posted
5. When a judge says, "Before I set your fine for speeding, do you realize there are better ways to handle a disagreement with a police officer than getting out of your car and grabbing his clipboard to get your license?" do not reply, "He should have given it to me when I asked for it in the first place."
4. When a police officer has seen you holding a wad of cash and rolling dice, but hasn't seen any money change hands, don't say, "Man, you broke up a good game. I was raking it in."
3. When pleading guilty to domestic assault and battery, do not say, "I just want to clear one thing up - the reason I hit her with a belt was because she wouldn't stop arguing with me" before sentencing.
2. It's probably best not to say, "I don't need treatment, I was just smoking marijuana every day while I was stressed, and I'm not stressed out any more" after four months of positive drug tests while on probation.
1. When being sentenced for whipping your child with a belt until she was covered with bruises, do not ask the judge to allow a late report date to jail on the grounds that you babysit for kids and need to make arrangements.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All 5 of them real, all this week but the first one. And, yes, all public record.
The last one was this morning. I was literally shaking with rage during the testimony. I was only observing - I stay cool and collected when I'm trying cases, but have trouble when I'm just listening.
I know I wrote them kind of tongue and cheek, but all of these disturbed me more than a little. I'm beginning to understand cop and ER doc humor a little more, now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey dag...I was watching a new TV show called "Conviction" about prosecutors working for the DA's office. I thought it a bit odd that they actually carried shields/badges (that looked like a police badge). Is that actually true, or is it just something that the show producers thought would look cool.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Virginia they have badges. The Commonwealth Attorney in each county is the chief law enforcement officer, and all the assistant CAs are also law enforcement officers.
But they almost never use their badges.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
On Judge Mathis a few months ago, a kid (who at least has the excuse of age for saying stupid junk in open court ) was accused of, among other things, threatening a teacher (the plaintiff) with some scissors. The teacher said the boy had held the scissors above his head and threatened her.
The kid denied that, saying and demonstrating that he had held the scissors down low, near his waist, not over his head. Then he went on, correcting what the teacher reported he had said. "I never said that, I said 'I'll cut you, bitch.'"
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And remember that cops are more often on the wrong side of the law than the average Joe. Avoid them if you can.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your friend is a cop, and you don't believe what I just said. Think of it this way:
A cop IS an average Joe.
Add to that the fact that cops have special laws governing their everyday work that don't apply to the everyday Joe, such as laws dealing with search and siezure, criminal rights, use of force, etc. More laws to obey equals a higher potential for breaking the law.
Also consider exposure to crime. Cops see stuff that the average Joe can't even imagine. Cops see it all. Cops know more ways of committing crimes than anybody else.
Also consider who has access to more controlled substances and banned weapons.
There should be some interesting statistics about cops and suicide, which happens to be illegal, also drug and alcohol abuse, which are factors in 80 to 90 percent of all crimes.
I guess I should add that the average Joe is more likely to break the law out of ignorance.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, people who try to commit suicide are evil criminals. I'm so glad I send all the failed attempts I work with to jail.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: DA's with badges. They give them badges in Nevada too. We had a former DA who could drive the 5 1/2 hour road to Vegas in 3 hours. He was often stopped and just flashed his badge. These trips were personal, usually with his little kids in the car. It showed a level of maturity that was remarkable. In fact when people started to remark about it, his contract was not renewed. (He lost the next election.)
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cops are most certainly not average joes... in training, in doctrination or fundamental attitude.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering the relatively high suicide rate among policemen, it is surprising that this profession is chosen to teach children about self-esteem. And considering the high rate in some cities of complaints of police misconduct based on assaults on innocent civilians, having police teach assertiveness may also be less than ideal.
posted
So that's a "no" as to whether you have sources that back up your claim that "cops are more often on the wrong side of the law than the average Joe"?
Because that article says nothing about comparative crime rates between police and "average Joes" (by which I take it you mean "all non-police officers").
Further, that's not even a source to the claim that police have a higher suicide rate than "average Joes." It's an opinion piece that asserts that the suicide rate is higher amongst police officers than "average Joes."
