Citizen Gives Cop A Parking Ticket:
Here's one from the "man bites dog" department, arising out of Portland, Oregon:
UPDATE: Commenter "ShoudBeStudying" brings up an excellent point:
An attorney who watched a police officer park illegally in front of a restaurant, then wait around while his meal was prepared, issued the officer a series of citizen-initiated violations.Lawyers at their best or lawyers at their worst? You decide.
Eric Bryant said he was sitting at the restaurant March 7 when Officer Chad Stensgaard parked his patrol car next to a no-parking sign and walked inside to wait for his food, the Portland Mercury reported Thursday.
Bryant told the weekly paper that when he asked Stensgaard about his car, the officer asked Bryant, "If someone broke into your house, would you rather have the police be able to park in front of your house or have to park three blocks away and walk there?
Bryant filed a complaint as a private citizen alleging several violations, including illegal parking and illegal operation of an emergency vehicle.
Stensgaard was issued a summons to appear in traffic court in May. The fines could total $540. . . .
Cathe Kent, a spokeswoman for the Portland Police Bureau, said Stensgaard would fight the complaint in court, "as he rightfully should."
UPDATE: Commenter "ShoudBeStudying" brings up an excellent point:
I wonder if the cop actually said (or meant to say) something a bit different: "If I had to respond to a robbery call at your house, wouldn't you rather my squad car be right here (in front of the restaurant), where I can hop into it in a matter of seconds, rather than three blocks away?"I'll bet that's right. Keep in mind that all we have is the statement of Bryant, the complainant, who is reporting what he heard.
GROCERIES. More than once.
I know they make VERY good money too that that just burns me up.
GOOD on Bryant.
I don't think this is lawyers at their best, but it's very good in its small way.
Just because most people would do it does not mean it's right.
Would it be different if it was half a fire truck?
I'm not so sure that's true. This is no flame on you, but I think there are many people, in particular the numerous civil and public servants with whom I've been fortunate to work, who take a deliberate and principled approach to their jobs.
Sparing everyone a slippery slope/rule of law argument, I simply suggest that not everyone would do what you suggest.
There's also a difference between me granting a local officer "professional courtesy" and that officer violating a law on his or her own presumption that I will grant such a courtesy.
What you see depends on where you sit.
"I for one welcome our new policeman overlords." Wait...
this is over and done with it but...last week a cop in a residential neighborhood at dusk zipped through a stop sign without slowing or headlights/siren/redblue lights on. almost crunched me. i was pretty pissed off. would have been nice to know how to go about this then.
I'm not saying I agree with her rationale, but it sounds, at the very least, like the department is taking the stance that this police officer's 'illegal' parking was justified on the basis of law enforcement concerns. So, they are at least in the ballpark, and at least publicly they are not relying on professional courtesy sorts of explanations.
You wouldn't expect otherwise, but I thought that her explanation of why he should fight the complaint should be included with her assertion that he should fight it.
I would seriously like to see citizens in general be just a bit more assertive (not rude jerks, just confident) about their civil rights when confronted by police officers, e.g. refusing to consent to searches. Why don't civics classes teach children that the police do not have your interests at heart when asking you questions (and especially when asking to look inside anything!)?
The cop had to be near his car in case of a call. If you want police calls going unanswered, the fastest way to do that is to set a pack of lawyers on the police department.
What if your daughter was getting raped and she called 911. The dispatcher dispatches the cop. The closest cop to your house is eating lunch.
He has to run THREE BLOCKS to his car before he can drive to your house.
Yeah, that'd be so freaking awesome!
This bothers me some, but not nearly as much as the red-light running and other, above-the-law moving violations cited above in the comments.
