JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (JoSH) (10/16/85)
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 16 Oct 85 Volume 5 Number 42 [This brings us up to date.] Contents: Police Privilege ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Oct 85 11:23:10 PDT (Thursday) From: TTussing.es@Xerox.ARPA Subject: Re: Police attack town in response to RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA,Poli-Sci Digest V5 #39 > >> "--If an unarmed civilian, face-down on the street is shot in the >> head by a policeman, it was an accident (This has been the finding >> in at least 3 cases in the last 3 years in California that I know >> of)." > > I don't know about these incidents, but just mayby they were accidents, or had > you forgotten to consider that? > What if a *civilian* shot someone in the head by *accident*. I think it would be considered at least manslaughter. I don't mean to get on your case, I think (and hope very much) that police try to do the best job they can. But sometimes they do get a little out of hand. As for complaints coming form simple ignorance. Yes, I think your right. For example, I just graduated from Purdue. Some friends of mine were giving a party last fall. There were three houses that were next each other who were going to give the party. They decided they would basically have people stay outside, but keep the beer ect. on the porchs and in the houses. It ended up that there was approx 2000 people there at ~11:00pm (according to the papers and the police). The people who were giving the party decided that it had gotten too big, so they let the 3 kegs that had been open run out and didn't bring out anymore. By 11:30 the beer was gone, by 12:00 the people were pretty much gone. But someone in the crowd decided to start rampage across campus, with a few hundred other students. Actually not too much happened; a couple of windows were broken and they played in the reflection pool ect. All in all it was only slightly worse then a typical friday nite (if it was worse at all). While all this was going on, the Lafayette police, West Lafayette police, Tipp. County police, state police and whatever other kind of police there is, were congregating about a block away from my friends' house. They sat there until about 2:00am and then they went to the 3 houses and arrested everyone that was there, for distrubing the peace. The ironic thing is the people who were *distrubing the peace* were sleeping at the time of the arrest. It was all so stupid and the people who were arrested seemed to be scapegoats. The police felt someone had to be arrested and they knew where these people were, so they arrested them. The police have not yet filed charges and the 24 people who were arrested are sueing the police for false arrest. TT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 12:02:43 cdt Re: RAMBO versus the Pot-growers and police overstepping their bounds. It sure as hell can happen here. While not so dramatic, my recent experience is probably a better warning. It's not often that you can catch a policeman in an outright and disprovable lie. I don't know what got into this guy, except that maybe he had a traffic ticket quota to fulfill. In any case I was driving down a newly opened one-way street. This street is destined to be a feeder for a new freeway, but it was opened early so that people in a couple of office buildings along the street the freeway is replacing will remain accessible. At the end of the street, where you have to enter it to get to any of these buildings, a 45 MPH speed limit sign is prominantly posted. So, I generally drive 45 down it & think nice thoughts about streets with reasonable speed limits. It's so rare to find one, after all. About 2 weeks ago a police car followed me into the parking lot of the building where I work and parked directly behind me, presumably to block my escape should I turn out to be desperate. He never flashed his lights or ran his siren. He just got out of his car, made the usual production of flipping open the flap on his gun, asked to see my license, and gave me a long lecture on how that was a public road, and we couldn't speed down it like we used to. I apologised and said that I thought I was only doing 45, and he informed me that the speed limit on that street was 35, and he was just letting me off because I probably wasn't aware that the road was open now. One of the other employees later made some comment about him not giving me a ticket because he hadn't caught me on a public street, but rather in the parking lot. He also said he was stopping everybody & some people had gotten tickets. I went back & checked and, lo and behold, it was a 45 zone. I never did, nor do I ever intend to do, anything about it. Down here it's well known that you never mess with the police. After all, it's his word against yours and even if he does get into trouble all the cops in town will have your number. What's even more incredible is that despite the fact that everyone I've ever spoken to down here knows this, they still approve of the Mayor appointing a heavy-duty "law-and-order" type police comissioner. Not much of a symptom, I'll agree. But a symptom none the less. [JoSH: feel free to edit this to cut out the excess verbiage. And I for one like your editorial comments. Down under in Australia, where I hail from, liberal still implies "freedom" as opposed to "free lunch".] ------------------------------ Date: Thu 10 Oct 85 20:25:47-PDT From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Subject: crime control, police, and self-reliance John objects to the attitude that we should leave crime control to the police, since they know best. It seems to me that they DO know best how to control crime. They have been trained to deal with potentially violent situations. They know how to use the weapons they carry. They have lots of experience. Are you suggesting that we should try to fight off criminals ourselves rather than calling the police? If not, what do you mean by more self-reliance? That we should be able to physically defend ourselves if the police aren't nearby? Or something else? And what are your criteria for deciding what is an optimal balance between self-reliance and reliance on the police? Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 85 12:57:00 EDT From: Mike <ZALESKI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Subject: Re: Police Raid Town From: sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA "--If it's a police officer's word against mine, he wins" From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA This is not an automatic as you seem to think. Generally though I'll admit you're basically correct. The reason for this though is that the officer generally has nothing to gain if you're found innocent or guilty. For traffic tickets (which you specifically mention), I was under the impression that police departments use some sort of quote/performance review/whatever you want to call it to make sure that all its officers are writig the same number of tickets on the average. Also, isn't it the case that a "big collar" of some significant criminal activity will have a positive effect on one's career as a police officer? It seems to me that in both cases, the police officer might gain by coloring his testimony. (Admitedly in a "big collar" this might be more difficult.) Or have I just been watching Hill Street Blues and Miami Vice too much? From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA Many police/community problems stem from a lack of understanding of why the police do what they do. If you knew what I know you might not be so quick to condemn the boys-in-blue/cammouflage. Why not enlighten us? The article which I read in Poli-Sci said there were no arrests, made no mention of any firearms, and indicated that $50,000 worth of marijuana (a rather small amount) was seized. This doesn't sound like a very impressive bust to me. It seems as though the police decided to act based on some very bad information about what to expect. I'm sure you'll agree that sending 35 to 50 man SWAT team into an unarmed town is an invitation to disaster. -- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [ allegra, ihnp4 ] phoenix!mzal ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 85 23:48:15 EDT From: Mike <ZALESKI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Subject: Know your laws/Priviledged classes From: sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA "--We should leave crime control to the police--after all, they're the ones who know best." From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA I agree with this. How well do you know the laws of your state? In the September 1985 issue of The American Rifleman, page 74: "A sutdy conducted at the St. Louis University School of Law found that while police were successful in shooting or driving off criminals 68% of the time, private citizens were successful in 83% of their encounters. While 11% of the individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals, only 2% of those in civilian shootings were so misidentified." I don't need to know the law to know that someone who is kicking down my door, or vandalizing my property, or is stealing something of mine, or is hurting myself or someone close to me to know that the person is a criminal and should be disposed of as such. However, I see the police as only working for the real source of the problem: Politicians. I see a new wave of stupidy in politics these days. On many social issues, it seems to me that the conservatives take the attitude: "Ban it because it's bad", liberals take the attitude: "Ban it to make the world safer, to protect people from themselves." On technolgical issues, I see our government being lead by people who are totally uneducated in engineering or design. (How many nuclear engineers are on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? How many people who have been head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have been engineers? I'm not talking about people on staff who write reports which are ignored, I'm talking about the actual decision makers.) Further, I see many articles in the paper of politicians introducing unneeded, unrequested, and generally stupid legislation: Renaming airports, banning radar detectors, setting up bizarre laws in the telecommunications industry, etc. Moreover, I see politicians in general as a suspicious group, since: 1. Truly talented engineers/managers can make much more money in private industry, and 2. If someone pursues a career in government because they "want to lead" then they are on a personal power trip and are dangerous. I will, however, propose (at a high level) a two part solution to this situation: 1. All decisions must come from legislation. No more unelected bureaucrats handing down edicts for society. 2. Limiting all legislative sessions to two parts: First, a maximum six week period in which all new legislation is introduced and voted on, and second, a period of unspecified length to deal with issues specifically related to the budget. Comments or flames, anyone? -- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [ allegra, ihnp4 ] phoenix!mzal ------------------------------ Date: Tue 15 Oct 85 21:07:07-EDT From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA Subject: sybalski's post Please permit me to take issue with two comments in Mr Sybalsky's post; (1) '[there are] laws making the possession of arms illegal' Not in this country. The right to bear arms is established by the Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" Anything that pretends to abridge that right isn't a law; it's some politician's flatulence: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" (2) 'making it illegal for you to use force in defending yourself in your home' The right of self-defence is not merely a Constitutional right; it is part of the natural law. No human instrumentality can repeal, amend, or override it. "The laws of man that are in direct contradiction to the natural law bear an initial defect, that no violent means, no outward display of power, can remedy" Would any jury convict? Robert Firth [ PS: Josh and others: whence came that last quotation? ] [Sounds like something from the Theory of Moral Sentiments (Smith), or maybe from Hutcheson? --JoSH] ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------
