7 ms·

Have you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your is

Have you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your issue is with the Legislators not the cops. (This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")

barry-cotter 15y ago
"I was only following orders." Speaking as a supporter of democracy in the Arizonan context.
bsiemon 15y ago
Police have a great deal of latitude in how they enforce the law. Ever been to court when it was your word against a police officer? Who would you imagine the court, jury or your peers will believe?
roc 15y ago
I'm guessing you've never been in a car when a cop plays the "I smell pot Joe. What do think?" game. Police officers do have a sworn duty. But some of them do not uphold their oaths. Some of them even break the law outright. It's therefore quite possible to have an issue with law enforcement, separate from the laws themselves.
- watty 15y ago
  Some cops are crooked so screw them all? This happens in every profession, not just law enforcement. Edit, to the poster below: There have been many cases where a man and women have sex and the woman later claims she was raped. Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite.
  - bsiemon 15y ago
    Every profession does not grant you the ability to send people to jail based on your word.
    - blendergasket 15y ago
      Or shoot people lying prostrate on the ground in the back and kill them.
      - sukuriant 15y ago
        They're not allowed to do that, in my knowledge.
        jarek 15y ago
        Under which definition of "allowed"?
        sukuriant 15y ago
        where allowed = "Get caught by an unaligned third party", probably
        kragen 15y ago
        Your knowledge has not yet encompassed the Oscar Grant case.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    > "Some cops are crooked so screw them all?" Not all cops are crooked - but the Blue Code of Silence puts the culpability for the crooked cops' crimes squarely on the police force as a whole. If the police forces of the US even showed some inclination of willingness to police the actions of their own, then we wouldn't have most of these problems. Here in Seattle we've had an unprovoked shooting of a homeless man, to which the officer involved was allowed to resign gracefully, despite all parties agreeing that the was no provocation nor justification. Another officer body-slammed an innocent man (without warning, provocation, or identifying himself) into a wall so hard he is now in a vegetative state. This man remains on the force. Similarly, another officer was caught on store surveillance taking his rage out on a teenager in a convenience store, stomping on his face, after a failed drug bust next door. That officer remains on the force also. Not all cops do these things, but they are all guilty of covering up these acts and ensuring that, even if they do get out to the public, that no real consequences occur for the officers involved. I will have zero trust for any police force until they have proven their ability and willingness to police themselves. > "Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite" Huh, could've sworn I typed in "news.ycombinator.com" not "reddit.com/r/mensrights"
  - pvarangot 15y ago
    I don't live in the USA, but in my country normally when a cop is being abusive of the authority granted to him he has a few layers of command above him that tolerate, and sometimes even encourage, such behaviour. I believe this is usually the norm and not an exception particular to my hometown.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    > Some cops are crooked so screw them all? Some cops are crooked so screw them all? However if most of them are crooked, it is pretty safe to informally say "screw them all" (as opposed to linking to scientific studies and then proclaiming that "screw 59.45% of them" or something like that). And btw, those that are engaged in cover-up of abuses of fellow cops are crooked just the ones engaging in abuse.
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
Couldn't agree more. Also, im sure there are undercover po and border patrol risking their lives to keep parts of AZ from ending up like the Mexican border towns. Giving up that kind of information and risking those lives is in-excusible. Also, names and adresses of family! are u serious? That makes you no better than the gang bangers. While I do believe the war on drugs is bs, as well as that bill AZ has, there are still a lot of persons down there that would kill you just because they were told to, or kidnap you for the money. And the police and border patrol are risking themselves to keep your dumbass safe. I realize most of Arizona isn't that bad, but the police are still ther to serve and protect. can't we just send a bunch of taquitos and a bag of weed to whoever wrote up that bill or something?
splat 15y ago
I don't see how you can justify upholding laws with lethal force if you don't agree morally with the law. Just because you wear a badge on your chest doesn't mean that you aren't morally responsible for your actions as a human being. If some state passed a law which outlawed red hair, I would hope that the police would refuse to enforce it, rather than saying "take it up with your legislator." "I was just following orders" is never an excuse for your actions.
- watty 15y ago
  If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job. Laws don't just magically appear, right? By the time they pass as a law the cop is just doing their job. We didn't do our job as voters and the correct action now is to "take it up with your legislator".
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    > "If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job." Your responsibility to humanity (particularly as an officer of the law) trumps your right to be fed. Also, the world at large has upheld, many times over, that "following orders" is not a sufficient defense. "But I have a mortgage" - the new and improved Nuremberg Defense (with apologies to Thank You For Smoking). Hell, the people who relied on the Nuremberg defense would've been shot for violating said orders. Being fired is peanuts in comparison.
    - TomOfTTB 15y ago
      You're wrong on this (or at very least looking at the issue without nuance). More often than not "just following orders" IS a sufficient defense. Only in the most heinous of acts is it considered insufficient (if that weren't the case there'd be no reason to define what is and is not a "war crime") Deporting someone, even if you feel it's unjustified, is a far cry from a War Crime. That's the cogent point. The danger in an officer choosing to enforce the law as he or she sees fit is so great that they aren't excused in doing so unless the act is an atrocity. Because once an officer is selectively enforcing the law they actually become the one making the law. Since officers of the law aren't elected that's unacceptable.
Confusion 15y ago
The reports of cops breaking the law for their own purposes, and getting away with it, vastly outnumber the reports of cops breaking the law for humane purposes or moral reasons. If reality is they are perfectly happy doing the first, arguing against the second as something they 'should not do' is ludicrous. As long as this is the way the balance tips, any cop that lets an illegal immigrant walk has my blessing.

