Wisconsin

[seton1996]

as a policeman they teach you how not to be a criminal. youre expected to not be a criminal. i dont think "do as i say not as i do" works for any legal occupation. but i guess those that know the rules exploit them the most.

I agree policemen should not be criminals, but I also think the media "blows up" when the police officer gone bad story comes up, no different then the coverage stories about other occupations where "bad people" are not expected - like clergy, school employees, doctors, etc. Fortunately or unfortunately, police are not robots (didnt work in 1980s movie), they are humans, and we know some people can be swayed in the wrong direction for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Bud Boomer]

All the more reason to have the discussions with your kids.

Easy. Comply with any police command. Comply promptly. Even if you know you did nothing wrong, suck it up, do what ever you are told to do and get it straightened out later.

Why should police enjoy the benefit of unquestioned obedience when the United States Constitution places such strict limits on their powers? Isn’t what you are proposing antithetical to 4th and 5th amendments, among other founding principles?

 

[Hallsome]

Why should police enjoy the benefit of unquestioned obedience when the United States Constitution places such strict limits on their powers? Isn’t what you are proposing antithetical to 4th and 5th amendments, among other founding principles?

Who is suggesting they go unquestioned???? Literally nobody

 

[Bud Boomer]

Who is suggesting they go unquestioned???? Literally nobody

The post I responded to said “Comply with any police command. Comply promptly. Even if you know you did nothing wrong, suck it up, do what ever you are told to do and get it straightened out later.”

 

[Hallsome]

The post I responded to said “Comply with any police command. Comply promptly. Even if you know you did nothing wrong, suck it up, do what ever you are told to do and get it straightened out later.”

Oh, well, in that case,....yes, you still comply. It’s really not that hard and it should guarantee a peaceful encounter and if it doesn’t well the body cams should catch that and officer punished accordingly

 

[HALL85]

Don’t understand why this is a hard concept to grasp. If you are pulled over or stopped by an LEO, there is a suspicion of crime that is committed. One of the reasons most people support body cams. If an LEO does something inappropriate then there is a record and they would be held accountable.

 

[Bud Boomer]

Oh, well, in that case,....yes, you still comply. It’s really not that hard and it should guarantee a peaceful encounter and if it doesn’t well the body cams should catch that and officer punished accordingly

My question stands. Isn't what you are suggesting antithetical to the 4th and 5th amendments? As a citizen, I have a constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. If a police officer tells me to open my trunk, and I say "not until you either produce a warrant or demonstrate sufficient grounds to satisfy an exception to the 4th amendment," my response - under your paradigm - would be non-compliant. I've disobeyed an officer's instructions. Yet, in my example the police officer is the one violating (or at least attempting to violate) the constitution. Not me.

Why should I have to concern myself with ensuring the officer is punished after the fact? It's my constitutional right to tell the officer "no." If I can't disobey him in the moment, what's the point of having the right in the first place?

 

[Hallsome]

My question stands. Isn't what you are suggesting antithetical to the 4th and 5th amendments? As a citizen, I have a constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. If a police officer tells me to open my trunk, and I say "not until you either produce a warrant or demonstrate sufficient grounds to satisfy an exception to the 4th amendment," my response - under your paradigm - would be non-compliant. I've disobeyed an officer's instructions. Yet, in my example the police officer is the one violating (or at least attempting to violate) the constitution. Not me.

Why should I have to concern myself with ensuring the officer is punished after the fact? It's my constitutional right to tell the officer "no." If I can't disobey him in the moment, what's the point of having the right in the first place?

I’m with you 100% on the search and seizure part generally.

but the terrible deaths we have witnessed are from people ignoring officers’ demands to stand still or get on the ground or surrender a weapon, etc, and, importantly, in each instance, the officers unquestionably had the right to detain

methods of detainment are discussion worthy, I note. But disobeying an officer who has the right to detain is as unacceptable as an unlawful search/seizure and in the eyes of some even more unacceptable

 

[shu09]

since this one so noticeably went radio silent ^^^ ill just keep following up with new material. the silence is quite convenient. god forbid we also talk about the steps needed to improve our countries police depts. they do a lot of great things. heros. but too many cases and instances of criminal actions. accountability, poor recruitment, corruption, etc. arent they also citizens of the united states? who is watching the watchmen etc.

View embedded media

What exactly is the issue here? There is an investigation ongoing, nobody died, no shots were fired. Let's see what the investigation brings. If we defunded the police, officers wouldn't even respond to incidents like this.