Good Cop Bad Cop

[Donnelly]

Another big problem i have with cops is that they are aloud to lie right to somebody as a interrogation technique, but a citizen isnt aloud to lie back. That is a double standard...

What do you mean? Police can lie during an interview. So can the person being interrogated. Neither can lie (without perjuring themself) while under oath during court. Even then either party can lie, but there is a penalty for being caught.

I might have sounded harsh toward the police on some earlier posts. I do have family friends and one personal friend that are local cops. I respect them and would back them in a second if they are in the right. I just hear of so many cases of "authority" getting away with breaking the law, violating rights, etc. and not being held accountable. Maybe I should just stop reading the national news...

 

[Bill of Rights]

What do you mean? Police can lie during an interview. So can the person being interrogated. Neither can lie (without perjuring themself) while under oath during court. Even then either party can lie, but there is a penalty for being caught.

I might have sounded harsh toward the police on some earlier posts. I do have family friends and one personal friend that are local cops. I respect them and would back them in a second if they are in the right. I just hear of so many cases of "authority" getting away with breaking the law, violating rights, etc. and not being held accountable. Maybe I should just stop reading the national news...

What he means is that a police officer, interrogating you, is lawfully permitted to lie to you, in fact he/she can tell you anything he/she wants as long as it obtains a confession or evidence. If, however, you lie to them, it is actionable and you will be charged with things like "obstructing justice", etc. You are correct that in court, they are not permitted to lie to the judge and jury. Of course, if it's your word against theirs, the court will usually find in favor of the officer sworn to uphold the law-and therefore againts you. This would be the point where you hope that the court allows you to report on your own to serve your sentence, so at least you can buy a tube of K-Y for when you meet your new cellmate, "Bubba".

Blessings,
B

 

[scully]

Love the choices on that poll.

I think most anti-LEO posts, threads, comments whatever.. Are actually anti-"policy".

 

[rhino]

A problem I see here is that in some circles, anyone who dares question (much less criticize) the actions or behaviors of any police officer is immediately branded "cop hater" and summarily pilloried for it.

Guess what? When someone does a good job, regardless of their occupation, I'm going to praise them. If they do a bad job, I'm not going to hesitate to criticize them, and I don't need to be able to do it better to criticize either. If you accept the job, you better be able to do it well. I also will continue to question any damn person, action, or thing I choose. If someone labels me "cop hater," it's their problem, not mine.

In addition, and this has been mentioned, ANYONE who is put in a position of trust or authority, whether it be an elected official, a judge, a teacher, a cop, a priest, etc. NEEDS TO BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD BECAUSE OF THE DAMAGE THEY CAN DO IF THEY ACT BADLY.

I do hold police officers to a higher standard of behavior because they have too much power and can and will ruin people's lives if they act badly or negligently. If a gardner doesn't trim your hedges properly or your newspaper boy gets your paper wet, it's not a big deal. When cop or a judge (continue with the list) does something stupid, wrong, or evil, people are going to suffer, and often it is ALL of us who suffer in some way, by erosion of our rights if nothing else.

We have abrogated too much of our individual liberty and freedom to all levels of government, mostly because it makes our lives easier. People prefer freedom from choice more often than freedom of choice, and we're starting to see how badly that communal failure is hurting us today.

So in addition to criticizing cops who act badly, I will also point the finger at those who helped create the system that has allowed them too much power over us. Most people, whether they admit it or not, fear the police. Most people probably have good reason to fear at least some police. It should not be that way. The police should have ZERO authority over anyone who has not broken the law, yet we all know how far that is from the truth. But they wouldn't have that power if we hadn't given it to them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

ost people, whether they admit it or not, fear the police. Most people probably have good reason to fear at least some police. It should not be that way. The police should have ZERO authority over anyone who has not broken the law, yet we all know how far that is from the truth. But they wouldn't have that power if we hadn't given it to them.

+1 to your post, Rhino. Small issues I have with it are these:
A higher standard? Not necessarily; rather the same standard. I'm not willing to accept it being OK for a citizen to lie to a cop any more than I'm willing to accept it being OK for a cop to lie to a citizen. I'm also not willing to accept that any less. Be that as it may, I know that some will lie to police. They may have many reasons, not all of which are indicative of criminal behavior. Be that as it may, however, if it is wrong for one to lie, it's wrong for both to do so, and one cannot enforce justice and honesty by violating them.

