|
Originally Posted by copwriter
(Post 8299743)
The inference I get here is that any police or security officer who does not do things exactly the way you want them done is "unprofessional." It's a fact of life that someone who has the role of being the enforcer of rules is going to garner resentment from the people who don't want to follow those rules.
Further, as I pointed out before, it is just unrealistic to expect that an authority figure (or anyone else) is always going to turn the other cheek when you go out of your way to treat them badly. I recall a conflict some years ago that was called "the war to end all wars." Never say never. If anything, I expect that security procedures may get even more stringent, such as restricting carry-ons to something no larger than a purse or briefcase. This is because The Other Side is very innovative and motivated. The liquid ban didn't take effect until a group of terrorists were caught before the fact, planning to bring explosives on board in component form, to be collected and mixed on board. That may seem far-fetched to you as a scenario, but so was concealing explosives in shoes until someone tried it. And that one came really close to working. If Padilla had gone to the lavatory to ignite his explosives instead of trying it in his seat, we would have probably been short one more aircraft. That didn't happen because Padilla was stupid. Are you that confident of the inferior intelligence of other Jihadis? Keep in mind that most of the last group that the Brits rounded up were licensed and trained physicians. Most of the physicians I have encountered were reasonably bright individuals. Because you have the legal or physical capacity to do something does not mean that it is a good idea to carry it out. I imagine that I could walk into most any fast food restaurant and tell the person at the counter, "Look, loser - strain what little brain you have and try to get this right the first time. I want {item} {item} and {item}, I want it fast and hot, and I want it to be the best thing I've ever tasted. If it's not, I'm not only going to talk to your boss and have you fired, but I'm going to call your national office and rat out the whole store to be a warehouse of shiftless incompetents such as yourself. Why are you still standing there? Chop chop!" I would have committed no criminal offense. But what kind of customer service do you think I would be likely to get? I'd have to watch the crew make my food to ensure they didn't put human waste in it. Go back to my previous post and the parable of my friend who wrote tickets as long as the violator belittled him. Did the violator have a right to do that? Yes. Did my friend have the right to fill out all those tickets? Also yes. And one could even make an argument that he was being conscientious and thorough in doing so. Let's look at some other aviation-related scenarios where people would be entirely within their rights to discommode you:
But being a cop also means that one is going to be using the authority of the position to enforce rules that people often don't want to see enforced. There is and will always be a human element to this transaction. If you don't want the human element, then expect to be held to account for every violation of the law. One mile over the limit? Please sign here. Call me anything you want, sir, but press firmly, you are making four copies. By the way, I'll be issuing you another citation for obstructed view - that windshield is pretty dirty. Nice manicure on that middle finger. I also note you have no litter bag in your car. It will take me a second to write that one up. No, sir, that's not so - my parents were married, and I would not even consider doing that to my mother. If you choose to engage in "standing up against stupid 'rules'" at the place and time that they are enforced, you risk the commission of a criminal act, and being charged with same. I've never said that you shouldn't make a stand against a rule or law that you think is improper. I do believe that you should make that stand at an appropriate venue. The cop/guard/TSO/whatever has close to nothing to say in the writing of those rules. He is doing his job. Go complain to someone who can do something about it. My sense is that the people I am debating here would find that too inconvenient, which I believe is the basis for the protest in the first place. As for your analogy about the cashier who rings up your groceries incorrectly: I'd bring it to their attention as soon as I had noticed it. But if they told me that I needed to take it up with customer service or the manager, I'd find customer service or the manager and take care of it, and allow the people waiting in line behind me to do their business. I would be polite to the cashier in doing so, and start from the perspective that this is, at most, a mistake, and that there is a possibility I could be wrong. This approach has been working out pretty well for me so far. Your mileage may vary. I expect I know a lot more LEOs than you do, and very few of them are insecure. War Story Alert: I spent two years as a court officer. The primary duty was to provide security in the courtroom and for the judge, but that