Of course, even if police officers do have a higher suicide rate, you'd still be a long way from backing up the claim that "cops are more often on the wrong side of the law than the average Joe."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Learned a bit today about crime among police. Unfortunately it was all from the Internet and not very reliable: lots of people with stories about bad cops, references to Daryl Gates' book Prince of the City, gun rights activists claiming a lower crime rate among concealed carry permit holders than among cops, good cops telling stories about bad cops, articles about drug and alcohol abuse among cops.
The only reliable studies seem to have been commissioned by law enforcement agencies themselves, and I don't know where I would go to find those papers. They're not online.
One thing seems certain: crime among police OUTSIDE the U.S. is epidemic. There are tons of newspaper articles about crime among police from just about every country, even our close friends Canada, England, and Australia. There were especially lots of links from Russia, Mexico, Pakistan, and Indonesia. I guess we Americans should consider ourselves lucky.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, by the way, since I've expanded my googling to the international scope, the average Joe is Chinese.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And remember that cops are more often on the wrong side of the law than the average Joe. Avoid them if you can
Hmm...that's only sometimes true. The cops I see at my job every day are a little bit "grimey" if not "dirty" but for the most part, the cops I deal with are pretty darn good about respecting the law.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have only anecdotal evidence, from two officers of the law that I have known personally in my life (one an FBI agent and one a correctional officer) and they both totally independently had a curious connection to the law. They seemed to feel that it belonged to them. That it only applied to whomever they decided it applied to, which wasn't themselves in either case. They both broke the law with great abandon in a variety of ways.
Perhaps they felt the ways they broke and circumvented the law were trivial, and compared to the criminals they dealt with, that may well have been the case. They don't seem trivial to me.
But the parallels between those two cases struck me as relevant. It may be that it's a hard temptation to resist, the feeling that the law belongs to the police, and is whatever they say it is. That wouldn't at all surprise me, and wouldn't take away from the good work that so many police officers do.
When you're the police, it can be quite difficult to police yourselves. That's why I think citizens with video cameras are so healthy for our society.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read back over that last post and realized I didn't emphasize enough what a hard job it is to be a police officer, and how dangerous it is, and that there are many brave and good people doing that job for not a whole lot of pay, who don't break the rules because they have great respect for the law. I do think, however, that the feeling that the law belongs to the police is an occupational hazard that has to be avoided.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This statement, "I just want to clear one thing up - the reason I hit her with a belt was because she wouldn't stop arguing with me", struck me as funny. I wonder was the judge a man? It's clear that the guy feels totally justified, and that he feels sure that anyone listening would understand and agree that he had to hit her.
I remember reading about a guy being arrested for domestic abuse who said "Do you mean to tell me I can't even beat my own wife?" What is this world coming to? <laughs>
My sister's firn did some pro bono work for many years for a guy on death row who was accused of killing his girlfriend with an axe because she brought back the wrong kind of pizza. He explained that she did it deliberately to annoy him. So of course he had to punish her for that. Nobody knows what toppings she actually got, but there was a general feeling among the attorneys that it may have been anchovies, and if so then of course it was justifiable. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, by the way, since I've expanded my googling to the international scope, the average Joe is Chinese.
quote:This statement, "I just want to clear one thing up - the reason I hit her with a belt was because she wouldn't stop arguing with me", struck me as funny. I wonder was the judge a man? It's clear that the guy feels totally justified, and that he feels sure that anyone listening would understand and agree that he had to hit her.
Yes, the judge was a man. That didn't help. The only real problem I have with this judge is that he never convicts in domestic violence cases when the wife recants, and I can understand why it's hard to convict when the wife says, "He didn't hit me your honor." But when it's witnessed by a cop and there's a picture of the injury, I'd have no real problem doing it. He will convict if the wife doesn't testify for the husband, even if she doesn't testify for the prosecution.