Moreover, the money/time spent prosecuting could be better used toward some pro bono work.
we are exempt from parking laws.
we can also drive in the HOV lanes and bus lanes.
im not speaking for the people's republic of oregon fwiw.
fwiw, the officer's response is reasonable. when we are on our lunches we are expected/required to reroute for certain priority calls. it is always a consideration how far away we are from our police cars in situations like that.
if the cop was off duty and parked illegally, then no he would not be above the law.
but when we go to lunch, we are still on duty.
i would not park in a handicapped space unless it was an actual emergency or in progress type detail. like i went to a pharmacy for an inprogress forgery (guy presenting a fake scrip to get CII drugs) and parked in a handicapped stall cause it was close and i wanted to catch the guy.
certainly, that would be inappropriate if i was going to lunch imo.
fwiw, some agencies actually specifically authorize their cops to drive above the speed limit because it allows one to "actively" patrol. iow, move through a traffic stream giving much greater opportunity to observe violators, etc. than having the same few cars around you. this does not authorize one to drive recklessly of course.
in regards to collisions, last i checked cops have a lower collision rate per hour driven than civilians DESPITE having to frequently drive "code", multitask (talk on radio, read CAD screen, etc.), etc.
cops should not be "above" the law. cops should be exempt from certain laws imo, and in many jurisdictions they are - if they are on duty.
another example, is the state law requires on to have a permit to carry concealed, but cops don't need a permit to do so off duty. however, many department policies in WA state prohibit us from carrying in the open (while in plainclothes and not on duty) which is legal for citizens.
Or, perhaps you are just saying we should allow police to ignore the law in the vain and foolish hope of getting good police protection? In light of Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Dec. 21, 1981), that certainly seems to be the situation.
Yes.
That said, anything that reduces the average cop's feeling of smug superiority over peon citizens is good.
this is rubbish i frequently see repeated here. our intention when questioning people (suspects, witnesses, victims, etc.) is to get to the truth of what happened. yes, if you are guilty, you can argue it MIGHT not be in your best interests to talk to the cops, although i have seen numerous cases where i have cut people breaks because they were honest and/or it offered mitigation, etc.
in MANY cases, even if you are a suspect and/or have been mirandized, by telling cops the truth it gets you OUT of an arrest/charge.
this has happened hundreds of times in my career. for instance, i not to long ago was speaking to a guy who had stabbed his brother. AFTER he gave me his side of the story, it turned out that we arrested the STABBEE because in fact he was clearly acting in self defense.
this kind of stuff happens all the time. it is a (defense attorney inspired ) myth that speaking with police is a bad idea, or they don't want to help you.
yes, if you just committed a bank robbery, you are guilty, and you don't want to make the prosecutor case stronger, then shut up shutting up.
we don't work for the prosecution. we are to gather evidence impartially - whether exculpatory or inculpatory
the VAST majority of contacts never result in arrest or charges, and the vast majority of people realize that in speaking to police they are helping their case.
many times offering a simple explanation is a very good idea.
except fortunately in many jurisdictions we CAN do that legally.
people's republic of oregon may be an exception.
Sounds like you might be the one with the sense of smug superiority here.
I hate to break it to you, but in most major cities the police aren't the ones writing parking tickets -- there's a separate parking division just for that. The police are the ones out there sorting out the domestic disputes, taking care of the wounded, and looking out for your safety.
But, hey, if you'd rather opt-out maybe we can find a way.
Come to think of it, why do we have parking laws in the first place, they just make life more dangerous?
So while I'd be sympathetic to giving the police a pass in situations like this, they no longer deserve it. Maybe if the attitude were towards getting rid of SWAT teams, then I'd find these exemptions more acceptable.
what we have here is a private citizen issuing another private citizen a parking ticket (civil infraction)on behalf of the local government without any official delegation or verification from the government authorizing this citizen to give parking tickets.
it is true that sometimes citizens can enforce the criminal law by issuing criminal complaints and even citizens arrest. However, in almost every jurisdiction, parking tickets are civil violations.
Civil violations are essentially a case of the government suing you. Standing doctrine dictates that unless specifically authorized by law, nobody can sue on behalf of the government even when hte gov collects. This doctrine of standing prevents huge floodgates of litigation.
Now, If you agree with a cop having to pay this ticket, then you also have to agree that any citizen out there can give you a parking ticket which you would then have to defend or pay. Your also agreeing that every citizen has standing to sue on behalf of the government for almost any civil wrong. You could write a ticket to your neighbor for a zoning infraction etc... If you think nobody would do this, imagine if you got in a dispute with you neighbor over some other thing, perhaps a private tort. Suppose he could retaliate by watching your car every day to see if it went over the 6 inches from the curb line?
Its true that police should not break parking laws when they know there is no emergency. However, authorizing every citizen to sue for every parking violation, even if the judgment goes to the city, is a ridiculous solution that creates far more logistical problems than illegal parking by a few overly comfortable police does.
