this mean for the average person in Colorado?

You must stay home as much as possible. You can leave your home to do a limited number of specific things.

When you go out, you must follow Social Distancing Requirements, which are below in a separate question.

People at high-risk of severe illness from COVID-19 are strongly encouraged to stay in their residence at all times, except when they need to get necessary medical care. Necessary medical care does not include most “elective,” procedures, which currently are prohibited.

People who have COVID-19 symptoms must self-isolate or have a negative test result. Testing is still limited at this time, so self-isolating when you are ill is the best course of action. Please read how to isolate, which includes symptoms.

Only essential travel is allowed.

Sick people must not go to work.

How long does it last ?

Stay-at-Home (20-24) started March 26, 2020 and lasts through April 26, 2020. Closing Certain Businesses (20-22) went into effect March 16, 2020 and ends April 30, 2020.  These orders may be extended, changed, ended or replaced, so it is important to follow local sources of good information, like the website covid19.colorado.gov. 
 

What are necessary activities?

Activities, tasks and errands you must do to keep yourself, your family, and your household members safe and healthy. Necessary activities include:

Getting essential medical care, medical supplies and equipment, and medicine.

Getting food and supplies for yourself, your animals, your family, and your household members. That means the supplies you need to live a healthy life, keep a safe and healthy home, and get supplies you need to work or learn at home.

Caring for a family member, vulnerable person, or animals that are in a different location than your home.

Walking your dog or feeding animals.

Outdoor activities such as walking, hiking, cross-country skiing, running, etc. Group sports or activities that would break Social Distancing Requirements are prohibited. 

Going to work or providing essential products and services for a critical business or critical government function. It can be hard to figure out what is considered essential or critical. We encourage people to understand what’s in the order and follow it closely.

The order is here

Colorado Stay at home order

The Know your Rights from the ACLU has a PDF from the official Colorado page here...

KYR Colorado

Quote

An officer may approach you on the street and ask you questions for any reason. If you are not being detained or are not under arrest, you have the right to not talk to the officer. If you want to exercise that right, simply ask, “Am I free to go?” If the answer is yes, you have the right to say, “I do not want to talk to you” and walk away.

-----------------------------------------------------

If the officer says that you are not free to go, then you are being detained. In Colorado, a police officer may detain you for a reasonable period of time if he or she has a reasonable suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity.4 Being detained is not a full arrest, though an arrest could follow.

 

My guess is that the individual was trying to bend the rules or find loopholes.

The BIGGER question is why his superior simply took film of it rather than clarifying it.  If the officers were mistaken, perhaps the people who hire the officers and control the department who was apparently watching the whole thing at a distance should have stepped in.

In addition, the OTHER witnesses (which the media for the most part have NOT included because it invalidates their story to a large degree that the man was alone and was justified in arguing with the police) would seem to be able to corroborate the police officers story thus far, though that still does not let them off on the technicality of overreach from the officers for him being there without others except for a family member.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I did a little bit more research into the matter since I was last in the thread to be better informed.  The order actually, in my opinion, that is currently out, would justify the police actions FAR more to be honest.

Colorado governments official stay at home page 

 

The Know your Rights from the ACLU has a PDF from the official Colorado page here...

KYR Colorado

My guess is that the individual was trying to bend the rules or find loopholes.

The BIGGER question is why his superior simply took film of it rather than clarifying it.  If the officers were mistaken, perhaps the people who hire the officers and control the department who was apparently watching the whole thing at a distance should have stepped in.

Huh?  The order SPECIFICALLY states you can visit parks for exercise and recreation, providing you maintain distancing requirements.  The park SPECIFICALLY states groups of 4 or less.  

Your "guess" doesn't matter.  The facts do.
 

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Huh?  The order SPECIFICALLY states you can visit parks for exercise and recreation, providing you maintain distancing requirements.  The park SPECIFICALLY states groups of 4 or less.  