took up a small fraction of my time. A greater portion was spent making arrangements for defendants to fulfill requirements of their sentences, and to monitor their progress. This could and often did include some combination of payments of fines in installments, scheduling weekend jail time, arranging for community service, attendance at victim impact panels, counseling, various schools, and so on. The judge I worked for gave me considerable discretion and latitude here. For instance, if someone showed up in my office after a $500 arrest warrant had been issued (typically for non-compliance with sentencing requirements) for them, I could reduce the bail to whatever money I could get out of them, set a court date for them to appear, and send them on their way. It was costly and time-consuming to physically arrest all of these people, and the objective of the arrest was to guarantee their appearance in court, anyway. This bail-and-release method usually worked. I also had discretion in assigning community service, unless the judge had specified the conditions in his sentencing order. Obviously, anyone that thought they had been treated unfairly was free to complain to the judge, who would review each one of my assignments before it became final. I don't recall anyone ever doing this, as I was much more of a soft touch than the judge. One case involved an 18-year-old from a community about 40 miles away from our city, a community that was quite wealthy. The lad had been arrested and was about to plead guilty to drunk driving. His family had hired an attorney from their community, one that had never appeared in our court before. The prosecutor, after having agreed to the plea bargain, had suggested the attorney speak to me before court to expedite the sentencing arrangements, which were to include about 80 hours of community service. The attorney came in and told me that his client was the recipient of a baseball scholarship (to a community college, as it turned out - fees at community colleges being what they were, I didn't think they bothered with athletic scholarships), and that he would be performing his community service coaching Little League. I replied that the court's view of community service was that it was supposed to be punitive, at least in part, and that coaching baseball didn't seem to fit the bill. I told him his client would probably be assigned to manual labor at the animal shelter. The attorney bristled, straightened up, and told me in the most condescending tone he could manage, "I will discuss this with the JUDGE, in the manner that ATTORNEYS and JUDGES do." I told him to feel free. In court, the attorney started to make his pitch for the coaching, and the judge cut him off. "My bailiff makes the community service assignments. See him after court." We signed him up for the animal shelter duty. I made no reference to our previous conversation. A month or so later, the non-compliance warrants for the kid started to cross my desk. No fine payments, no school attendance, no community service. The warrants were signed and filed, ready to be served next time the cops came across him. A couple of months after that, the attorney called me. His tone was considerably changed, talking to me like we were old pals. His client had already flunked out of community college, something I didn't know you could do in only one semester. He had been so occupied with school that he just forgot about the other stuff. Could I be a nice guy, dismiss the warrants, and sign the client up for a new program, now that he was back home? The temptation to ask, "Wouldn't you rather take this up with the judge, in the manner that attorneys and judges do?" was overpowering. However, I bit my tongue, told him he would be set for a "show cause" hearing, and would receive notice of the date in due time. When the hearing took place, the judge tore the client a new one and sent him to jail for several days. I drove him there. Cops don't always put people in their place, although many richly deserve it. I still urge all of you to heed that saying I mentioned earlier, about the alligator and the swamp. The butt you threaten to kick today may be the one you will have to kiss later. I once posted this before. Please do the "r" in research before the "w" in write in your posts. |
Originally Posted by knotyeagle
(Post 8300452)
I dare say copwriter, you must know of another nefarious plot by Jose Padilla than I do. I'd swear up/down that it was Richard Reid who tried that stunt.
I once posted this before. Please do the "r" in research before the "w" in write in your posts. |
Originally Posted by copwriter
(Post 8299743)
Go back to my previous post and the parable of my friend who wrote tickets as long as the violator belittled him. Did the violator have a right to do that? Yes. Did my friend have the right to fill out all those tickets? Also yes. And one could even make an argument that he was being conscientious and thorough in doing so.
|
Originally Posted by copwriter
(Post 8300126)
I find that most cops and TSOs are polite and respectful, you find the opposite. Has it occurred to you that the way they are treated by you and me might have something to do with this?
