posted on December 20, 2000 05:22:46 AM new
I want to know how you feel when you are driving and you have a cop behind you. Do you feel safe knowing he is there to protect you or do you feel that he is just waiting to spring on you for the slightest infraction?
If you are in your yard and see a cop prowling the area, do you get a safe warm feeling knowing he is around or again feel anxious?
It seems as though whenever a cop gets in trouble, they get a lesser sentence than you or I would. Do you think they should be held to a higher standard and a greater punishment since they are sworn to protect the law?
posted on December 20, 2000 05:37:19 AM new
On question number 1, I get a tad nervous sometimes when a policeman is behind me. I think this is just human nature.
On number 2, I like it when I see a patrolman in our neighborhood.
On number 3, I'd like to pass on that one. It is just looking for conflict IMHO.
posted on December 20, 2000 05:40:04 AM new
*sigh* Wonder what inspired "this" thread?
I want to know how you feel when you are driving and you have a cop behind you. Do you feel safe knowing he is there to protect you or do you feel that he is just waiting to spring on you for the slightest infraction?Actually, I usually feel guilty. I'll look at the speedometer and automatically ease up on the gas peddle, even if I'm not speeding. I think it's a pretty common reaction.
If you are in your yard and see a cop prowling the area, do you get a safe warm feeling knowing he is around or again feel anxious? Interesting choice of words..."prowl". Cops don't "prowl", burglars and the like "prowl" (or cruise). Cops "patrol". But I will say that no, I don't get anxious, but that's probably because usually the cop "prowler" is my husband, "prowling" the neighborhood looking for someone to come play ping pong with him.
It seems as though whenever a cop gets in trouble, they get a lesser sentence than you or I would. Do you think they should be held to a higher standard and a greater punishment since they are sworn to protect the law? I wouldn't agree with your first statement, but the law they are "sworn" to protect should apply equally to them as well.
posted on December 20, 2000 05:58:04 AM new
So why should you feel guilty when a cop is behind you even if you know you are not speeding?
I think this is just a symptom of the atmosphere being created by over "protective" cops.
posted on December 20, 2000 06:03:18 AM new
I don't think feeling guilty when a policeman is behind you has anything to do with the policeman themselves. It is just human nature.
I've been driving 20 years, no tickets, no accidents, never been pulled over or stopped for anything.
posted on December 20, 2000 09:09:17 AM new
Both sides from my perspective:
1a) I don't get nervous when a cop is behind me. It does make me more aware of my driving behavior; speed, proper use of turn signals, coming to a full stop at stop signs, etc.
1b) I gotta be somewhere. If I'm behind you it's usually just because that's where I happen to be. If I want your attention, I'll get it. I'm drawn to things that are out of the ordinary. If your behavior on the road is extreme or erratic. it will draw my interest. I'd really prefer if you just noted my presence and ignored me. I have neither the time nor the inclination to play head games with you.
2a) When I see a cop in the neighborhood, other than just passing by, I become concerned that there may be a problem in the area. I know the cop is probably there for a reason and I become curious. Usually I find the sight of a cop doing his/her job reassuring.
2b) When I realize that they aren't coming to get me, I'm relieved. I sometimes watch and try to guess what they're up to. I feel compelled to lend a hand in whatever they're doing. If I see them do something unusual, I feel an obligation to supervise. I usually resist both urges.
3a) Cop's are held to a higher standard and do receive greater penalties when charged with crimes. It happens everyday.
3b) My greatest fear is getting inadvertently caught up in some high profile situation and becoming expendable. I believe myself to be fair, honest, and law-abiding. I often feel like all of society is driving behind me in an enormous police car just waiting for me to do something they perceive as wrong. It makes me nervous.
posted on December 20, 2000 09:15:55 AM new
All I can say is that a cop behind me makes me slow down. That must annoy cops, as most people drive above the speed limit anyway, but they obviously can't when the guy in front of them is moseying along at a crawl.
posted on December 20, 2000 09:25:27 AM new Cop's are held to a higher standard and do receive greater penalties when charged with crimes. It happens everyday.
Every day? Sounds like there must be a lot of criminals amongst the police.
posted on December 20, 2000 09:27:48 AM new
Perhaps is is just a foul mood on my part - but to number 1 - I have lived in too many speedtrap southern towns to think that any cop behind me is doing anything BUT looking for any possible flimsy excuse to stop me. It is a source of revenue pure and simple.
Racial profiling and "driving while black" has happened to friends of mine.
A cop crusing through my rural area is assumed to be lost. The last 911 call for assistance had a cop arrive over 2 hours later. (thank god we had a gun - and thank god the thug also recognized that we were armed) Because they know that a cop is a rare event here - we became the meth capitol of the region.