Your point that police should have no authority over those who have not broken the law is spot-on. It raises a question I'd really like to see answered, however: Does this extend to, "Excuse me, sir, I need to ask you a few questions." That is, should the citizen be in a position to tell the requesting officer to bugger off because he's committed no crime, and if he does so, should the officer be able to take him into custody to ascertain that he is in fact, innocent and not hiding a crime?
I hasten to add that I have no preconceived notion as to the answer to that and in principle, I agree with you. I do see problems arising because people as a whole are not always honorable nor truthful.

Lastly, you said that they would not have the powers they do had we not given those powers to them. It's a mite nit-picky, but I submit that we have given nothing, but that we have not objected when such things have been taken. Same effect, of course, but the onus is placed differently.

This post is not meant as an argument at all but rather an attempt at discussion. From what I can see, I like the way you think.

Blessings,
B

 

[rhino]

You are wise and insightful, Mister Bill of Rights.

I see your points. I still stick with the higher standard, solely because of the magnitude of the damage that can be done. I don't think the government has any legitimate authority to penalize someone for lying (except perhaps when they've sworn/affirmed to tell the truth during formal legal proceedings). Fortunately in most states it's not crime, although it is to lie to a federal agent (ask Martha Stewart), which is another pile of crap in my opinion.

Should people always tell the truth? Yes. Do I avoid people who don't? Yes. Should the government be allowed to punish people if they choose to do otherwise? No way.

On the last point, I'm not willing to let us off the hook by acknowledging that we were just too passive. We elected people who made too many laws in general, and specifically made too many bad laws. It may be their fault, but ultimately it is our responsibility.

 

[Paul]

What he means is that a police officer, interrogating you, is lawfully permitted to lie to you, in fact he/she can tell you anything he/she wants as long as it obtains a confession or evidence. If, however, you lie to them, it is actionable and you will be charged with things like "obstructing justice", etc. You are correct that in court, they are not permitted to lie to the judge and jury. Of course, if it's your word against theirs, the court will usually find in favor of the officer sworn to uphold the law-and therefore againts you. This would be the point where you hope that the court allows you to report on your own to serve your sentence, so at least you can buy a tube of K-Y for when you meet your new cellmate, "Bubba".

Blessings,
B

Yes that is exactly what i meant.

 

[techres]

I would say that what you have here is a very libertarian streak where people are respectful of the police but concerned about over-extention of powers.

For the most part I am very Pro-Cop and am always excited to meet one at a shoot or at the range, etc.

However, my tone changes with no-knock warrants and their over-use. Then I get all ranty and sound very anti-cop. Mostly I really am against not the cops, but rather the use of tactics and power that reinforce and "us/them" mindframe instead of an us/us way of thinking.

 

[Paul]

However, my tone changes with no-knock warrants and their over-use. Then I get all ranty and sound very anti-cop. Mostly I really am against not the cops, but rather the use of tactics and power that reinforce and "us/them" mindframe instead of an us/us way of thinking.

+1

 

[Bill of Rights]

Your point that police should have no authority over those who have not broken the law is spot-on. It raises a question I'd really like to see answered, however: Does this extend to, "Excuse me, sir, I need to ask you a few questions." That is, should the citizen be in a position to tell the requesting officer to bugger off because he's committed no crime, and if he does so, should the officer be able to take him into custody to ascertain that he is in fact, innocent and not hiding a crime?
I hasten to add that I have no preconceived notion as to the answer to that and in principle, I agree with you. I do see problems arising because people as a whole are not always honorable nor truthful.

You are wise and insightful, Mister Bill of Rights.

I see your points. I still stick with the higher standard, solely because of the magnitude of the damage that can be done. I don't think the government has any legitimate authority to penalize someone for lying (except perhaps when they've sworn/affirmed to tell the truth during formal legal proceedings). Fortunately in most states it's not crime, although it is to lie to a federal agent (ask Martha Stewart), which is another pile of crap in my opinion.

Should people always tell the truth? Yes. Do I avoid people who don't? Yes. Should the government be allowed to punish people if they choose to do otherwise? No way.

On the last point, I'm not willing to let us off the hook by acknowledging that we were just too passive. We elected people who made too many laws in general, and specifically made too many bad laws. It may be their fault, but ultimately it is our responsibility.

Insightful? Most people saying that spell it "inciteful", but this sounds much more like a compliment, so I'll take it as such. You've answered my smaller issues but I missed your reply to the following (quoted above as well): Officers should have no authority over those who do not break the law. If I have broken no law but this has not been ascertained as yet, should I be permitted to be detained under the law? If so, it seems that the officer does have authority despite my lawful behavior, but if not, how can guilt or innocence be determined, if not by questioning of witnesses and/or suspects? I'd love to see a way that this ideal situation could become a reality. I'm not sure that human nature allows it to be so.