I also am not convinced by the 'ok but lets do it in this one case because we don't like the cop' argument. Every potential plaintiff could also say that. It doesn't matter if its a little thing, or a big thing. Standing doctrine is good.
Come to think of it, why do we have parking laws in the first place, they just make life more dangerous?
I think you need to read Professor Volokh's piece about which slopes are actually slippery and which are just absurd. Yours is clearly in the latter category if you can't see a principled distinction between off-duty plumbers and on-duty police.
Not a bad policy argument, although not necessarily convincing.
But, the real issue is: who decides if it's a good argument?
The police or the legislature?
Police are, at least in some circumstances, subject to different laws (e.g. re use of force).
Whether they should be subject to parking laws or have a partial exemption is debatable. But that should be decided by State or the City -- not an individual cop.
My problem with making police exempt from laws is that they will feel they have a right to violate said laws whenever they want. Cops ideas of "necessary" and mine usually differ. You provided a perfect example. A guy presenting a fake scrip for prescription drugs? How does this justify breaking laws (such as parking in handicapped spots)? The guy is committing a victimless crime, he will be on video if the cops decide they care enough about this case....of course, the cops won't decide they care if you don't catch him in the act. Which is why it's not important enough to be breaking generally applicable laws. (I'm not saying you broke the law, since it appears you have immunity. I don't know if you meant that in reality or in law.)
A former co-worker lived for a while in Missouri. He said that local practice was to give attorneys up to three free passes on speeding tickets a year. All you had to do was mail in a copy of your bar card with your license.
I just want the same right to carry arms as cops have, since I am an officer of the court as well.
the issue is not "above". it's "exempt".
if im driving down the road, and i see johnny dirtbag with 6 warrants that i have been looking for driving the other way, should i wait until i can make a legal (for civilians) U-turn or do one NOW and catch him?
and of course, my state allows me to make the u-turn as long as i drive with due caution, even though it would be otherwise illegal.
most of the people in this thread sound like petty children who after being sent to their room for some transgression now want to see THE MAN GET HIS OWN.
The police or the legislature?
What I was going to say. Some cops have themselves confused with the lawmakers.
That is true. I assume that any exemption would have to be authorized by a duly authorized and enacted law. The exemption can be as broad or restrictive as necessary, but it should passed by the state or city. I don't believe that cops should be allowed to violate any regulation, code, ordinance, or law just because they feel like it. Their exemptions should be statutorily grounded.
"Sometimes police officers do things like this (or speeding, or going through a red light after flicking on the over-heads for a just a second, or lots of other little things) without good reason"
I've seen both. My assumption was that he'd gotten one of those calls, I forget the code, that amounts to "get there as quick as you can w/o lights or siren," and figured that flicking the lights on briefly, and speeding, were allowable toward that end.
Police, at least in my experience, are free (absent a huge emergency) when they clear for lunch (10-7 in coptalk). If the cop doesn't have a portable radio (rare, these days, admittedly) how would he even know the lawyers houose was being broken into?
I mean, why not argue that the cop should be able to extort free food from area merchants, because a hungry cop is an ineffective cop?
Sheesh.
Do you really mean that? Because that statement seems like a perfect example of why people no longer respect cops. Here we are, engaged in a debate about public policy regarding police exemptions - and you assume that we're lawbreakers ("after some transgression") and look down on us ("petty children") just because we're engaged in this debate.
Sheesh. Also, best. :)
Go to Los Angeles - they'll treat you like a King!
My problem with making police exempt from laws "
note: SOME laws.
"is that they will feel they have a right to violate said laws whenever they want."
this isn't about what people "feel". it should be about the law. many jurisdictions specifically authorize cops (on duty and/or off duty) from certain laws because they realize that it serves the cause of justice.
and i agree with this. it does not surprise me that this may not be the case in the PROOregon. But it should be.
legislatures need to CODIFY this stuff, and dept's need to have POLICIES. break policies and face administrative actions. break laws and face fines, etc.
that's how it should be. that's how it is.