Number 3 is to flammable to touch right now given the Rampart situation and the recent convictions in New Jersey.
Sorry to be so negative - I do know several good cops and they have to do a thankless task. But, I feel that their role in our society has mutated far far away from the "protect and serve" ideal.
posted on December 20, 2000 09:36:27 AM new their role in our society has mutated far far away from the "protect and serve" ideal.
Absolutely. The Ramparts div. in Los Angeles currently has 70 brutality cases in courts, the entire Oakland, CA department is being investigated as a result of the conviction of four officers for planting and altering evidence, beatings, drug dealing, and a host of other things, in just two examples.
posted on December 20, 2000 09:44:22 AM new
scrabblegod - First and foremost I try to keep faith that the police is trying to uphold the law. Given the nature of crime and criminals today and the fact that they are human and have emotions and fears like me. I try to be understanding to their priority to get home to their families each day. With that said your questions.
Q - I want to know how you feel when you are driving and you have a cop behind you.
A - Depends if I just ran a yellow, or have a broken tail lamp. I hope he'll just drive alongside and talk without the flashing lights. If none of the above applies I just go about my business with the faith that he will go about his. They've only broken that faith once and I indirectly caused that breech.
Q - If you are in your yard and see a cop prowling the area.
A - I live downtown in Chicago, so I don't get too worried because they are always around. Now if they got those guns drawn. I tend to make my way the opposite direction. My military experience tells me that bullets have no names.
Q - It seems as though whenever a cop gets in trouble, they get a lesser sentence than you or I would.
A - That isn't the case here in Chicago. They seem to get a more harsher sentenace for things like murder, drug dealing, and any crime where they gained financially. And the papers here always publish the Judges words at sentencing. Its always words like, "You have abused and served to destroy the public faith in the law and those enpowered to enforce it", then the Judge issues whatever the maximum sentence is.
Now when I am visiting the old neighborhood some of those perceptions change. I happen to be young looking and drive a BMW. That always gets their attention. I found a cheap solution to the problem. Vanity Plates with the cars registered to my company. They run the plate see the company name read my license and unless I have one of those ignorant ones. The situation ends with; Sorry Mr. Anderson, just doing my job. I reply, I can appreciate that and understand.
If its one of the ignorant ones. Well it depends on what my schedule is for the day. If I am not too busy and can blow off the meetings. I entertain his ignorance, besides why have lawyers on retainers and never use them? That IMHO is a waste of money. Can't be wasting those capital resources, can we?
posted on December 20, 2000 10:06:21 AM newAllegations of police administered brutality and corruption is a common occurrence. It (allegation) goes with the turf. However, the majority of such allegations are not true.
All lawyers are not corrupt, all (Republican) politicians are not corrupt, all Chinese are not communists, etc.
If you believe the majority of police officers are brutal and corrupt, and you are ever in need of the services of a police officer, call a "hippie."
posted on December 20, 2000 10:46:39 AM new
When back-up arrives it's almost always re-assuring. Sometimes, though, there's a nagging suspicion that this guy's gonna get me jammed up.
posted on December 20, 2000 10:50:01 AM new
Even if you do everything perfect when a police officer is behind you, I ALWAYS get nervous, they got me for no light on my license plate in the DAYTIME, ok it was a warning, but it was like he just had to pull me over for something.
posted on December 20, 2000 10:50:24 AM new
I view about 99% of traffic stops as a form of taxation. It has very little to do with safety. It bugs the daylights out of me to see the same cars week after week trailing a big cloud of blue smoke. I have seen them so bad people pull over behind them to get out of it, but they are obviously never stopped and given a ticket to fix it. They must create as much pollution as a 1000 other cars. And we have pretty bad air here in the summer months.
Anytime I see guns out it is time to lie low.
I saw the swat team going in the neighbors fence one day and exited the other end of the house and went to the park for a while.
I've deleted the first post you made to this thread. It denigrated an entire profession, and was outside the boundaries of basic etiquette. Please don't go there again.
posted on December 20, 2000 11:40:33 AM new
You know.......you're absolutely right, Pat!
I read it, though, and it didn't bother me a bit. I like to think I can take it as well as dish it out. I didn't think about how it would look to others.
I don't believe any malice was intended. Certainly no offense was personally taken.
posted on December 21, 2000 05:21:23 PM new
To protect and serve - The Federal Version (we know that local, state, and federal laws apply to the local and state police departments - but they now do not apply to Federal Agents)
Associated Press - San Francisco Dec 21, 2000
In arguments regarding the ruling of a Federal Court to prevent an Idaho country from charging a Federal sharpshooter with murder after the shooting of Vicki Weaver I saw this jaw dropper. (She was the wife of Randy Weaver - shot in the head while holding her 10 month old child. She was shot through the window of a door, that she was holding open.)