Originally Posted by copwriter
Cops also have to control the situation. It's always best to ask nicely, but if I think that the only way to get you to not escalate a situation or to get compliance with a lawful order is to intimidate you, I'm reasonably good at that.
Originally Posted by copwriter
The cop, guard, or TSO may not have risen to the lofty station in life you believe you have reached, but at this moment, he is the alligator and you are in his swamp.
Originally Posted by copwriter
Should cops, TSOs, security guards, etc. act more "professionally" and courteously? I suppose so.
Originally Posted by copwriter
In fact, I'd argue that my list has greater priority than yours, because rude authority figures are merely offensive, where the others alter the course of peoples' lives.
Originally Posted by copwriter
My gut feeling is that the people who are protesting this situation most fervently aren't nearly as concerned about civil liberties as they are about doing whatever they want, whereever and whenever they want to do it.
Originally Posted by copwriter
But if you really want to change things, you need to devote your energies elsewhere, and quit throwing rocks at the people that have little or nothing to say about the procedures they are told to administer.
There are two problems that we complain about here. One is the policies and the other is how they are implemented (or not implemented). If they were done so politely (no barking) and consistently I think you would see a lot less complaints on here. I would bet you would say that you wouldn't, since clearly we're all anarchists who reject any authority. But I would point out that the method of implementation seems to tie in to the people who created the policies - they seem less interested in safety than in creating a climate of fear so that folks are reminded of the threat they are not really fighting. I would submit that such an attitude carries down to (many) of the line TSOs. Bad policies implemented politely are a lot more palatable. I have no complaints about the security people at LHR, for example - their policies are just as stupid as ours but the people were polite and courteous. It's amazing what that sort of outlook will do to the experience... |
Originally Posted by knotyeagle
(Post 8300452)
I dare say copwriter, you must know of another nefarious plot by Jose Padilla than I do. I'd swear up/down that it was Richard Reid who tried that stunt.
I once posted this before. Please do the "r" in research before the "w" in write in your posts. |
Originally Posted by copwriter
(Post 8303378)
My error. I do admit to being capable of them.
|
Originally Posted by n5667
(Post 8295259)
Nonsense, they could easily classify that as suspicious behavior that suggests further investigation. Walking up to a cop and calling him a fascist? Why would someone do that? If their attitude is going to be so disrespectful and callous, what else are they up to? Or are they even in the right state of mind?
Regardless of whether or not they should, they can certainly make an argument for it. After all, someone who calls me a fascist obviously has no respect for me, if they have no respect for me, they may very well have no respect for my duties - ergo they warrant closer scrutiny. Sure you have the right to do it, but any rational individual would not do it, as they would not say a lot of things they are allowed to say, but know better than to do so. |
Originally Posted by copwriter
(Post 8300126)
My gut feeling is that the people who are protesting this situation most fervently aren't nearly as concerned about civil liberties as they are about doing whatever they want, whereever and whenever they want to do it.
|
Originally Posted by nigelloring
(Post 8303545)
Isn't the definition of "civil liberties" something like "doing whatever one wants, whereever and whenever one wants to do it, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else"?
Sad though... some people seem to have skipped that lesson... |
Originally Posted by JakiChan
(Post 8301932)
Yes, I suppose it's more "efficient" to command fear than it is to command respect. In choosing to use that tool you choose the consequences of that tool - this you get the public perception many have of LEOs.
|
Originally Posted by vassilipan
(Post 8300780)
I have to ask - did the officer write the tickets because of the violation(s) or because the violator committed "contempt of cop?" The officer was using retaliation if he/she is citing because the violator pi$$ed him/her off.