Blessings,
B

 

[Crystalship1]

I think most anti-LEO posts, threads, comments whatever.. Are actually anti-"policy".

Good point.!!!

I also believe that many people can't seem to separate the two. (i.e. - don't hold the every-day street cop responsible for enforcing the policies and laws that he/she is charged with doing).

If we don't hate our soldiers for doing what they are told to do even when we don't agree, why should we hate our street cops for doing their jobs???

 

[USMC_0311]

I think we need cops but I would really like to see them raise ther standards on who they hire and those that due qualify should be held to those standards their entire career. My real problem is the snot nosed young ones with out any military experience that sport the short hair cuts. It is just my opionion but I would trust a combat veteran anyday before I trust civilian with a uniform.

 

[Dogman]

Well I have to say that I do believe I was wrong. I don't think I really paid much attention before, but after reading the posts on this thread, I do believe that I will change my post #8 to, "Yep seems to be quite a bit of anti-police", on this forum.

 

[Glock Lover]

I think we need cops but I would really like to see them raise ther standards on who they hire and those that due qualify should be held to those standards their entire career. My real problem is the snot nosed young ones with out any military experience that sport the short hair cuts. It is just my opionion but I would trust a combat veteran anyday before I trust civilian with a uniform.

I'm a local cop and the standards in my area are extremely high. Physical test, written exam, three intense interviews, 3 written psych tests, lie detector, psych interview, and very intense background investigation. Then academy, 4-6 months of Field training, and another 4 months of probation.
Don't know how you could get more picky. People will always slip through but that process is pretty good for trying to weed out any bad apples.
Also, if you have ever done military and law enforcement you will notice they are VERY different. Can military experience help, sure it can help you with lots of things, but does it make you a better cop not necessarily, its a very different atmosphere and job description. As far as short hair not sure what you have against that!

 

[Dogman]

My real problem is the snot nosed young ones with out any military experience that sport the short hair cuts.

Apparently unless you have been in the military, your not permitted to have short hair?? I can hear it now, all the bitching about all of the long haired cops. +1 on everything Glock Lover said.

 

[Crystalship1]

Apparently unless you have been in the military, your not permitted to have short hair?? I can hear it now, all the bitching about all of the long haired cops. +1 on everything Glock Lover said.

"You consarned young whipper-snappers with your clothes and your hair"!!!!

 

[Dogman]

"You consarned young whipper-snappers with your clothes and your hair"!!!!

Just as long as the clothes aren't military style.

 

[Bigum1969]

I think LEOs have a very difficult job, coupled with the fact they deal with so many negative situations. This probably changes all of them over time.

But, they absolutely need to be held to a higher standard. A LEO can change your life in an intensely negative way in a heartbeat. And, there is the omnipresent "Blue Shield".

I know several LEOs that are great people. They all want to go home at night.

But, why is it okay for LEOs to avoid tickets and other charges? Why does the flash of a badge get LEOs and their loved ones out of tickets and other situations? You see cars with the badge attached to the license plate (in many cases blocking the license plate letters and numbers) and you know that's the free to do what I want pass. This really bothers me. This says "we don't just enforce the law, we're above it."

 

[munky_3434]

No, I don't have a problem with cops just want to see the bad ones weeded out.

having grown up in a L.E. family and taken a similar path, i have seen my fair share. and although a bad one slips through from time to time you can't blame them all for the idiot.

this sums it up

(we used to just take guy's like you behind the station and beat them with a rubber hose. now you got you'r god****ed unions)super troopers

 

[BloodEclipse]

I would say that what you have here is a very libertarian streak where people are respectful of the police but concerned about over-extention of powers.

For the most part I am very Pro-Cop and am always excited to meet one at a shoot or at the range, etc.

However, my tone changes with no-knock warrants and their over-use. Then I get all ranty and sound very anti-cop. Mostly I really am against not the cops, but rather the use of tactics and power that reinforce and "us/them" mindframe instead of an us/us way of thinking.

I agree. It is all agents of government for the most part. It could be FBI, BATF, IRS or any other. It is the system that most people have a problem with. Innocent people being killed by accident for raids on the wrong house. In a society where criminals seem to have more rights than do the law abiding Citizen.
We have several post about not saying anything if you are involved in a self defense encounter, because if you say the wrong thing that could be taken by a prosecutor and used to convict you.
But along the same lines we have heard about the career criminal who repeatedly gets off because of a technicality.
Most of us appreciate the hard work that is performed by our LEOs but at the same time we are cautious of the policies that give them increasing powers that infringe upon our Rights.