Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
San Diego 7 photo gallery — Just Be Love All Stay Cool
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?San Francisco CopWatch Member Assaulted for Videotaping Cop
A San Francisco CopWatch member was assaulted by an undercover cop he was videotaping on a public street this month.
The incident was not only caught on his own video camera, but on another video camera carried by a fellow CopWatch member.
In the above video, Jacob Crawford can be heard confronting a female undercover cop, asking for her name and badge number.
The cop asks him why he needs that info. He tells her he is part of CopWatch. She tells him they are "protecting the community."
The woman suddenly strikes out at his camera, knocking it downard. Crawford then takes off running, only to be chased down by several cops who plant him face-first into the pavement.
"You can't film people that don't want to be filmed, dear," the cop tells him as he is being manhandled by two male cops.
The cops lift him up and sit him on a bench and eventually release him without handcuffing him or asking for his identification.
In a Facebook message interview with Photography is Not a Crime, Crawford said he believes the cops were not aware they were being videotaped by a second person until after they brought him down, which might explain why they decided to release him with no charges.
Otherwise, they probably would have claimed he assaulted them with his camera.
the lady fucked her whole game up by saying " you can't film people who don't want to be filmed dear" , i argued that point and literally was lifted, brought to the bench, the superior put his hand on my shoulder in a comforting gesture and he asks me what happened. at one point the lady came back again to explain her second reason for the attack (seeing that i was right about my right to film her) she said i was assaulting her or something of that effect with the camera, but either way whether she felt that way, she never told me to step away or any other official order, the one thing i'm trying to figure out is, what this her decision or was this a collective decision to come at me.
Crawford said he did not get the woman's name but did get the name of her supervisor and he plans to file a complaint.
In 2003, Crawford was arrested in Cinncinatti for felony obstruction when he was videotaping police officers driving through a CopWatch block party.
That video is below. This is how he explained it in the interview.
The police ran through our copwatch party in cincinnati and then started to run after me. I was charged with fel obstruction in this particular case, but because my video camera was left on in the front seat of the cop car, everything was recorded included them setting up my charges against me, fixing their story and really letting loose on me. They were pissed off. I went to trial and i was found not guilty.
Comments
Hmmm...If the officers were doing an undercover operation and he was blowing their cover on purpose, then I think he can be charged with interference. My question is if he didn't know why they were doing, why the heck would he go up with a camera? Maybe they were doing something important? I don't understand douchbaggery like this.
The officers shouldn't have slapped his camera away but I would have told him he needed to back off or he would be arrested. Exposing an undercover operation is a big safety concern.
Johnny Law, you're such a LEO sycophant. In your eyes LEOs can do no wrong and you always have an excuse for bad behavior by LEOs. It's simple, photography is not a crime, assault and battery is.
What kind of Law Enforcement are you? If you really are a Cop you must be a bad one, or a Barney Fife.
Well as usual I have to disagree with JL..
Blowing an undercover operation itself can't be interference. Also since they NEVER ordered this guy off they really lose that argument. I would equate this to a SCOTUS case where a guy was flashing his headlights to warn oncoming motorists of a speed trap, they pulled him over and charged him for obstruction/interference. He lost at trial but won nearly all the rest and won at the top.
Also in this case the woman should be charged with a false report because he OBVIOUSLY didn't assault her, that was nothing but her trying to justify her own lawless action.
Now, nobody here knows what was going on, they MIGHT have been doing something important, however, when cops misbehave and lie it raises honest questions about them. Now on one side there will be some demanding her firing, I can't really go that far, however, she needs to be writen up and re-trained, she also needs to give the man a writen apology.
These guys might be douchebags, but when cops act against the law its far worse in my view..
I have to disagree with you Johnny Law. It looks like he steps in front of her and is getting pretty close with the camera. When he was walking beside her he was fine but stepping in front of her as she is walking is how the contact is initiated. Slapping the camera away is a natural reaction when somebody blocks your path and sticks something in your face.
Physical abuse is not a natural reaction. If it is I hope you never procreate.
I agree with Johhny Law. This guy was looking for trouble. Copwatch ain't a bunch of cop investigators, they observe and should not get in the way.
I'm surprised they didn't say something like JL's quote or: "you are interfering with an undercover operation, leave now or you will be arrested". I think he would at least have been required to back away, and if he gave them any argument could have been arrested and the charges may have stuck. I don't know why they didn't do that instead of just lunging at his camera.