" Cops ideas of "necessary" and mine usually differ. You provided a perfect example. A guy presenting a fake scrip for prescription drugs? How does this justify breaking laws (such as parking in handicapped spots)? The guy is committing a victimless crime, he will be on video if the cops decide they care enough about this case...."
you are kidding me right? look, if you don't think that a cop should be able to park illegally (fire lane, handicapped stall, etc.) to be able to have a better chance of catching an in progress felony than i just think your idea of justice is ridiculous. i can't argue with such a strange mentality.
and fwiw, i'm against the war on drugs. but given that it's illegal and it's a felony, i can't pick and choose to not enforce that law.
the he will be on video is also ridiculous. so what? assuming the drug store HAS video (not all do) AND it's turned on and decent quality, it is PREFERRED to make a summary arrest- evidence on scene, less chance of apprehending the WRONG person (see, that's helps protect the innocent... that's important), there is often physical evidence present with the suspect (such as the scrip, other fake scrips, other illegal drugs, etc.)
if you REALLY think that this crime doesn't justify parking in a handicapped stall, i just gotta say - you and i are never gonna agree.
"of course, the cops won't decide they care if you don't catch him in the act. Which is why it's not important enough to be breaking generally applicable laws. (I'm not saying you broke the law, since it appears you have immunity. I don't know if you meant that in reality or in law.)"
i mean that in reality. i am also a training officer, and if any trainee told me that he wouldn't park in a handicapped, fire lane, etc. to catch somebody committing an in progress crime (misdemeanor or felony), he would get corrective counseling, and i can 100% guarantee you my supervisor would back me up.
that's just how police work is done. i would suggest that even in the state of oregon, one would be perfectly ok doing THAT.
Where do you live, because my experience with the much-maligned LAPD is that they're almost always polite and respectful. And I have it on good authority (friends and family) that I'm a shady looking character.
Worst.
Thank you for making yourself look like a fool.
Cops are not exempt from the V&T Law, and never have been. All of the V&T codes apply. The only exemption is when responding to a bona fide emergency, and then both lights and sirens need to be operating. ALL, and I mean all, other parts of the code apply to the police at all times. Even speeding with just the reds on is a violation of Section 1180 (you remember 1180, I bet). Need to have the siren too.
Police only think they are exempt, which I suppose is the real problem.
That's how I read it. Hence my snarky comment.
I am the biggest critic of police misconduct that I know. But the comments here are just blind and hateful.
This thread also contains some of the worst analogies ever! I used to TA a critical thinking course. If I still did, I would literally make the students read these comments.
false. i AM allowed to because my dept. policies, practices, and the law ALLOWS me to do that.
this is not about what *i* want. this is what policy and law says and should say.
again, i am not surprised that in the people's republic of oregon, the law may be different.
you simply are acting like a petulant child "i can't park in that space, so why should that meanie cop be able to? it's not FAIR!!!"
this is common in many of these threads. oh, and i feel the same way about fire dept. for the same reason. they need to be close to their trucks. when they go to safeway, they do and should park in the fire lane. i am PRETTY sure that if there IS an actual fire, that this will not be a bad thing (rolls eyes)
I think NY law may provide some parking exemptions, and I know there's a cellphone and seatbelt exemption. They're codified though, and pretty limited.
I'm gonna go w/ the advice of my evidence prof (not a defense attorney...he dreams of getting a spot in the jury for a capital case, so he can call his memoirs "Death Juror"):
The state is able to get all sorts of convictions that they wouldn't get otherwise, because idiots talk to the police. Good general advice: 1) never have sex 2) never say anything to anyone, anytime...like warning says: can and will be used in a court of law. And don't put it in writing. And if you did: shred it. Cops make cases by getting people to talk. Cops will say, "It'll be better if you just tell us the truth." LIE. LIIIIIIE! It won't be better.... They'll act like your friend.... but they're trying to screw you."--if you didn't call them, the police aren't your friends.
they may have provided exemption from certain laws for on-dty police officers because they realize it serves the cause of justice (I question that presumption, but anyway), but the reason they provided exemption for off-dty police officers is the power of the police unions.
