6 ms·

I cannot think of a single occasion where zero tolerance is not the drum beat of the fool.

D9u 13y ago
How about zero tolerance for police misconduct? How about zero tolerance for appointed government servant's lying to Congress? After all, these individuals should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us if they want to impose their will upon us without our explicit approval.
- javajosh 13y ago
  Not even then. The fact is that people make mistakes. They should be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime.
- x0054 13y ago
  Even for a police officers, zero tolerance is a foolish standard. But in this case, even under the most lenient of systems, this cop should have been gone from the force a long time ago. I have known a lot of cops over the years, and I can honestly say that there are a lot of awesome guys doing that job. But it also attracts these power hungry assholes, who could care less about law and order, and only care about pushing people around and compensating for what I can only presume their manhood inadequacies. For instance, I knew a guy who was a very successful civil litigation attorney, very shitty attorney, but very successful. He worked part time as a patrol cop. Why? He did not need the money, he did not care about the law for a bit, and he could give two shits about helping people. But he loves the power. In his own words, he was bullied as a kid, and now it's his turn. That man is still a cop to this day, and he absolutely should not be one.
- cheald 13y ago
  > police misconduct How about an officer who has to break the law/procedure to expose corruption or save someone's life? Life is rarely so black-and-white; zero tolerance strips us of our ability to use reason and discretion based on the arrogant assumption that our rules and procedures are perfect and infallible, which is just silly.
  - hnnnnng 13y ago
    If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. But I cannot, for the life of me, think of any such scenario. As for exposing corruption or being a whistleblower, there are many who want to modify laws to make it easier(Infact, Obama's stance on it during his elections is a prominent example.), but by definition, whistleblowers are fighting against the more powerful and/or the rich which has made it a losing battle.
    - vacri 13y ago
      If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. This may be, but it still means that they broke the law, and would still be affected by zero tolerance. Just because the law is an arse doesn't mean the law has no teeth. As for an example of breaking the law in the course of duty, in a lot of places police are required to have lights and sirens before they break traffic rules - no sirens means no breaking traffic rules. There are times when police serve better by doing just this.
      - quinnchr 13y ago
        What situation would warrant breaking traffic laws without using light and sirens? It seems almost a tautology that doing so is a danger to everyone else on the road...
        vacri 13y ago
        It's not remotely a tautology, because you're assuming that any breaking of a traffic rule is dangerous when that just isn't true. Ever seen a 'no u-turns' section in the dead of night with no cars in sight? There's plenty of times and places where traffic rules can be safely broken, and there are times when police have to respond in a timely but not urgent manner. For example, frequently with theft, they'll take a while to get to the location where it was reported - this is because the one place the criminal is not at is the site of the theft. So they drive around the location for a bit, sirens off so as not to alert the criminal, and see if they find anything suspicious. Then they can come in to do the report after the scout around. If you honestly cannot think of a situation where police need to respond without using sirens or breaking traffic rules, then I would suggest you're not close enough to understanding what the job entails to be passing comment on their procedures.
- deepblueq 13y ago
  Higher standard, yes, but people will err, and not all errors deserve the same response.
- coffeemug 13y ago
  The problem with zero tolerance is that large systems are about balance, so when you're designing a process to govern a large system, rules quickly become untenable when measured in absolutes, and become about managing probabilities. When designing the rules for a legal system, for example, we can never have 100% correct outcome, so we have to decide whether we're ok with 100 innocent people going to prison for every guilty person, or 1 innocent person, or 100 guilty people going free for every innocent person going to prison, etc. Sociological systems are governed by laws of nature, and we can't just ignore them any more than we can ignore the laws of physics. Zero tolerance is a copout. It sounds good, but real systems simply don't work that way. It might be manageable for congressmen or senators because the system is small enough, but is completely untenable for a system as large as a police force.
- rhizome 13y ago
  At this point in time, I'd settle for pretty much anything less than 100% tolerance for those examples.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  Supposed a battered wife is in hiding and a police officer knows where she is and the husband makes some frivolous lawsuit so he can see her - would it be so bad if the police officer claimed he didn't know where she was? As for lying in Congress I would expect it if it was to protect the identity of a whistle blower or something like that. The key in all parts are context, but Zero Justice explicitly denies context; it would be the same as giving the driver of a car what hits and kills a pedestrian because it gets bumped by another car the same punishment you would give for first degree murder.
- kazagistar 13y ago
  Unless you have the ability of perfect distinction of guilty versus innocent, then any policy that demands action against 100% of the guilty is going to catch a lot of innocent as well. So no, I don't have a zero tolerance for police misconduct. I have a low tolerance for it, and would prefer that it be treated more severely, but if a few cases slip by, that is OK, because the alternative would inevitably be dysfunctional.