I agree Guy. The officers should have told him to leave or face arrest. While there is no expectation of privacy in public, deliberately taking action that exposes an undercover operation meets the criteria for interfering with police.
I remember one undercover operation we were doing where we were trying to buy drugs from street dealers. One person recognized an officer from a previous incident. He started yelling that the officer was an undercover cop. He was told to leave or be arrested. He continued so we took him for interference of police operations and the charge was upheld in court.
I don't understand this copwatch guy. If you want to observe, then observe. You run up and stick a camera in their face, then you are no longer observing. You are now participating. The guy claims he ran because he didn't know they were cops but you can clearly hear him in the first part of the video where it is obvious he knows they are cops.
He certainly could have been told to back away, but not leave, your example doesn't show clearly that he had to leave, just that it was at least reasonable to make him back away. Since he apparently stayed and didn't back away I can go along with the arrest/conviction. But you didn't get him on exposing the cops, which couldn't have stood up in court, that is pretty clearly established precedent.
As far as observing/participating, the way the cop reacted changed it for me. Had she said you need to back away sir and he persisted, I might have cared how it got started in the first place. Once the cop reacted poorly and assaulted him (lets be real, you hit his camera its an assault, if he had *touched* HER with the camera it would have been, no double standards allowed) its them on trial.
Qualified immunity hinges on the fact that a reasonable officer should have known the law, this puts their immunity in jeopardy and makes them available for suits individually..
If the cops had simply asked/told him to back away they would have been in a really good legal position, they gave away the legal AND moral high ground due to nothing but stupidity.. They should have known they had no legal right to arrest or even chase him, now he gets to file a complaint and a lawsuit.
Elliot,
When I said "leave" I meant for him to get some distance from the officers, not leave the area. I actually agree with you on most of your reply. The officers screwed up and handled it poorly.
As for arresting someone for exposing undercover cops, the statutes on interfering with police vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I doubt liberal San Francisco would allow an arrest for interference in this case but other places are a little more pro law and order.
The copwatch guy was still an ass clown though.
Jurisdiction and statute aside, given supreme court precedent such a charge would be exceedingly difficult to make stick and such a statute would almost certainly fail the constitutional test. This is roughly a case of first amendment prior restraint which is allowed so rarely as to be a non-issue. I can't remember the last time SCOTUS green lit it.
Exposing cops is a first amendment protected activity, just like in the warning other motorists of the speed trap ahead. There was an absolutely beautiful case out of West Palm Beach to illustrate it about 2 years ago. A guy filming undercover cops from HIS driveway gets arrested for interference, they delete the photos, and charge him. The DA drops the charges because he BROKE NO LAWS, and no one could have rationally argued he was interfering from his driveway when the warrant was being executed down the street a fair distance away.. I can't remember if he sued, but he would have cleaned their clocks had he, I think that case was even mentioned on PINAC.
I do have to agree the copwatch guy was not a meer observer and had he been he wouldn't have come off as such a douche. If his intent was to provoke a response, then the cop gave him what he wanted and broke the law in the process. I can count 2 violations of the law SHE broke, 1. Assault, 2. False reporting. There has to be repercussions for her, the reason I say that is that if HE had so much as touched her with the camera she would have claimed assault and if HE had said ANYTHING that wasn't absolutely supported by the video they would have claimed he lied to them. I simply cannot abide by double standards and will not tolerate it.
She should have known better, since ignorance of the law is no excuse..
We get a lot of these cases where the cops acted illegally, the fact that we see a new one nearly EVERY DAY I think is quite telling, it is hard to argue that these are isolated events. If they were isolated then one every couple weeks might be expected. The widespread availability of cameras and sites like this help make sure that lamestream media isn't the only place for news and that these cases just don't go unreported. It has to have gotten pretty out of hand for the bigger news organizations to finally be making noise about it..
ass clownery has yet to be ruled illegal altho assault by anyone (police also) is. He was assaulted for taking pictures by power trippers who consider themselves to be above the law. Your ability to make excuses tho is truly amazing.
The CopWatch people were jerks for trying to expose an officer during an undercover operation, but the assault by the cop was unjustified. I think that sums it up rather well.
Personally, I'd like to see all undercover officers exposed. They're almost certainly trying to bust people for bullshit laws (drug laws head the list).
If it's against the law to expose undercover cops, that's yet another bullshit law.