As to us disagreeing about breaking the law to apprehend anyone, whether felony or misdemeanor, yeah, I guess I just have a strange mentality that certain things are not worth the general disrespect for the law they engender. When people see police officers disrespect the law, it causes them to disrespect both the law and police officers. I realize you don't think people should have this reaction, but you can't deny they do. Just look at the responses on this thread. I also realize that it may not be illegal in your state, but again most people don't know that. And, I guarantee your state didn't provde the exemption from generally applicable traffic laws to be used in any situation whatsoever. They provided you the power, assuming you would use it wisely and judiciously. That's where the cops feeling they can do whatever they want becomes important.
i'm not arguing that EVERYTHING a policy officer does that varies with the liberties of the citizenry should be codified before it's blameless. parking, however, is such a common occurrence that would be easily dealt with in a statutory scheme. the absence of such a statute in such a common fact-pattern should speak to legislative disapproval.
the "perks of the job" argument fails. police, especially when on duty, must uphold the law in all the detail with which they assert it.
yes
" Because that statement seems like a perfect example of why people no longer respect cops."
except that's a false statement. not surprising. please check any recent polling data. police officers are very highly regarded by the public. moreso than most professions, and that includes lawyers.
why does it not surprise me that you didn't know this? why, because in order to support your argument you must not understand the underlying facts. here's the facts...
in terms of prestige, a poll showed that people ranked police behind (in order from top) scientist, fireman, doctor, teacher, nurse, and military
but ahead of
clergy, congressperson, engineer, architect, business exec, lawyer, entertainer, athlete, union leader, journalist, accountant, banker, actor, stockbroker, real estate agent.
that's the harris poll
in terms of honest and ethics, here are the results of public opinion
Nurses (highest rated of the 45 jobs and occupations tested, with 73%
rating them highly)
Pharmacists, 69%
Veterinarians, 63%
Medical Doctors, 58%
K-12 Teachers, 57%
Rounding out the Top 10 are
Clergy, 56%
Judges, 53%
Policemen, 52%
Dentists, 52%
College Teachers, 52%
so polling data proves (as opposed to your unsupported false assertion) that police officers are near the top of careers in terms of public perception of both prestige and honesty and ethics.
if you are going to argue from a false premise... well... i won't give you a lesson in analytical reasoning, but i think you know where i am headed.
get your facts right.
look at evidence, THEN form an opinion.
"Here we are, engaged in a debate about public policy regarding police exemptions - and you assume that we're lawbreakers ("after some transgression") and look down on us ("petty children") just because we're engaged in this debate."
i said many here SOUND like that, because they do. fwiw, i had the exact same attitude (note: this is an attitude, not an informed belief) when i was young and naive. it's very common, and very understandable, especially for those that are insulated from the real world.
it is clear that you don't understand basic facts, since you make the false claim that "people no longer respect cops".
respect for police is
ok then. i retract. thanks for the info..it wasn't in the article or the post and i assumed Oregon was like everywhere else.
that we can both agree with. the attorney in this case is a horse's a** but if his actions can spur the legislature to codify this, so that there is no ambiguity, that would be an improvement (assuming oregon has no such exception). so, he is at least a "useful idiot" in that he serves a greater purpose, even if his intentions are ridiculous.
So, is it your claim that going out of your way to get someone punished for something that is technically against the law but which doesn't actually harm anyone just because he can is the behavior of an idiot acting upon ridiculous intentions?
Isn't that part of your job description?
I'm not sure I understand your statistics. Are you saying that 52% of the public thinks police are honest (meaning 48% do not?), which is a high number in that poll? I don't think it's good to get into a debate over statistics in this thread, but if you provide a link to the data I'll look at it. I'll concede that among the general public, police are respected.
fwiw, i had the exact same attitude (note: this is an attitude, not an informed belief) when i was young and naive. it's very common, and very understandable, especially for those that are insulated from the real world.
I'm not understanding you here either. Are you saying you had the "exact same attitude" that you didn't respect police, or the exact same attitude that as a younger police officer you looked down on the public with contempt and as potential lawbreakers (and, now no longer do so)?
I'll assume you meant that you used to have the attitude of not respecting police (I hope that's the correct guess in furtherance of continuing this conversation). Well, for what it's worth, I used to resepct the police a lot, and used to always give them the benefit of the doubt. Until several things changed my personal attitude: the proliferation of unnecessary SWAT teams and use of dangerous midnight raids (often with police shooting innocent people), the Duke rape case where the police were complicit in a bogus frame job, viewing Youtube videos of police hassling citizens engaged in lawful carry of guns, and reading the Cops Writing Cops forum where police complain about not being exempt from the law.