Your "guess" doesn't matter.  The facts do.
 

You are correct, and I added a little above.

Witnesses that the media does not seem to want to include for the most part (a few more minor ones do) as it does not make the story as sensational seem to also corroborate that there were a group of people playing at the park together, NOT obeying social distancing rules.  This is why the police were called there in the first place.

HOWEVER, they also say this directly on the top of the page.

Quote

All people in Colorado must follow the letter and the spirit of these orders. Do not try to bend the rules or find loopholes. It’s up to us all to keep people safe and build up our health care system so we can treat people who are sick and save lives.

It appears that originally he was NOT obeying the rules.  ONLY after the crowd dispersed was he actually following the rules...because everyone else WAS obeying the rules and dispersed. 

This WOULD fall to opinion...I would say he basically was bending the rules and finding a loophole, or trying to.  You may see that he was not.

And that's okay, it just means our opinions diverge on this.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You are correct, and I added a little above.

Witnesses that the media does not seem to want to include for the most part (a few more minor ones do) as it does not make the story as sensational seem to also corroborate that there were a group of people playing at the park together, NOT obeying social distancing rules.  This is why the police were called there in the first place.

HOWEVER, they also say this directly on the top of the page.

 

Quote

3. Engaging in outdoor activity, such as, by way of example and without limitation,
walking, hiking, nordic skiing, snowshoeing, biking or running. For purposes of
outdoor activity, State parks will remain open to the public who live in the
vicinity to engage in walking, hiking, biking, running, and similar outdoor
activities but all playgrounds, picnic areas, other similar areas conducive to public
gathering, and attended areas shall be closed. For other parks, check with the local
jurisdiction and follow any requirements for that jurisdiction. Additionally, the
permitted outdoor activities in this PHO do not include activities that would
violate the Social Distancing Requirements defined in Section III.F, below.

Again, you're arguing just to argue.  He was in compliance with the law, period.  The cops realized that.  The other people at the park videoing the incident realized that.  The town administrator realized that.  The police department realized that.  

I can't help it if you don't.  You're right about one thing, though.  I am correct.  I'm not sure why you're continuing after that acknowledgement.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what all the people actually involved in this incident are doing right now?

I don't know either, BUT I would guess, they are probably enjoying life and getting ready to eat a scrumptious luuuuunnnnch.    (What are you supposed to do on a lunch break at work without food, stare at the ceiling?)

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Again, you're arguing just to argue.  He was in compliance with the law, period.  The cops realized that.  The other people at the park videoing the incident realized that.  The town administrator realized that.  The police department realized that.  

I can't help it if you don't.

Uhh, one of the people in charge of the police was right there watching them.   For some reason they didn't stop the police at the time.

He was in compliance and I explained why I feel it was over reach. 

I added this above

Quote

It appears that originally he was NOT obeying the rules.  ONLY after the crowd dispersed was he actually following the rules...because everyone else WAS obeying the rules and dispersed. 

This WOULD fall to opinion...I would say he basically was bending the rules and finding a loophole, or trying to.  You may see that he was not.

And that's okay, it just means our opinions diverge on this.

We may disagree on this, that's okay. 

I was discussing it with @Colirio on this particular idea and expressing my opinions in relation to his.  It was trying to respond in regards to his discussion.

I thought we had already established your thoughts on this earlier in the thread and I understood that you felt the way (you have again repeated it) that you have expressed.  You feel the police officers were wrong and should be jailed.  I understand your viewpoint.  I am not arguing that this is not your opinion.  I had something different I was trying to find out from you.

The item that I was trying to clarify with you earlier, as I think we had already established your thoughts on this was the part I was not clear about on your part.

This particular case seems to deal with police powers and justice in general, whether there is a stay at home order or not.  It deals with over reach, and what should or should not be acceptable.  We already established your thoughts regarding this situation earlier, but not in regards to the original idea that was being addressed at first.