Amazingly, cops often profess bafflement as to why people hate them. Here's a clue: you're not responding to calls for help; instead, you're trying to trick people into breaking some nonsense law so you can bust them. You are the enemy, not because peaceful citizens have made you the enemy, but because YOU have made yourself the enemy of peaceful, voluntary society.
JdL,
There is so much fail in that comment I don't even know where to begin. First off, the police are enforcing the laws put forth by YOUR elected officials. Instead of raging against the folks who are supposed to enforce laws put forth by the society you live in, maybe you should try to elect officials who have the same views as you.
Expose all undercover officers? Wow. You do know there is more to undercover work than just drugs right? There are undercovers who act as victims so that they attract robbers. There are undercovers who act as store owners so they can arrest people selling stolen property. There are officers who are undercover with white supremacist groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and on and on.
You act like we (the police) just sit around and try to figure out which peaceful group we can fuck with today. What a simple simple viewpoint. It is hardly as simple as you make it out to be. Of course you know that. It is just easier for you to make ridiculous broad statements.
I believe that a lot of the dysfunction present in a vast majority of law enforcement communities today, stems from a lack of training in understanding of Constitutional law, and a general lack of faith in society. Listening to people whining and bitching about their personal problems all day can take a toll on anyone. When that happens to a cop, it is time to look into another career, or that lack of faith in society will fester into hatred, and eventually boil over into violence.
I'll admit, that videos like this don't give me much confidence in men and women that are sworn "To Protect and Serve". I will cede that not all cops are like this, though with the frequency that we see bad cops doing bad things (almost every day), it doesn't favor the boys in blue (even those that haven't yet been corrupted by the system).
there is no such thing as an "Outlaw Motorcycle Gang" some people who belong to motorcycle clubs are outlaws. If a cop breaks a law does he belong to an "Outlaw Police Gang"?
Good lord, it's just semantics. Stop being so fucking pedantic.
Ya! After all, the Gestapo was just enforcing the laws that were put in place by elected officials.
@ IceTrey
Congrats! You win the prize for being the first person to bring up the Nazis in this thread!
I sometimes wonder if people have any idea what the Nazis actually did.
@ JdL
Just because you don't like a law doesn't make it morally wrong. It probably just means you don't like the way it inconveniences you. Folks always seem to confuse that with the law being unconstitutional or immoral.
I doubt you will ever find any society where you agree with every law on the books. That's too bad but it is the price you pay for living in a society of law and order.
As for your slavery example, google "moral zeitgeist". Who knows how it will continue to change. There are things that were considered firm laws years ago that are immoral now and vice versa. We are talking about the here and now.
Yeah, we had this discussion on the order of months ago.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/cop-columnist-berates-cops-who-arrest-photo...
“Just because you personally dislike a law does not mean that law is immoral or unconstitutional. It means you dislike the law for whatever reasons you may have, good or ill. The law could be immoral, unethical, or unconstitutional. You could even *like* a law yet realize it is one or more of those three things.”
FTFY (again, expanded in this thread, as options were left out that acknowledge "inconvenience" may well *not* be a factor.)
"I doubt you will ever find any society where you agree with every law on the books. That's too bad but it is the price you pay for living in a society of law and order."
Ya, who the hell did those abolitionists think they were! Slavery was legal so they should have just kept their mouths shut!
I like how that:
"That's too bad but it is the price you pay for living in a society of law and order."
Kind of ignores the *kind* of law and order involved.
A dictatorship, a fascist regime, a police state... all of those are societies of "law and order." Doesn't necessarily mean they're societies you'd want to live in, though.
Yeah but just because there are laws on the books that you disagree with does not mean that the society in question is a police state. I am sure that every single country out there has laws that some of it's citizens disagree with. Does this mean that all modern societies are fascist regimes or police states? You will NEVER satisfy 100% of the population.
If you don't want to deal with all those pesky laws, I suggest Somalia. I hear they may have what you are looking for.
Of course the actual point was "'law and order' isn't automatically a good thing," but never mind reading *and* thinking.
But hey, obviously if you disagree with some laws you want no laws, right? Everything is black or white, all or nothing, no in-between.
It must be blissful to go through life without actually having to think.
That's pretty funny coming from someone who cries "police state" and "unconstitutional" about every law they disagree with. I think a lot of people on this site simply have a problem with authority and would be happier living in a cabin in Montana away from civilization.
