4 ms·
"especially if they are uncooperative." Oh yeah. I really don't like the idea of an officer having discretion in these situations. First sign of bad legislation
by pacifist 6y ago
"especially if they are uncooperative." Oh yeah. I really don't like the idea of an officer having discretion in these situations. First sign of bad legislation IMHO.
- 0xffff2 6y agoPolice officers always have discretion. It would be impossible to legislate that away. It's been a while since I read the law (I'm an Oregon resident, so I read it before I voted for it), but I'd imagine that the law doesn't give any particular discretion in enforcement, but in the real world an officer can always choose not to issue a ticket/make an arrest.
- pacifist 6y agoReally? How about in the case of armed robbery? Or murder? Can they choose not to arrest? Yes, but there will be serious consequences. BTW I voted for it too.
- 0xffff2 6y agoIf a single officer is the only witness to a murder, what consequences will there be if the officer chooses not to make an arrest? Yes, there's nuance and as soon as multiple people are involved there's the risk of public outcry, but as far as I know, there's not a legal obligation for a peace officer to make an arrest just because they have witnessed a crime. Whether there is a social obligation to make an arrest is highly situational and depends on not only the crime but the surrounding circumstances.