4 ms·
Well the reason could be doing the police a favour because you like them just as easily as doing it because they've threatened you. I guess if the DA is worrie
by swores 3y ago
Well the reason could be doing the police a favour because you
like them just as easily as doing it because they've threatened you.
I guess if the DA is worried about the police punishing them by not supplying you
good cases, or whatever else, enough to give in to that then it's kind of irrelevant whether they would also want to do the favour anyway for a cop they liked (or just for the principle of supporting your crime-fighting sibling agency) or not. But it's possible that a DA who feels confident that the police wouldn't treat them differently in the future if they said no (or who didn't care about that threat) might still say yes for the different reason of thinking that police always need backing up / that if they disliked this guy enough to fuck with him then it must be because the guy deserves it.
- kbenson 3y agoYes, but outlining one way in which DA's might feel pressured to do what the police prefer even if it's not strictly supported by the law does not "imply that the only time DAs participate in gratuitous punishment of citizens is when cops threaten their careers". It only implies that's one way or reason why they might do that. That may seem pedantic, but I think it's very important when it comes to having useful and rational discussions. If anyone isn't seeing that, replace "DA" with a minority if your choice and "gratuitous punishment of citizens" with any other negative behavior, like theft or crime, and try to explain what the difference is between the statements. If we can't follow the same rational when assessing behavior of groups we have favorable or unfavorable predisposed opinions towards, then we can't even discuss effectively.