poli-sci@cca.UUCP (10/16/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Poli-Sci Digest Wed 16 Oct 85 Volume 5 Number 42 [This brings us up to date.] Contents: Police Privilege ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Oct 85 11:23:10 PDT (Thursday) From: TTussing.es@Xerox.ARPA Subject: Re: Police attack town in response to RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA,Poli-Sci Digest V5 #39 > >> "--If an unarmed civilian, face-down on the street is shot in the >> head by a policeman, it was an accident (This has been the finding >> in at least 3 cases in the last 3 years in California that I know >> of)." > > I don't know about these incidents, but just mayby they were accidents, or had > you forgotten to consider that? > What if a *civilian* shot someone in the head by *accident*. I think it would be considered at least manslaughter. I don't mean to get on your case, I think (and hope very much) that police try to do the best job they can. But sometimes they do get a little out of hand. As for complaints coming form simple ignorance. Yes, I think your right. For example, I just graduated from Purdue. Some friends of mine were giving a party last fall. There were three houses that were next each other who were going to give the party. They decided they would basically have people stay outside, but keep the beer ect. on the porchs and in the houses. It ended up that there was approx 2000 people there at ~11:00pm (according to the papers and the police). The people who were giving the party decided that it had gotten too big, so they let the 3 kegs that had been open run out and didn't bring out anymore. By 11:30 the beer was gone, by 12:00 the people were pretty much gone. But someone in the crowd decided to start rampage across campus, with a few hundred other students. Actually not too much happened; a couple of windows were broken and they played in the reflection pool ect. All in all it was only slightly worse then a typical friday nite (if it was worse at all). While all this was going on, the Lafayette police, West Lafayette police, Tipp. County police, state police and whatever other kind of police there is, were congregating about a block away from my friends' house. They sat there until about 2:00am and then they went to the 3 houses and arrested everyone that was there, for distrubing the peace. The ironic thing is the people who were *distrubing the peace* were sleeping at the time of the arrest. It was all so stupid and the people who were arrested seemed to be scapegoats. The police felt someone had to be arrested and they knew where these people were, so they arrested them. The police have not yet filed charges and the 24 people who were arrested are sueing the police for false arrest. TT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 12:02:43 cdt Re: RAMBO versus the Pot-growers and police overstepping their bounds. It sure as hell can happen here. While not so dramatic, my recent experience is probably a better warning. It's not often that you can catch a policeman in an outright and disprovable lie. I don't know what got into this guy, except that maybe he had a traffic ticket quota to fulfill. In any case I was driving down a newly opened one-way street. This street is destined to be a feeder for a new freeway, but it was opened early so that people in a couple of office buildings along the street the freeway is replacing will remain accessible. At the end of the street, where you have to enter it to get to any of these buildings, a 45 MPH speed limit sign is prominantly posted. So, I generally drive 45 down it & think nice thoughts about streets with reasonable speed limits. It's so rare to find one, after all. About 2 weeks ago a police car followed me into the parking lot of the building where I work and parked directly behind me, presumably to block my escape should I turn out to be desperate. He never flashed his lights or ran his siren. He just got out of his car, made the usual production of flipping open the flap on his gun, asked to see my license, and gave me a long lecture on how that was a public road, and we couldn't speed down it like we used to. I apologised and said that I thought I was only doing 45, and he informed me that the speed limit on that street was 35, and he was just letting me off because I probably wasn't aware that the road was open now. One of the other employees later made some comment about him not giving me a ticket because he hadn't caught me on a public street, but rather in the parking lot. He also said he was stopping everybody & some people had gotten tickets. I went back & checked and, lo and behold, it was a 45 zone. I never did, nor do I ever intend to do, anything about it. Down here it's well known that you never mess with the police. After all, it's his word against yours and even if he does get into trouble all the cops in town will have your number. What's even more incredible is that despite the fact that everyone I've ever spoken to down here knows this, they still approve of the Mayor appointing a heavy-duty "law-and-order" type police comissioner. Not much of a symptom, I'll agree. But a symptom none the less. [JoSH: feel free to edit this to cut out the excess verbiage. And I for one like your editorial comments. Down under in Australia, where I hail from, liberal still implies "freedom" as opposed to "free lunch".] ------------------------------ Date: Thu 10 Oct 85 20:25:47-PDT From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Subject: crime control, police, and self-reliance John objects to the attitude that we should leave crime control to the police, since they know best. It seems to me that they DO know best how to control crime. They have been trained to deal with potentially violent situations. They know how to use the weapons they carry. They have lots of experience. Are you suggesting that we should try to fight off criminals ourselves rather than calling the police? If not, what do you mean by more self-reliance? That we should be able to physically defend ourselves if the police aren't nearby? Or something else? And what are your criteria for deciding what is an optimal balance between self-reliance and reliance on the police? Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 85 12:57:00 EDT From: Mike <ZALESKI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Subject: Re: Police Raid Town From: sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA "--If it's a police officer's word against mine, he wins" From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA This is not an automatic as you seem to think. Generally though I'll admit you're basically correct. The reason for this though is that the officer generally has nothing to gain if you're found innocent or guilty. For traffic tickets (which you specifically mention), I was under the impression that police departments use some sort of quote/performance review/whatever you want to call it to make sure that all its officers are writig the same number of tickets on the average. Also, isn't it the case that a "big collar" of some significant criminal activity will have a positive effect on one's career as a police officer? It seems to me that in both cases, the police officer might gain by coloring his testimony. (Admitedly in a "big collar" this might be more difficult.) Or have I just been watching Hill Street Blues and Miami Vice too much? From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA Many police/community problems stem from a lack of understanding of why the police do what they do. If you knew what I know you might not be so quick to condemn the boys-in-blue/cammouflage. Why not enlighten us? The article which I read in Poli-Sci said there were no arrests, made no mention of any firearms, and indicated that $50,000 worth of marijuana (a rather small amount) was seized. This doesn't sound like a very impressive bust to me. It seems as though the police decided to act based on some very bad information about what to expect. I'm sure you'll agree that sending 35 to 50 man SWAT team into an unarmed town is an invitation to disaster. -- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [ allegra, ihnp4 ] phoenix!mzal ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 85 23:48:15 EDT From: Mike <ZALESKI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Subject: Know your laws/Priviledged classes From: sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA "--We should leave crime control to the police--after all, they're the ones who know best." From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA I agree with this. How well do you know the laws of your state? In the September 1985 issue of The American Rifleman, page 74: "A sutdy conducted at the St. Louis University School of Law found that while police were successful in shooting or driving off criminals 68% of the time, private citizens were successful in 83% of their encounters. While 11% of the individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals, only 2% of those in civilian shootings were so misidentified." I don't need to know the law to know that someone who is kicking down my door, or vandalizing my property, or is stealing something of mine, or is hurting myself or someone close to me to know that the person is a criminal and should be disposed of as such. However, I see the police as only working for the real source of the problem: Politicians. I see a new wave of stupidy in politics these days. On many social issues, it seems to me that the conservatives take the attitude: "Ban it because it's bad", liberals take the attitude: "Ban it to make the world safer, to protect people from themselves." On technolgical issues, I see our government being lead by people who are totally uneducated in engineering or design. (How many nuclear engineers are on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? How many people who have been head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have been engineers? I'm not talking about people on staff who write reports which are ignored, I'm talking about the actual decision makers.) Further, I see many articles in the paper of politicians introducing unneeded, unrequested, and generally stupid legislation: Renaming airports, banning radar detectors, setting up bizarre laws in the telecommunications industry, etc. Moreover, I see politicians in general as a suspicious group, since: 1. Truly talented engineers/managers can make much more money in private industry, and 2. If someone pursues a career in government because they "want to lead" then they are on a personal power trip and are dangerous. I will, however, propose (at a high level) a two part solution to this situation: 1. All decisions must come from legislation. No more unelected bureaucrats handing down edicts for society. 2. Limiting all legislative sessions to two parts: First, a maximum six week period in which all new legislation is introduced and voted on, and second, a period of unspecified length to deal with issues specifically related to the budget. Comments or flames, anyone? -- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [ allegra, ihnp4 ] phoenix!mzal ------------------------------ Date: Tue 15 Oct 85 21:07:07-EDT From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA Subject: sybalski's post Please permit me to take issue with two comments in Mr Sybalsky's post; (1) '[there are] laws making the possession of arms illegal' Not in this country. The right to bear arms is established by the Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" Anything that pretends to abridge that right isn't a law; it's some politician's flatulence: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" (2) 'making it illegal for you to use force in defending yourself in your home' The right of self-defence is not merely a Constitutional right; it is part of the natural law. No human instrumentality can repeal, amend, or override it. "The laws of man that are in direct contradiction to the natural law bear an initial defect, that no violent means, no outward display of power, can remedy" Would any jury convict? Robert Firth [ PS: Josh and others: whence came that last quotation? ] [Sounds like something from the Theory of Moral Sentiments (Smith), or maybe from Hutcheson? --JoSH] ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------