One of the other judges actually said, in court, "There's enough here to convict you, but you two have children and need to work this out." There were many bad words in the break room that day about him. We have a first-offender diversion program that could have been used - one that can actually be successful when the violence cycle has just gotten started. But this D learned a very bad lesson, and I'd bet a lot of money we'll be seeing him again.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very common, at least in Virginia. Barring injury, the first two offenses are misdemeanors. Each defendant is tried in juvenile and domestics relations district court, which is always a bench trial. The defendant has an absolute right to appeal to the circuit court if convicted. About half do.
Once there, the defendant, the prosecutor, or the judge can demand a jury trial. The prosecutor usually demands it in cases where the judge is likely to impose a lesser sentence than we think a jury would or when we know a particular judge is hostile to a particular kind of case. Defendants aren't as predictable. There are some defenses that a judge just won't buy, and those will go to a jury. Sometime, the defendant just wants to stretch it out as long as possible (dangerous, because juries are more likely to give max sentences). And sometimes
Domestic A&B doesn't fall into any of the regular categories - juries are much more hostile to the average no-visible-injury domestic A&B than judges, but are unpredictable with regards to sentence if they do convict - so usually it's a bench trial.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been a little bit wary of police officers lately. Two of my friends had their places searched, without warrant, in both cases, the cops waited for the fellows to open the door, and right when the key was in the door, approached them, made them put their hands against the wall, then searched their place. The cops said that they didn't need a warrant because they were "in pursuit," but it's not as if my friends were running into the apartment, if the cops were in pursuit, they could have arrested them in the hallway. Anyway, on both occasions, after the search-- which turned up clean-- the cops let the guys go.
I think that there is going to be a fourth amendment case in the next ten years that clears all of this up. At what point does this constitute harrassment and an illegal search.
Dag, I have two questions. If a police officer asks me for my ID, do I have to produce it? I think it's illegal to lie to an FBI agent, but is it illegal for the FBI agent to lie to you?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've been a little bit wary of police officers lately. Two of my friends had their places searched, without warrant, in both cases, the cops waited for the fellows to open the door, and right when the key was in the door, approached them, made them put their hands against the wall, then searched their place. The cops said that they didn't need a warrant because they were "in pursuit," but it's not as if my friends were running into the apartment, if the cops were in pursuit, they could have arrested them in the hallway. Anyway, on both occasions, after the search-- which turned up clean-- the cops let the guys go.
The police are exploiting something called the "wingspan" rule, which says that anything which could be reached by the suspect may be searched for safety reasons. This is interpreted very, very generously in favor of the search.
The most important thing to do is to explictly deny consent. Don't interfere - that makes a bad situation worse. Just say, "you do not have my permission to search me or my house" while otherwise not interfering.
quote:If a police officer asks me for my ID, do I have to produce it?
This varies from state to state. SCOTUS has ruled that it's not unconstitutional to make it a crime to refuse to give your name to the police. They've struck down some ID-requirement laws, but not because the whole idea of requiring ID is unconstitutional.
Short answer: I don't know, and I wouldn't want anyone deciding what to do in that situation based on anything I've said.
The police are allowed to detain people based on reasonable suspicion, for the sole purpose of seeing if that suspicion can be dispelled or if it ripens into probable cause. For example, if you're carrying a TV down the street after midnight, a cop can probably order you to stop. The first questions he will likely ask are "who are you?" and "where do you live?" If you're willing to give your name and address, there's less chance you're stealing the TV because if a TV shows up missing you can be tracked down. Producing ID to confirm the address and name will dispel the suspicion more quickly.
Of course, none of this applies when driving. Most stats have on-demand requirements for licenses while driving.
quote:I think it's illegal to lie to an FBI agent, but is it illegal for the FBI agent to lie to you?
No, FBI agents can lie to you pretty much all they want, with very few exceptions such as Miranda situations or responding to "am I free to leave?"
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, good things to remember are "You do not have my permission to search me or my house", and "Am I free to leave?"
I'm a little afraid we're all going to need to know these things in this new post 9/11 country we're discovering we live in.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've known several cops and I have nothing but respect for them. I've also had negative run ins with cops and don't think any of them behaved out of line.