US Solicitor General Seth Waxman stated that Federal agents cannot be held accountable for unlawful acts commited in the line of duty.
Waxman told the court that it did not matter if her death was the result of excesive force.
"These Federal Law inforcement officials are privileged to do what would otherwise be unlawful if done by a private citizen" was his quoted testomony
I have a question - if this administration does not feel that the Constitution provides any limitations to the actions of federal agents including illegal acts - then where does any limitation come from??
Waxman also said that the facts of the case and the manner of her death are irrelevant and said that Federal agents cannot be subjected to state laws.
This on top of a recent TV show on law inforcement snipers where they were proclaiming the importance of hitting the eyeduct area in the center of the head in a frontal presentation. (Not the head - within an INCH of the eyeduct, mind you)
My personal conclusion is that the sniper took careful aim at her head and blew her away - or he was ill trained and not worthy of the name "sharpshooter" and blew her away by accident.
Either way - it's OK with your Government. I wonder if this applies now to perjury, planting evidence, beating out confessions now as well. I would assume that if it applies to murder or manslaughter - it would apply to "lesser" crimes that might occur.
posted on December 21, 2000 05:54:05 PM new
#1) No real effect. Haven't had a ticket in over 20 years, so I don't have the fear complex many others suffer from. It does nothing for me as far as feeling safe, as I rarely feel unsafe.
#2) I have seen thousands of police officers in my life, but I have never seen one prowling. If you meant to say patrolling, I think it is a good thing. They generally only have foot patrols after baseball and football games since our stadiums are downtown, and at a couple shopping centers on the weekend to keep the kids from getting out of hand. As for the city, they need armored personel carriers and tanks to patrol some neighborhoods.
#3) I think all people should be treated equally. Of course that will never be. The person with the best lawyers comes out ahead. (except in Al Gore's case)
And I will add a number 4 to the list...
Do you think the penalty for someone killing a police officer should be more severe than it is for killing a priest, a pregnant woman, a child, or your mother ???
posted on December 21, 2000 06:06:39 PM new
nutspec - welcome to reality. You are not the soveriegn people you thought you were part of before. Must be a shock to know you are ruled by force of arms. All this time you though it was by your consent huh? Withdraw the consent. Go ahead.
Added - Oh if you could get them to declare martial law you could probably get that kind of action classed as a war crime. But they just managing that which the state owns.
[ edited by gravid on Dec 21, 2000 06:09 PM ]
posted on December 21, 2000 06:35:56 PM new
Well,MrJim, that's really not a fair question since, to my knowledge, that is not exactly the case anywhere in this country nor is it likely it ever will be.
The intentonal murder of a police officer while that officer is carrying out the duties of his office is a capital offense (allowing the death penalty) in many areas of the United States. Often other agents of the state or local government are given similar status in legislation if they are murdered as a direct consequence of their occupation. Firemen, prison gaurds, sheriffs, game wardens, are a few.
A variety of contributing factors are taken into consideration when a District Attorney considers the charges in a homicide case.
Given the legal requirements and circumstances, the killing of a priest, a pregnant woman, a child, or your mother would also be capital offenses.
posted on December 21, 2000 07:03:40 PM new
xardon:
Read it again. This time put more emphasis on the words "do you think" and "should be", and note that there is nothing in the question relating to current law or occurences. It is a follow-up question to number three "do you think they should be held to a higher standard when committing crimes"
I simply added the descriptions of the people (ie: priest, mother, etc) to balance the scales, rather than comparing a police officer to a plain citizen.
You answered yes to number three, stating that you feel they should be and are held to a higher standard, I simply asked if you also feel that the punishment should be more severe for killing an officer vs. a non-officer. Nothing complicated there. (except of course when you factor in who those non-officers might be)
posted on December 21, 2000 07:29:12 PM new
I think I read it right the first time. It is a loaded question no matter how many times it's read.
Consider this: Murder with the aggravating circumstance of an armed robbery is considered a death penalty offense in many states. If a child molester is carjacked, robbed and shot to death the offender will face the death penalty because of the circumstances. If a busload of nuns, a girl scout, a schoolteacher, or an eBay seller are murdered without the aggravating circumstance it is likely the death penalty will no be imposed.
So do you think the penalty for killing a child molester should be more severe than it is for killing a busload of nuns, a girl scout, a schoolteacher, or an eBay seller?