The objective of traffic law enforcement is to improve highway safety through compliance with traffic laws. It's pretty clear that people will toss the rule book aside if they don't think there are any consequences in so doing. When there is a police car visible or in the vicinity, everyone slows down and is on their best behavior. No cop, it's a free fire zone. My practice, and the way I was trained, is to take the lowest level of action that gives a reasonable expectation that the violator will drive more carefully and not repeat the offense. The violator's attitude is a huge factor in this decision. The person that admits what they did and acknowledges that they weren't paying attention or were late for an appointment (or whatever) is far more likely to get the verbal warning than the driver that insists that I am wrong or lying, that they have done nothing wrong, or that gives me some other form of attitude that tells me anything I say to them is going to be a waste of breath. For those folks, I'd say, "I'll give you an opportunity to argue your case before an impartial authority" and write the ticket. That is, after all, what courts are for. In the rare case that someone took it up a notch, and refused to surrender their drivers license or to sign the ticket, they got to take a ride in my car while theirs went to an impound lot. It's all towards the end of modifying undesirable behavior. Don't think the police should act outside the legal system to modify behavior? In fact, that is usually the preferred, recommended course, and the foundation of community policing. When an officer looks to innovative solutions to problems, and regards the use of citations and arrests as merely one tool among many, people feel safer and are more comfortable with the police. Taking this analogy back to the security checkpoint, the gatekeeper is aware that some people will try to bully their way through the process and refuse to comply with the established procedures. If the gatekeeper allows him/herself to be bullied and lets the person through without doing the screening that they have been told to do, their job is on the line. The motivation to oppose the screening procedure may be (and usually will be) pure ego. I'm not buying that all of these folks are civil rights activists, except where their own convenience is concerned. But this same vocal opposition to the screening may be the method chosen by a malefactor who thinks he can buffalo the gatekeeper by making a scene. This is a very common practice. I usually heard it as "Do you know who (I, my father, my mother, my boss, etc.) am/is?" or "You only stopped me because I'm {insert name of oppressed group here}!" Whatever it takes to try and put the gatekeeper on the defensive. This approach can be very successful. Kevin Mitnick was a very skilled hacker, but he said that much of the information he got that allowed him to tap into other networks was obtained through "social engineering." Swwet-talking your way through might work, but bullying could work, too. So, to get back to your question: I don't think my friend was retaliating. I think he was modifying the violator's behavior, and I think he succeeded, as the violator figured the problem out for himself. This doesn't mean that cops won't retaliate if you push them. Cops are human. Several people who have been debating this with me seem to have the attitude that it's okay for them to get incensed when they perceive that their cage has been rattled, and at the same time they place themselves as socially or intellectually superior to the cops (as an example, note the condescending tone of the person that discovered my error on Padilla v. Reid). My experience is that cops are much better at keeping it together than non-cops, but if it's expected for homo superior to lose his temper, why would you think it wouldn't happen to the Blue Breasted Flatfoot? I've said this before in other message threads: in the field, whether it be at roadside, in a bar, or at the air terminal security checkpoint, Mr. Officer Is Always Right. Challenge this proposition, and you almost certainly lose. Take up the issue in court, at the police station, with your congressman, or at whatever other venue you choose, but when Mr. Officer is deployed, he's in charge, and he's going to resist challenges to the extent of his ability. To those that will gather their Internet Courage and proclaim their opposition to this, well, I hope orange is a good color for you. |
Originally Posted by copwriter
(Post 8304750)
The objective of traffic law enforcement is to improve highway safety through compliance with traffic laws. It's pretty clear that people will toss the rule book aside if they don't think there are any consequences in so doing. When there is a police car visible or in the vicinity, everyone slows down and is on their best behavior. No cop, it's a free fire zone.
