Well, This Is Distressing....

[Zeke]

Dumbassery.

That there is no evidence to convict any officer is not the fault of the officer.

That's called "Not Guilty."

DONE DEAL.

[LawDawg]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Cops and criminals have to obey the same set of laws. Criminals disobey and they get punished. The cops? They walk and that's the problem in a nutshell.

Who is empowering whom?

"Cops and Criminals have to obey the same set of Laws." hmmmm. Inservice training for criminals??? Mandatory 40 hrs per year to update on the latest revisions of the law and any SCOTUS case law.....the "Geneva Convention" of Criminal Activity.....

Kinder, Gentler criminals who act under "rules of engagement"......Oh my aching ass, BeamOn.....Don't you EVER have the audacity to call Me an idiot.....

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by LawDawg

"Cops and Criminals have to obey the same set of Laws." hmmmm. Inservice training for criminals??? Mandatory 40 hrs per year to update on the latest revisions of the law and any SCOTUS case law.....the "Geneva Convention" of Criminal Activity.....

Kinder, Gentler criminals who act under "rules of engagement"......Oh my aching ass, BeamOn.....Don't you EVER have the audacity to call Me an idiot.....

Now you are being deliberately obtuse, criminals (when they are such) now pretty well that what they are doing is against the law I don't need training to know that taking a life is wrong unless in self defense or time of war..

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Quite simply, you can have safe cops or safe criminals as members of society at large. The key query is, given that both are culled from society, which grouping do you desire to empower?

Any reduction in the ability for police to protect themselves is an empowerment of the latter.

Why do police exist?

Is it possible they have to accept limitations on their power, to prevent instances in which police operations negate their actual purpose?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by LawDawg

"Cops and Criminals have to obey the same set of Laws." hmmmm. Inservice training for criminals??? Mandatory 40 hrs per year to update on the latest revisions of the law and any SCOTUS case law.....the "Geneva Convention" of Criminal Activity.....

Kinder, Gentler criminals who act under "rules of engagement"......Oh my aching ass, BeamOn.....Don't you EVER have the audacity to call Me an idiot.....

Not being able to distinguish between laws and departmental training requirements might qualify as proof of idiocy.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by LawDawg

"Cops and Criminals have to obey the same set of Laws." hmmmm. Inservice training for criminals??? Mandatory 40 hrs per year to update on the latest revisions of the law and any SCOTUS case law.....the "Geneva Convention" of Criminal Activity.....

Kinder, Gentler criminals who act under "rules of engagement"......Oh my aching ass, BeamOn.....Don't you EVER have the audacity to call Me an idiot.....

So what set of laws are the police acting under? That is the real question here isn't it? If I called you names that you find offensive, try not to offend members with your posts, which has been your intent all along. Par for the course.

BTW, how else would the 'general public' characterize a person that believes Palin is qualified to be president, supports Ted Cruz who shut down the government costing the country $24 Billion or Ben Carson a role model for the blacks, etc. What odds do you think these people have of ever becoming president? They are at best fringe candidate with their own agendas that has little to do with the well being of this country.

[Pio1980]

My concern is having a police State, rather than properly a state with equitable ethical lawful enforcement. This seems to vary greatly, depending on locality.
Taking advantage of a for-profit justice system like ours, regardless of the circumstances of entry, can be devastatingly costly, from legal defense to loss of employment and housing with property during pre-trial incarceration. There is nothing trivial in being arrested on trivial or specious charges for those who can least afford it.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Pio1980]

Dp, nt.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

My concern is having a police State, rather than properly a state with equitable ethical lawful enforcement. This seems to vary greatly, depending on locality.
Taking advantage of a for-profit justice system like ours regardless of the circumstances of entry can be devastatingly costly, from legal defense to loss of employment and housing with property during pre-trial incarceration. There is nothing trivial in being arrested on trivial or specious charges for those who can least afford it.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Huge fines for traffic violations are becoming an issue for reform here.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...520-story.html

your average ticket is $500. She wants to let people challenge the ticket in court before having to pay the fines. Plus when they get so high people cannot pay the fines and the state loses money.

[donquixote99]

If you impose fines before trial, you are basically imposing sentence without trial. That's unconstitutional, isn't it? I seem to recall a bit about no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.