Certainly insider abuse occurs. What facet of society doesn't have it? But you (skillery) seem to imply that cops abuse their power more than the other facets of soceity abuse theirs. If that were true, I believe corruption would be much more visable, so much so that society and freedom would start to break down.
If more cops broke the law than the Average Joe, more Average Joes would stop obeying the laws (why should they be better than the cops?), which would lead to more cops breaking the laws in an effort to keep the Average Joes in line. And it would keep feedbacking on itself and freedom as we currently know it would cease to exist.
To carry your implication further, you are saying we are victims of the state. That is the furthest from the truth. Right now, the state is what we make it because we have the power to change it and until we lose that power, we are not victims.
Your ability to complain *is* power to change it. Believe me, if cops were more corrupt, you would know it because you would be afraid to say things like what you just said. Think of the jailed journalist in China who has been in the news lately because Microsoft/Google/whoever aledgedly helped China track him down...
Personally, I avoid cops like the plague just simply because when a cop gets involved in a dispute, your power to determine the outcome takes a dive. Isn't that what cops are for? When you no longer have power to protect yourself? When I see people call the cops for things that they have the power to correct, it is so sad because things only get worse for them.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you seem to imply that cops abuse their power
I'm suggesting that because most aspects of police work are governed by law, there are more opportunities to break the law. A simple slipup on filing a report or missing a deadline could be considered a breach of the law.
Also, I'm sure cops face gray areas all the time. Maybe one law must be broken to ensure that a more serious law is not broken. Maybe all rules go out the window when a human life is at stake.
The average Joe might break the speed limit to avoid being late to work (I know a driver's rights activist who can make an argument that breaking the speed limit is not necessarily breaking the law, at least in some states), but Joe isn't usually faced with situations throughout his workday in which he has the opportunity to break laws.
Can we draw a distinction between lawbreaking and crime? I think we should. In my mind crime is doing harm to another person or his property, or infringing on another's rights.
While I am suggesting that cops probably break more laws than the average Joe, I am not at the same time saying that more cops are criminals than are average Joes, at least not in the U.S.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A simple slipup on filing a report or missing a deadline could be considered a breach of the law.
Not often.
quote:Maybe one law must be broken to ensure that a more serious law is not broken.
In general, a successful justification defense (I took action X that is prohibited by law Y to avoid the harm caused by Z) means that law X wasn't broken.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cops have rules and reviewers governing how they may "break" laws. They can legally shoot people and Average Joes can't. Normal traffic laws do not apply to cops when they are performing their duties. So cops aren't breaking the law if they are in a high-speed car chase. If they are putting people unnecessarily at risk in the chase, that is for their reviewers to decide and punish (which is not necessarily a "crime", but bad judgment, which would result in less responsibilities or being fired). And cops are reviewed often. All cops automatically go on leave after a shooting while the shooting is reviewed.
The system is set up to protect us from corruption (unlawful search and seisure, being arrested without being told why and being thrown in the slammer with no hope of a quick trial, bribes to overlook crimes, etc), but allow cops the power to pursue criminals (detectives can arrest you for aiding criminals or hindering an investigation (destroying evidence or lying), they carry handguns which are not made to hunt animals but shoot people, they can throw you in jail, and they are like bees, if you mess with one you are soon surrounded by them...).
And Average Joes are constantly faced with opportunities to break the law. Do you have a job? Nearly every job deals with money and trust. I could go to work on Monday and break so many laws your head would spin (and I could get away with a lot of it, at least if it was a one time abuse--constant abuse would most likely eventually be detected).
Even students have plagiarism (which I'm pretty sure is a crime), underage drinking, drug use, theft, vandalism, fighting, arson, date rape, etc etc etc.
Where do you get the idea that Average Joes aren't in a possition to break laws? Maybe you think that Average Joes just decide it is in their best interest not to break the laws. Well, my guess is cops are the same way.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Yeah, people who try to commit suicide are evil criminals. I'm so glad I send all the failed attempts I work with to jail.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