People see a cop (county cop, state trooper, etc) driving down the highway. Everyone drives the speed limit to watch what the cop does. Cop has no flashers on and is doing 20mph over. Guess what everyone else then does? Same applies at a TSA checkpoint. I walk into a screening with a neutral attitude despite my severe distaste for TSA. If they're pleasant, I have no problems. Cop (pun intended :D) an attitude with me and they'll get it right back. Get a retaliatory secondary (like those don't exist :rolleyes:), file a complaint. My practice, and the way I was trained, is to take the lowest level of action that gives a reasonable expectation that the violator will drive more carefully and not repeat the offense. The violator's attitude is a huge factor in this decision. The person that admits what they did and acknowledges that they weren't paying attention or were late for an appointment (or whatever) is far more likely to get the verbal warning than the driver that insists that I am wrong or lying, that they have done nothing wrong, or that gives me some other form of attitude that tells me anything I say to them is going to be a waste of breath. For those folks, I'd say, "I'll give you an opportunity to argue your case before an impartial authority" and write the ticket. That is, after all, what courts are for. In the rare case that someone took it up a notch, and refused to surrender their drivers license or to sign the ticket, they got to take a ride in my car while theirs went to an impound lot. It's all towards the end of modifying undesirable behavior. Other time, the cop wrote me in an accident for driving too fast for conditions. This despite the fact that it was a sunny day and I had just pulled out of a stop light in a Civic. Couldn't go fast if I wanted to. I caused the accident. Had he written me up for something else, like not looking where I was going, no problem. Instead, he was an idiot and I told him exactly what I thought. The ticket was already written so there wasn't much he can do. Took it to court and the citation was reduced and written correctly. If I'm wrong, fine, but don't write me up for some BS thing ... do it right. Don't think the police should act outside the legal system to modify behavior? In fact, that is usually the preferred, recommended course, and the foundation of community policing. When an officer looks to innovative solutions to problems, and regards the use of citations and arrests as merely one tool among many, people feel safer and are more comfortable with the police. Taking this analogy back to the security checkpoint, the gatekeeper is aware that some people will try to bully their way through the process and refuse to comply with the established procedures. If the gatekeeper allows him/herself to be bullied and lets the person through without doing the screening that they have been told to do, their job is on the line. The motivation to oppose the screening procedure may be (and usually will be) pure ego. I'm not buying that all of these folks are civil rights activists, except where their own convenience is concerned. But this same vocal opposition to the screening may be the method chosen by a malefactor who thinks he can buffalo the gatekeeper by making a scene. This is a very common practice. I usually heard it as "Do you know who (I, my father, my mother, my boss, etc.) am/is?" or "You only stopped me because I'm {insert name of oppressed group here}!" It isn't about buffaloing the gatekeeper. It's about the government keeping its promise to be professional and give us better security than what we had without infringing on folks' rights. It fails miserably on both accounts. I've said this before in other message threads: in the field, whether it be at roadside, in a bar, or at the air terminal security checkpoint, Mr. Officer Is Always Right. Challenge this proposition, and you almost certainly lose. Take up the issue in court, at the police station, with your congressman, or at whatever other venue you choose, but when Mr. Officer is deployed, he's in charge, and he's going to resist challenges to the extent of his ability. To those that will gather their Internet Courage and proclaim their opposition to this, well, I hope orange is a good color for you. Orange for calling a cop out when he's wrong. Please. :rolleyes: |
I'll say it again...