I was confused in this as to what your stance therefore was in regards to the pandemic and government over reach.  Some feel that the government is using the pandemic to create situations that they can later refer to in order to institute laws that would take our freedoms and liberties away.  I thought that you were agreeing with this idea, but your responses in regards to the police arrests indicate that you may have something different or more nuanced.  I was trying to pursue this earlier for clarification.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

You know what all the people actually involved in this incident are doing right now?

I don't know either, BUT I would guess, they are probably enjoying life and getting ready to eat a scrumptious luuuuunnnnch.    (What are you supposed to do on a lunch break at work without food, stare at the ceiling?)

Browse the forum and catch up on the news?

I almost drank some water today until I reminded myself.  I had gone out early to go do our weekly shopping and was thirsty afterwards.  Just washed my hands and went to get some water as to drink as well as to boil some eggs when I remembered that I had started a fast last night.  Stopped and started reading posts here instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

You know what all the people actually involved in this incident are doing right now?

I don't know either, BUT I would guess, they are probably enjoying life and getting ready to eat a scrumptious luuuuunnnnch.    (What are you supposed to do on a lunch break at work without food, stare at the ceiling?)

I don't know.  The last I checked the person who's civil liberties were violated was pretty angry and sharing that with anyone who would listen.  If I could offer my own guess, it would be that he's lawyering up to get a pay day from the tax payers because of the officer's overreach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't know.  The last I checked the person who's civil liberties were violated was pretty angry and sharing that with anyone who would listen.  If I could offer my own guess, it would be that he's lawyering up to get a pay day from the tax payers because of the officer's overreach.

Perhaps, but first.... probably getting lunch.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grunt said:

If it is determined that the police violated that persons civil liberty and detained him without cause, what do you think should happen to the officer?

Corrective action, taking everything into consideration.  "Bad cops" should be fired, possibly tried & convicted.  "Good cop having a bad day" should get mandatory training, a mark on the record, they should figure out why he had a bad day and fix it so he doesn't have any more bad days.  "He did what he was trained to do" is indicative of a higher problem, that needs to be addressed at a higher level.  "Innocent mistake with minimal consequences because of new/insufficient training"  - fix the training.  "Guy is just a jerk on a power trip" - needs serious consideration and action.  Reassigned to a desk job?  Reduction in rank/pay?  History of this or something new? 

Quote

What do you think should be the status of the officer while the investigation is ongoing?  If the citizen told the officer to pound sand and walked away from him and was injured in the detention, does that change your answer to either question above?

If based on the last question he was also charged with assaulting a police officer while defending his detention, should that charge stand?

What if he were killed resisting the detention?

For something minor like an unjust detainment with no real harm done, he should be on the streets doing his job while the investigation is conducted.  If someone was harmed/hurt/injured/killed, obviously my answer would change.   If his bosses and peers all know he's just a jerk on a power trip or unhinged or dangerous or something, of course something more serious should happen.  It also depends on the laws in his area.  Can a cop ID with no reason, or not?  I don't know.  Was the cop trained adequately on the recent changes due to Covid?  

 

Quote

What if you were walking across my lawn and I handcuffed you, put you in my car, then drove you off my property?  What would you expect to happen to me?  What if I falsely believed I had that authority because you were on my property?

There are citizen's arrest laws on the books of every state.  I've looked mine up for Colorado - basically, I can make a citizen's arrest for anything a cop can.  I do not get to arrest someone for trespassing.  I get to tell a trespasser to leave, then call the cops who issues a trespass warning, and if it's unheeded, then an arrest happens.  Sort of like what happened in this news story.

Fun Colorado case law: A homeowner shot a guy in the back who was leaving his property, and the killing was ruled justified.  The guy had threatened a family member, and said he'd be right back to kill people, so the court found he was acting on reasonable fear of immediate harm to his family.