"It must be blissful to go through life without actually having to think."
Mike I know you have a very hard time with people disagreeing with you. It's sad that you are unable to deal with it without insulting people. I hope we don't get involved in another comment fight that makes you upset again. That would also make me sad.
"That's pretty funny coming from someone who cries "police state" and "unconstitutional" about every law they disagree with." [citation needed]
Though you won't find a citation for that, as I've not said that "about every law I disagree with."
I guess Johnny feels insulted when you point out he's not actually thinking something through, or getting the point. That's too bad.
But it's more than just avoiding/missing the point.
JdL has a problem with some laws and how the police enforce them. Somehow to Johnny that becomes
"I doubt you will ever find any society where you agree with every law on the books. That's too bad but it is the price you pay for living in a society of law and order."
Which entirely misses the point. JdL wasn't necessarily asking for every law law on the books to be agreeable to him - he's pointing out that some laws *and the way the police enforce them* are wrong.
And even there, as I've pointed out, just because a society has law and order doesn't mean that law and order is always just or fair.
But it goes farther. We live in a society of citizens, not subjects. Citizens that are expected to actively participate in the process of lawmaking for their society.
What Johnny doesn't seem to get (or want to get) is part of that is people having the right not to agree with some of those laws and speaking out against them. Telling people "tough, you're don't get to have only laws you agree with, shut up" isn't something that flies in a society like ours.
Works pretty well in places like North Korea and China though, I hear.
Go ahead and keep skirting that harassment line, Johnny. You'd think someone that claims to be a cop would understand that it doesn't matter how information was obtained if it's used for harassment. Never mind that it doesn't matter if it's illegal or not; if harassment is against the TOS you agree to when signing up for an account, you can still get tossed.
Mike,
You are right that citizens should participate in the process of lawmaking. However just because a law gets passed that you personally disagree with doesn't make it a bad law. It certainly makes no sense to blame the police for enforcing a law that was put in place by elected representatives.
Try to understand what I am saying here. For every law on the books, there are people who are unhappy with that law. Does that mean the police shouldn't enforce it? If that was the case, we might as well live in Somalia because all laws would be meaningless. There are people who hate seatbelt laws, folks who hate laws against prostitution, citizens who hate the drug laws, and on and on and on.
We are in a constitutional republic. It's not a dictatorship. It's not a facist state. It is a country led by the people we elected. Unfortunately it's hard to make 100% of the population happy with every law. That's reality Mike. It's not the fault of the police.
As for the harassment claims, grow up Mike. You have a very mistaken understanding of the word "harassment".
It is entirely relevant to mention that someone who has zero experience in use of force matters is not the best person to pass judgement, especially based on short clips of videos. You may be crying harassment but all it really comes down to is that you can't handle someone disagreeing with you and calling you on your bull.
Uh-oh, this response may make you report me to the proper authorities again won't it? Help Pixiq, someone dares to disagree with Michael Kerney!! (Is it okay if I use your full name here or is that harassment too?)
You know how and why you're harassing me, and it has nothing to do with disagreements. Previously constantly bringing up your speculations about my personal employment (which has NOTHING to do with the discussion here,) continuing to do so after being asked to stop, and then constantly bringing it up again when it has NOTHING to do with the discussion is harassment.
If you can't stop bringing it up, do not reply to me.
Was the nazi line really necessary? Did you advance the argument AT ALL?
Saying that a law was enacted by "my" (or anyone else's) elected official does not give it legitimacy, and anyone who enforces an illegitimate law is morally culpable for the harm caused. It is NOT sufficient to snivel "I was just following orders". Slavery was once the law of the land; would you applaud the officers who captured and returned runaway slaves?
Yes, some very tiny (and constantly decreasing) fraction of undercover officers today actually enforce legitimate laws, and my hat goes off to them. One example: bait for muggers. Now there's an actual crime with an actual victim, and hooray for anyone who has the courage and strength to combat it.
But you will never get off the hook for enforcing most of the laws you enforce. And you will never be "just doing your duty". A famous court established that principle several decades ago, and it's as vitally important today as the day it was established.
"But you will never get off the hook for enforcing most of the laws you enforce. And you will never be "just doing your duty". A famous court established that principle several decades ago, and it's as vitally important today as the day it was established."
Really? I've been enforcing many many laws for years now and the courts seem pretty darn supportive.
