3 ms·
Laws are a moral construct. Enforcing morality as it's encoded in law is part of policing. This is definitely a case to blame the law and lawmakers, not the o
by jdmichal 5y ago
Laws are a moral construct. Enforcing morality as it's encoded in law is part of policing. This is definitely a case to blame the law and lawmakers, not the officer.
- robbedpeter 5y agoIt's both. There are states with dumb laws on the books, such as "seven or more Indians are considered a raiding or war party and it is legal to shoot them" in Montana. It's legal cruft, and needs to be formally repealed. Police officers use judgement and selective enforcement all the time, seemingly whenever it benefits them, and this case was no different. The officers wanted to rain hell on this guy, and they justified it with legal cruft.
- version_five 5y agoWhat part of what I wrote made you think my comment had to do with blaming the officer. It's a serious question, I notice people almost never understand my comments and I'd rather that wasn't the case. I'm saying police budgets should be cut if this is how they use their people, and it surprises me that there is no feedback that actually causes these cuts despite evidence that officers are wasting their time on things like in this article.
- jdmichal 5y agoI believe I understood perfectly. But it is not mine or yours or the officers' choice to decide that this law is not worth enforcing. I mean, that is an opinion you can have, and is worthy of having, and especially worthy of advocating for change. If a law is on the books, then it should be enforced. If it should no longer be enforced, then it should no longer be a law on the books. And of course I realize this is idealistic, and likely not realistic because lawmakers pretty much never devote time to things like cleaning up such things, short of public outcry.