barry-cotter 15y ago

"I was only following orders." Speaking as a supporter of democracy in the Arizonan context.

bsiemon 15y ago

Police have a great deal of latitude in how they enforce the law. Ever been to court when it was your word against a police officer? Who would you imagine the court, jury or your peers will believe?

roc 15y ago

I'm guessing you've never been in a car when a cop plays the "I smell pot Joe. What do think?" game. Police officers do have a sworn duty. But some of them do not uphold their oaths. Some of them even break the law outright. It's therefore quite possible to have an issue with law enforcement, separate from the laws themselves.

watty 15y ago
Some cops are crooked so screw them all? This happens in every profession, not just law enforcement. Edit, to the poster below: There have been many cases where a man and women have sex and the woman later claims she was raped. Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite.
- bsiemon 15y ago
  Every profession does not grant you the ability to send people to jail based on your word.
  - blendergasket 15y ago
    Or shoot people lying prostrate on the ground in the back and kill them.
    - sukuriant 15y ago
      They're not allowed to do that, in my knowledge.
      - jarek 15y ago
        Under which definition of "allowed"?
        sukuriant 15y ago
        where allowed = "Get caught by an unaligned third party", probably
      - kragen 15y ago
        Your knowledge has not yet encompassed the Oscar Grant case.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  > "Some cops are crooked so screw them all?" Not all cops are crooked - but the Blue Code of Silence puts the culpability for the crooked cops' crimes squarely on the police force as a whole. If the police forces of the US even showed some inclination of willingness to police the actions of their own, then we wouldn't have most of these problems. Here in Seattle we've had an unprovoked shooting of a homeless man, to which the officer involved was allowed to resign gracefully, despite all parties agreeing that the was no provocation nor justification. Another officer body-slammed an innocent man (without warning, provocation, or identifying himself) into a wall so hard he is now in a vegetative state. This man remains on the force. Similarly, another officer was caught on store surveillance taking his rage out on a teenager in a convenience store, stomping on his face, after a failed drug bust next door. That officer remains on the force also. Not all cops do these things, but they are all guilty of covering up these acts and ensuring that, even if they do get out to the public, that no real consequences occur for the officers involved. I will have zero trust for any police force until they have proven their ability and willingness to police themselves. > "Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite" Huh, could've sworn I typed in "news.ycombinator.com" not "reddit.com/r/mensrights"
- pvarangot 15y ago
  I don't live in the USA, but in my country normally when a cop is being abusive of the authority granted to him he has a few layers of command above him that tolerate, and sometimes even encourage, such behaviour. I believe this is usually the norm and not an exception particular to my hometown.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  > Some cops are crooked so screw them all? Some cops are crooked so screw them all? However if most of them are crooked, it is pretty safe to informally say "screw them all" (as opposed to linking to scientific studies and then proclaiming that "screw 59.45% of them" or something like that). And btw, those that are engaged in cover-up of abuses of fellow cops are crooked just the ones engaging in abuse.

ImprovedSilence 15y ago

Couldn't agree more. Also, im sure there are undercover po and border patrol risking their lives to keep parts of AZ from ending up like the Mexican border towns. Giving up that kind of information and risking those lives is in-excusible. Also, names and adresses of family! are u serious? That makes you no better than the gang bangers. While I do believe the war on drugs is bs, as well as that bill AZ has, there are still a lot of persons down there that would kill you just because they were told to, or kidnap you for the money. And the police and border patrol are risking themselves to keep your dumbass safe. I realize most of Arizona isn't that bad, but the police are still ther to serve and protect. can't we just send a bunch of taquitos and a bag of weed to whoever wrote up that bill or something?

splat 15y ago

I don't see how you can justify upholding laws with lethal force if you don't agree morally with the law. Just because you wear a badge on your chest doesn't mean that you aren't morally responsible for your actions as a human being. If some state passed a law which outlawed red hair, I would hope that the police would refuse to enforce it, rather than saying "take it up with your legislator." "I was just following orders" is never an excuse for your actions.

watty 15y ago
If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job. Laws don't just magically appear, right? By the time they pass as a law the cop is just doing their job. We didn't do our job as voters and the correct action now is to "take it up with your legislator".
- potatolicious 15y ago
  > "If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job." Your responsibility to humanity (particularly as an officer of the law) trumps your right to be fed. Also, the world at large has upheld, many times over, that "following orders" is not a sufficient defense. "But I have a mortgage" - the new and improved Nuremberg Defense (with apologies to Thank You For Smoking). Hell, the people who relied on the Nuremberg defense would've been shot for violating said orders. Being fired is peanuts in comparison.
  - TomOfTTB 15y ago
    You're wrong on this (or at very least looking at the issue without nuance). More often than not "just following orders" IS a sufficient defense. Only in the most heinous of acts is it considered insufficient (if that weren't the case there'd be no reason to define what is and is not a "war crime") Deporting someone, even if you feel it's unjustified, is a far cry from a War Crime. That's the cogent point. The danger in an officer choosing to enforce the law as he or she sees fit is so great that they aren't excused in doing so unless the act is an atrocity. Because once an officer is selectively enforcing the law they actually become the one making the law. Since officers of the law aren't elected that's unacceptable.

Confusion 15y ago

The reports of cops breaking the law for their own purposes, and getting away with it, vastly outnumber the reports of cops breaking the law for humane purposes or moral reasons. If reality is they are perfectly happy doing the first, arguing against the second as something they 'should not do' is ludicrous. As long as this is the way the balance tips, any cop that lets an illegal immigrant walk has my blessing.