Yep, America is the land of hypocrites: we stuck it to the Germans after WWII, but our own courts have failed to adhere to the principles established there.
Morally, however, I believe that the Nuremberg verdicts were correct. We ARE each responsible for the harm we cause others, whether or not some law would seem to excuse us. So, for example, officers who captured runaway slaves in 1860 were guilty of a moral crime, though the courts of the day excused them.
We no longer have slavery today, but we have drug laws (one of many examples), and for the "crime" of ingesting something the government doesn't like, people can and do have their lives wrecked by government thugs.
If your point, JL, is that cops like you can bust people for drugs without creating legal difficulties for themselves, your statement is correct, for the moment. I would suggest, however, that you have incurred a moral debt, which at the very least will make thinking people abhor your behavior and curse your name. And you MAY just find that in the future, you are also legally held to account for your actions, at which time the defense you'd like to put forward will carry no weight, just as happened after WWII.
I seriously doubt that the police will put on trial for enforcing the drug laws. Did they put any of the officers on trial who enforced the laws against alcohol after Prohibition was overturned?
I think it is a logic error to hate the police for enforcing the laws put in place by the politicians. I know you have visions of officers standing tall and refusing to enforce these drug laws but the fact is most agree with them and others aren't sure either way. I personally think people should be able to decide if they were seatbelts but I write tickets for it anyway. It's not our job to decide which laws to enforce. It's simply our job to enforce them.
So you accept no moral responsibility for enforcing unjust laws? You sit in smug certainty that you'll never be held to legal account, and that's enough for you?
Change "unjust laws" to "laws that a portion of the population disagree with" and you would have a correct statement.
Can you conceive of any law you'd refuse to enforce on moral grounds? Is following orders without question the pinnacle of excellence in your mind? Call me a fool, but I still have a lurking suspicion that there's a human being hiding under all that bravado. You seem determined to prove me wrong, however.
It's not bravado. It's call doing my job. Take a minute and think about the confusion that would result if each individual cop picks and chooses which law they enforce. The whole system would collapse. I don't know why you can't understand this.
Except officer discretion still exists, which means this actually *does* happen. In fact, it would be ridiculous if it didn't. The system has yet to collapse.
Once again, questions of *value* must be answered in addition to questions of *fact.*
Officer discretion involves minor offenses such as deciding to issue a warning instead of a citation for speeding. It does not address larger crimes. I know of no department that lets their officers use discretion on enforcing laws other than the type of example I just mentioned. While some departments let you write tickets instead of making arrests for small amounts of marijuana, an officer would find himself in hot water if he refused to enforce it completely. Officer discretion certainly doesn't apply to enforcing felony drug laws.
So officer discretion that you are talking about really *doesn't* happen. It would be ridiculous if it did.
It is the *job* of the *police* to *enforce* laws on *the books*.
Good thing the folks on this board are not officers. We would have a very messed up system with no consistency.
Well, given your limited knowledge, perhaps you shouldn't tell us what never happens.
But at least you acknowledge that some police *do* make value judgments about the laws they enforce. Just because they could sometimes get in trouble for it with their department (and just because you refuse to consider value judgments of the laws) doesn't mean it never happens, nor does it mean it shouldn't.
Once again, whether the people here are officers or not is irrelevant. Functioning adults can tell right from wrong, and functional citizens can understand the law and its enforcement just fine. No one gets bonus points for just claiming to be an officer, nor do they get demerits for not being in law enforcement.
Now, who wants to claim that we have a system that *isn't* in many ways "messed up" and is always consistent?
@ Michael Kerney
"Well, given your limited knowledge, perhaps you shouldn't tell us what never happens."
Well since I actually understand the concept of officer discretion I think I'm in a pretty good position to tell you what happens. What experience do you have with officer discretion to make you think (mistakenly) that officers are allowed to disregard laws they don't like? Given your complete lack of knowledge, maybe you shouldn't talk about stuff you know little about?
If you consider officers writing warnings for speeding as being on the same level as refusing to enforce the drug laws, then you are *seriously stretching* the concept to try to prove your point.
"Functioning adults can tell right from wrong, and functional citizens can understand the law and its enforcement just fine."
Functioning adults disagree about right or wrong all the time. Sorry Michael Kerney but your view of right and wrong isn't necessarily in line with everyone else. As for citizens here understanding the law and its enforcement, I see many examples of people having no clue about law enforcement except that if they don't like it the law must be illegal.