The government belongs to US. It is a fiction...a corporation that works for OUR mutual benefit. If we decided to NEVER speak up imagine where we'd be 100 years from now. We'd be slaves to our own ideas. We should ALL be a bit more humble and understand that we're not always standing on the right side of the argument. We should also give the appropriate amount of respect to those we willingly give authority to. You make your bed and therefore must lay in it. Thankfully I'm in a position to decide what I will and won't do. If you want access to a government owned facility you have to obey their rules. Otherwise you just don't have access. This is the reality. If they decided to require each person to remove all clothing for a strip search in order to enter...you'd have people willingly removing their clothes! Most of the things we complain about are things we created in the first place. We subject ourselves to things such as ID cards because we want the "benefits/rewards" of having them. Excuse me if I'm too far off topic, but I'd like to share a couple of quotes for your consideration: "The only time anyone is required to have ID is to access so-called privileges and benefits granted by the issuing party. If you have no need for special privileges and benefits granted by others, there is no need for an ID card. Keep in mind that the government has nothing to give. It produces nothing. In order to bestow a special privilege or benefit on one person, the government must take from another. All those who receive privileges, benefits and handouts from government (money that is not earned) are doing nothing more than robbing their neighbors by legal plunder. No matter what type of ID(s) you carry, one thing is for sure ... you did not issue it to yourself. You willfully applied for the ID hoping to receive some type of special privilege or benefit granted by the authority." - Donald Merle "The question is, do you, as most people believe, need permission (license and permit) to contract, work, get married, use the public roads (liberty of movement), own property, open a business, choose their own destiny, worship, defend themselves, etc.? The answer is ... you don't. That is unless you voluntarily, by your own free will and volition, apply for, are granted, and accept the fictitious privilege or benefit being offered. Thereby placing yourself into a state of "voluntary servitude." "By way of endorsing this fact, the constitution of the United States of America clearly states that the condition of "involuntary" servitude shall forever be prohibited. The key word here is "involuntary." This means that your natural Rights cannot be converted to privileges (without your consent), and privileges cannot be converted to Rights (without consent of the authority)."- Donald Merle I know that broadens the scope of this conversation beyond the boundaries of this thread, but one thing is for sure... The creator(WE, the people)comes before the creation(government) and whatever the "creator" creates, he controls...HOPEFULLY! ;) |
Originally Posted by knotyeagle
(Post 8303396)
I'm fortunate that I have an editor who catches mine.:)
|
Originally Posted by copwriter
(Post 8304750)
Had the violator not been running his mouth, I doubt that he would have gotten the extra tickets. You can (and undoubtedly will) argue that this was an abuse of his authority. I don't think so, because he was entirely within his authority to write the extra citations.
Originally Posted by copwriter
The objective of traffic law enforcement is to improve highway safety through compliance with traffic laws.
Originally Posted by copwriter
When there is a police car visible or in the vicinity, everyone slows down and is on their best behavior.
That being said - I am very respectful of the CHP. They are always very professional and extremely courteous.
Originally Posted by copwriter
The person that admits what they did and acknowledges that they weren't paying attention or were late for an appointment (or whatever) is far more likely to get the verbal warning than the driver that insists that I am wrong or lying, that they have done nothing wrong, or that gives me some other form of attitude that tells me anything I say to them is going to be a waste of breath. For those folks, I'd say, "I'll give you an opportunity to argue your case before an impartial authority" and write the ticket.
(Note: the ACLU [something which many cops hate since the bill of rights is such an obstacle for them] has a pretty good guide for how to behave at a traffic stop. Just remember that even politely asserting your rights in a traffic stop will often cause the officer to be rude/vindictive.)
Originally Posted by copwriter
My experience is that cops are much better at keeping it together than non-cops, but if it's expected for homo superior to lose his temper, why would you think it wouldn't happen to the Blue Breasted Flatfoot?
Originally Posted by copwriter
I've said this before in other message threads: in the field, whether it be at roadside, in a bar, or at the air terminal security checkpoint, Mr. Officer Is Always Right.
In the field a cop will be happy to violate your civil rights to you. While the officer is in the act of defecating on the Constitution it is best to let him do so. Nothing enrages the Blue Breasted Flatfoot more than failing to bow before his authority and such failure can easily lead to his rage and you can end up with a concussion or a GSW. Much like the Tyrannosaurus Rex, just stand still, don't say anything, and hope it goes away before it eats you.
Originally Posted by copwriter
Take up the issue in court, at the police station, with your congressman, or at whatever other venue you choose, but when Mr. Officer is deployed, he's in charge, and he's going to resist challenges to the extent of his ability
Remember to alway respect the police the same way you'd respect a rattlesnake. You don't respect a rattlesnake because you think it's honorable or nice or anything - you respect it because it can hurt you. The moment you forget that it will. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:58 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.