Your state's mileage may vary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
49 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fun Colorado case law: A homeowner shot a guy in the back who was leaving his property, and the killing was ruled justified.  The guy had threatened a family member, and said he'd be right back to kill people, so the court found he was acting on reasonable fear of immediate harm to his family.

 

In all seriousness, even a justifiable defense of your family leading to the death of someone else isn't really "fun". I'm 99% sure that most cops don't enjoy killing bad guys, even when it is necessary, valid, legal, and the right thing to do. If you meet someone who enjoys killing people-even in the "best" scenarios, that person is sick.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Colirio said:


You misspelled “I-m s-o-r-r-y.” 

Nope I did not.. I do not apologize for standing up to those advocating vigilantism instead of justice when the system is working.

The wrong has been righted, and the perpetrator, is being investigated and dealt with by the systems set in place to handle them.  And there is redundancy in those system, including the victim suing.

Those that are trotting this out example of a failed system are to busy being blinded by their own self interest and hobby horses to recognize truth. And that truth is as of what we know right now this is an perfect example of the system working, and self correcting when something goes wrong.  The only thing better then that would be a perfect system where nothing goes wrong... and as long as we have imperfect people we can never have a perfect system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Nope I did not.. I do not apologize for standing up to those advocating vigilantism instead of justice when the system is working.
 

 

🤪

vig·i·lan·tism
/ˌvijəˈlan(t)(ē)ˌizəm/
 
noun
noun: vigilantism
law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.
 

Someone on an Internet forum speaking to how they wish the laws were different is not “advocating vigilantism.” Nobody in this thread has suggested that someone outside of a legal authority should take the law into their own hands. 
 

As nobody has “advocated vigilantism“ in this thread, perhaps you should do as you demanded earlier and quote it or apologize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Colirio said:

 

🤪

vig·i·lan·tism
/ˌvijəˈlan(t)(ē)ˌizəm/
 
noun
noun: vigilantism
law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.
 

Someone on an Internet forum speaking to how they wish the laws were different is not “advocating vigilantism.” Nobody in this thread has suggested that someone outside of a legal authority should take the law into their own hands. 
 

As nobody has “advocated vigilantism“ in this thread, perhaps you should do as you demanded earlier and quote it or apologize. 

He's still spelling "sorry" incorrectly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the Virus and it's effect, we were able to find toilet paper (I should clarify, as I have found rolls for sale at a gas station, we found it actually in the grocery store!).  It seems to be making an appearance now and again in our stores.  Sections that had been empty now seem to have some stuff in them.  I hear of rumors of supply chain problems though, and the price of meat has gone much higher.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

As nobody has “advocated vigilantism“ in this thread, perhaps you should do as you demanded earlier and quote it or apologize. 

 

Ok

32 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Speaking of lying, who advocated for vigilantism?

 

You did right here.

 

On 4/9/2020 at 11:33 AM, Grunt said:

I want him in jail pending trial.  

No respect for due process or those running the investigation Grunt wants him in jail now based on what he understand the evidence to be.

Please note Grunt did not say "this is an example of why I want the existing laws to be changed"

Again it was

On 4/9/2020 at 11:33 AM, Grunt said:

I want him in jail pending trial.  

Also please note I have answered the challenge wereas Grunt has not, nor has he spelled apologized correctly either (and the challenge to him was issued first)  I can take what I am dishing out.  Does not appear that he can.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Ok

 

You did right here.

 

No respect for due process or those running the investigation Grunt wants him in jail now based on what he understand the evidence to be.

Please note Grunt did not say "this is an example of why I want the existing laws to be changed"

Again it was

Also please note I have answered the challenge wereas Grunt has not, nor has he spelled apologized correctly either (and the challenge to him was issued first)  I can take what I am dishing out.  Does not appear that he can.

 

You're still lying.  I didn't say I wanted him beaten.  I didn't say I wanted him hung.  I said in jail pending trial.  That's due process for kidnapping, after all.  You get arrested, jailed, and tried.  That's what happens to kidnappers.