D9u 13y ago

How about zero tolerance for police misconduct? How about zero tolerance for appointed government servant's lying to Congress? After all, these individuals should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us if they want to impose their will upon us without our explicit approval.

javajosh 13y ago
Not even then. The fact is that people make mistakes. They should be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime.
x0054 13y ago
Even for a police officers, zero tolerance is a foolish standard. But in this case, even under the most lenient of systems, this cop should have been gone from the force a long time ago. I have known a lot of cops over the years, and I can honestly say that there are a lot of awesome guys doing that job. But it also attracts these power hungry assholes, who could care less about law and order, and only care about pushing people around and compensating for what I can only presume their manhood inadequacies. For instance, I knew a guy who was a very successful civil litigation attorney, very shitty attorney, but very successful. He worked part time as a patrol cop. Why? He did not need the money, he did not care about the law for a bit, and he could give two shits about helping people. But he loves the power. In his own words, he was bullied as a kid, and now it's his turn. That man is still a cop to this day, and he absolutely should not be one.
cheald 13y ago
> police misconduct How about an officer who has to break the law/procedure to expose corruption or save someone's life? Life is rarely so black-and-white; zero tolerance strips us of our ability to use reason and discretion based on the arrogant assumption that our rules and procedures are perfect and infallible, which is just silly.
- hnnnnng 13y ago
  If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. But I cannot, for the life of me, think of any such scenario. As for exposing corruption or being a whistleblower, there are many who want to modify laws to make it easier(Infact, Obama's stance on it during his elections is a prominent example.), but by definition, whistleblowers are fighting against the more powerful and/or the rich which has made it a losing battle.
  - vacri 13y ago
    If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. This may be, but it still means that they broke the law, and would still be affected by zero tolerance. Just because the law is an arse doesn't mean the law has no teeth. As for an example of breaking the law in the course of duty, in a lot of places police are required to have lights and sirens before they break traffic rules - no sirens means no breaking traffic rules. There are times when police serve better by doing just this.
    - quinnchr 13y ago
      What situation would warrant breaking traffic laws without using light and sirens? It seems almost a tautology that doing so is a danger to everyone else on the road...
      - vacri 13y ago
        It's not remotely a tautology, because you're assuming that any breaking of a traffic rule is dangerous when that just isn't true. Ever seen a 'no u-turns' section in the dead of night with no cars in sight? There's plenty of times and places where traffic rules can be safely broken, and there are times when police have to respond in a timely but not urgent manner. For example, frequently with theft, they'll take a while to get to the location where it was reported - this is because the one place the criminal is not at is the site of the theft. So they drive around the location for a bit, sirens off so as not to alert the criminal, and see if they find anything suspicious. Then they can come in to do the report after the scout around. If you honestly cannot think of a situation where police need to respond without using sirens or breaking traffic rules, then I would suggest you're not close enough to understanding what the job entails to be passing comment on their procedures.
deepblueq 13y ago
Higher standard, yes, but people will err, and not all errors deserve the same response.
coffeemug 13y ago
The problem with zero tolerance is that large systems are about balance, so when you're designing a process to govern a large system, rules quickly become untenable when measured in absolutes, and become about managing probabilities. When designing the rules for a legal system, for example, we can never have 100% correct outcome, so we have to decide whether we're ok with 100 innocent people going to prison for every guilty person, or 1 innocent person, or 100 guilty people going free for every innocent person going to prison, etc. Sociological systems are governed by laws of nature, and we can't just ignore them any more than we can ignore the laws of physics. Zero tolerance is a copout. It sounds good, but real systems simply don't work that way. It might be manageable for congressmen or senators because the system is small enough, but is completely untenable for a system as large as a police force.
rhizome 13y ago
At this point in time, I'd settle for pretty much anything less than 100% tolerance for those examples.
tomjen3 13y ago
Supposed a battered wife is in hiding and a police officer knows where she is and the husband makes some frivolous lawsuit so he can see her - would it be so bad if the police officer claimed he didn't know where she was? As for lying in Congress I would expect it if it was to protect the identity of a whistle blower or something like that. The key in all parts are context, but Zero Justice explicitly denies context; it would be the same as giving the driver of a car what hits and kills a pedestrian because it gets bumped by another car the same punishment you would give for first degree murder.
kazagistar 13y ago
Unless you have the ability of perfect distinction of guilty versus innocent, then any policy that demands action against 100% of the guilty is going to catch a lot of innocent as well. So no, I don't have a zero tolerance for police misconduct. I have a low tolerance for it, and would prefer that it be treated more severely, but if a few cases slip by, that is OK, because the alternative would inevitably be dysfunctional.