We have a justice system that decides what is allowed in this society. That is what I go by, not the opinion of Michael Kerney.
You're completely missing the point, once again.
The point is, officers can and are even expected to make value judgments about the law.
You're typing a lot of words, but none of them are things I *actually said.*
Actually, we have citizens in a representative republic that decides what is allowed in this society. The justice system is only a part that makes some decisions about how to interpret the laws that define that.
If you think the justice system alone decides what is allowed, I think we see where your very flawed viewpoint comes from.
Do you have some sort of mental issue where you're forcing yourself to use my full name now? Oh wait. You're still trying to harass me. How very playground of you.
I'm just a casual observer and I don't know the whole back-story, but I am curious as how using your screen name is harassment?
And I am not being facetious, I am truly curious.
It's not a screen name. It's my actual name... but that's not the point.
It's part of a pattern, but in this case it's just a lame attempt at annoying me. You'll note I said *trying*...
But yeah, that should be over and taken care of.
And even more telling, you claim that police "only enforce the laws on the books,"
(a fallacy addressed previously - police ask for, lobby for and get laws they want frequently)
yet you also claim that the justice system decides what is allowed in our society.
A justice system that the police are a major component of.
Huh.
@ Michael Kerney
So using your screen name (Michael Kerney) is also harassment to you? Seriously? What if I just use Michael K? Is that okay? I would hate for you to try to get me banned for using your screen name.
So police lobby for laws. That doesn't have anything to do with my point that police only enforce the laws on the books. If the police lobby for some law but it doesn't get passed then they *don't* enforce it. Why? Because it is *not* a law. You are talking about apples and oranges Michael Kerney.
You may want to read up on how our system of laws work. You seem unfamiliar with it. I will say it again. The police *do not* make the laws. They enforce the laws that are passed by our government. Simple stuff really.
It seemed like you got it when you said "Actually, we have citizens in a representative republic that decides what is allowed in this society."
I've been saying this all along. Society decides what is acceptable and the police enforce that. Thank you for helping me make my point.
"The point is, officers can and are even expected to make value judgments about the law."
That is not the same thing as assuming police are expected to pick and choose the laws they enforce. However they are expected to make common sense decisions when determining if something meets the elements of an offense.
"So police lobby for laws. That doesn't have anything to do with my point that police only enforce the laws on the books."
"I will say it again. The police *do not* make the laws. They enforce the laws that are passed by our government."
I defy you to make less sense. If they only enforce the laws, that means they don't try to make them. Lobbying for laws is part of making them. You're just being absurd now.
"Society decides what is acceptable and the police enforce that."
No. You specifically said:
"We have a justice system that decides what is allowed in this society."
And that is what I responded to. You're changing your statement now.
And no, just using someone's full name when you refer to them isn't harassment. Doing it every single time you refer to them is childish and slightly insane. I can see you're only doing it to be annoying.
But seriously, you want us to believe you're an adult, much less a police officer? Are you really a police officer and behaving in this annoying way?
@ Michael Kerney
"I defy you to make less sense. If they only enforce the laws, that means they don't try to make them. Lobbying for laws is part of making them. You're just being absurd now."
LOL The police don't *make* the laws. How dense can you be? You know those guys in Congress who vote on things? *That* is how laws are made. If Congress doesn't vote for them, then the laws do not exist. Let's try this together now. Who votes to decide if something is made a law? That's right, it's Congress, *not* the police.
""Society decides what is acceptable and the police enforce that."
No. You specifically said:
"We have a justice system that decides what is allowed in this society.""
Michael Kerney you are just splitting hairs and arguing semantics. It's the same thing.
Society elects law makers who make the laws. Judges review the laws to make sure they are upheld properly. Police arrest folks for the violations of those laws. It can't be explained to you any simpler.
Oh, I see. The police don't actually do the final *voting* in the legislative branch, so they obviously have no effect on making the laws.
None of that other stuff (like drafting the laws, lobbying for or against, etc.) matters at all.
Oh yeah, and as mentioned before, http://www.theiacp.org/LegislativeAction/tabid/70/Default.aspx the IACP legislation page is clearly imaginary.
Talk about being disingenuous.
"'We have a justice system that decides what is allowed in this society.'"
"Michael Kerney you are just splitting hairs and arguing semantics. It's the same thing."
The legislative and executive branches of government would be surprised to learn this.
Post new comment