Well, unless you're a cop.  Then it's called a "mistake" or an "overreach:" and you get paid time off and more training.

It's quite plain to anyone with a lukewarm IQ and a sense of honesty that I wasn't advocating for people to take matters into their own hands.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Grunt said:

You're still lying.  I didn't say I wanted him beaten.  I didn't say I wanted him hung.  I said in jail pending trial.  That's due process for kidnapping, after all.  You get arrested, jailed, and tried.  That's what happens to kidnappers.

Well, unless you're a cop.  Then it's called a "mistake" or an "overreach:" and you get paid time off and more training.

It's quite plain to anyone with a lukewarm IQ and a sense of honesty that I wasn't advocating for people to take matters into their own hands.

This has nothing to do with the virus...but as we are still discussing this...

On your position, it's not necessarily this situation specifically, though it applies.  It is in general with many of the powers given to police today.

If I understand you correctly, there are things that police currently do that give them too much power.  They have the power to confine, restrict, or deny someone's freedom.  Sometimes they can do these with impunity.

Talking to this point (rather than anything dealing with the virus itself) and discarding the conversation about the specific event in Brighton, I actually agree a little bit with this.

I think that police in more recent years HAVE gotten a few too many powers that can lead to abuse.

One of these is Search and Seizure.  Police have the ability in some areas to search a vehicle without a warrant and if they find anything in relation to what they think is a suspicion of a crime (not that a crime necessarily has taken place) they can seize the vehicle.  I do not agree with illegal marijuana usage, but they have used this to seize vehicles in my area.  It has generated a great amount of income.  I feel it is a disproportionate punishment.  If the fine is several hundred dollars, taking someone's vehicle because they had marijuana in it and selling it for several thousand dollars is actually circumventing the ideas of crime and punishment.  They are causing more punishment than the law calls for in my opinion. 

When a couple has a son (not I, there was another case in relation to this) and that son is visiting and has some cocaine on him, the father calls the police on his son, the police come and arrest the son, but ALSO seize the house...that is disproportionate.  They sell the house and get thousands of dollars while the actual owners were the ones who actually called about it.  It shouldn't need to even have a civil case against the department to say...this is not right.

On the otherhand, I think police in general try to work with the public.

Last summer I was driving home one afternoon when I was pulled over by a police woman.  She asked if I knew why I had been pulled over.  I said I had no idea.  She said my windshield was too dirty and restrictive of view.  (It was not.  It WAS dusty that morning and the rain later in the day left little brown spots all over it, but I could clearly see through it very easily and it did not restrict my view).  She asked for my license and registration.  I didn't refuse, I didn't take pictures of the window and publish it on the internet to prove my point or anything similar to that.  Rather than argue with her I gave her my license and registration and thanked her for pointing out the problem.  She came back, returned them and let me go without even a written warning.  She did tell me to wash my car.

I think I could have won the case easily, but some things just aren't worth it.  In this instance, if I had refused to show my ID, and had gone far enough with it, I might have been detained.  I may have gone to jail, I may have had my vehicle searched and possibly seized.  I really wasn't thinking about that aspect, but I can understand that some people do. 

I did not have a problem with the police doing this and asking me these questions and I appreciate what they are doing to ensure safety of the streets and homes, but I can understand why some people feel this is a problem.  I have feelings towards search and seizure (one area I feel police are granted too much power) and can see how others would relate many of the other things afforded to police departments and how they would feel this would violate constitutional rights in general.

That said, back to the virus and the pandemic currently threatening many in the US so we have to stay at home.  I think my wife is going stir crazy in the house.  She WANTS to go out and do things, but is not doing them.  I am happy to stay at home or go to the office and read (and occasionally deal with others via the internet).  I admit that recently I started doing a bad habit.  I started watching TV as I have more time than usual.  I have started watching a show on the History Channel called Pawn Stars.  It is addicting.  Badly addicting.  I seem to be binge watching it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.