For the record, I've never been arrested, never used drugs nor am I sympathic to the use of drugs at all (I don't like hippies), I've never gotten a traffic ticket, I've never been pulled over or hassled by police, and etc. I should be your natural ally. But you've lost me.
Isn't that part of your job description?"
actually, no. we are expecetd to use discretion. we can give warnings for many offenses, including misdemeanors, and seek to educate, not just cite.
any GOOD police officer is intelligent and circumspect in his use of discretion. and im the FIRST TO ADMIT that the LEGISLATURE makes many many many many stupid laws that should be wiped from the books. but then im a libertarian so that goes w.o saying (yet i did).
but it is my belief that no REASONABLE person would get upset and/or seek a citation for a cop parking in a no parking zone in his ON DUTY VEHICLE while he got picked up his dinner. just as it is my belief that no cop who issued a speeding ticket for 2 over the speed limit is acting reasonably.
i am pretty confident that MOST people would think it entirely reasonable for the officer to want to have his car parked nearby when on duty and going in to get his meal and most people would support the officer's right to do so. that is of course my opinion. i have no polling data on this.
"if im driving down the road, and i see johnny dirtbag with 6 warrants that i have been looking for driving the other way, should i wait until i can make a legal (for civilians) U-turn or do one NOW and catch him? "
You are introducing facts here. In an enforcement or emergency situation, then indeed, make a safe u-turn. This officer was in neither the enforcement or an emergency mode. So your strawman doesn't really carry water since, indeed, in that circumstance the office is "exempt."
If the officer is just getting some food or otherwise not discharging their duties in the course of enforcement or emergency, then they should be neither exempt nor above the law. The reason I said "above," is quite specific. The officer should be "exempt" in plenty of situations. Sitting down to grab a bite isn't one of them. Hence "above."
What's more is in the long run, your arguments are scorched earth. Even if the policy argument that a cop should be able to hurry to the car (a dubious argument, but I'll stipulate for this moment), then you're seeing the ill effects right here in this thread. That very perception of "above the low" whether right or wrong is contributing to the gulf between cops and the rest of us. It's just more "us versus them" that makes people fear/dislike/distrust the police. It makes people resent you and want nothing to do with you. It lends itself to the growing perception that Officers are no longer peace officers, but law enforcement officers. And it hurts the cause of the police in the long run when the people they "serve and protect" don't trust them.
And as a somwehat successful organizational leader (I have a C-level executive job at a pretty successful corporation), the "little perks" argument doesn't cut it and shouldn't. When people make little mistakes in my organization, and then tell me, "It's just a little thing," my response is, "If I can't trust you on the little things, then I'm damn sure not going to trust you on the big ones." I think that's roughly analogous here and speaks volumes to the trust and "scorched earth" issue.
Barney ticketed the mechanic on the show (whose name I forget) for parking illegally or something along those lines. As he pulled away, Barney made a U-turn right at a sign that said "No U-turns" and the mechanic chased after him yelling "citizens arrest!". I forget how the rest of the episode went.
i STILL can't figure out how to use the "link" thing. just GOOGle it. the poll is a RELATIVE poll. iow, "52% rated them HIGHLY" in honesty and ethics vs. much lower #'s. again, google these polls there are many many many of them and they all dispute the OP's claim that citizens don't respect the police.
polling data repeatedly shows that his claim was false. that people do, on the whole, respect police officers and that as a profession, we rate consistently among the top professions in terms of people respecting cops etc.
that's inarguable. poll after poll.
the only reason i brought it up was to dispute the false claim that the OP made.
"fwiw, i had the exact same attitude (note: this is an attitude, not an informed belief) when i was young and naive. it's very common, and very understandable, especially for those that are insulated from the real world.
I'm not understanding you here either. Are you saying you had the "exact same attitude" that you didn't respect police,"
i had the same attitude that cops were generally just power hungry and used the law to "get away with stuff" etc. like in this case. many if not most smartass college students probably feel the same way, having had zero exposure to real world and much exposure to ivory tower academics etc.
it's kind of a combination of juvenile arrogance, general ignorance, and some shadenfreude too (many people here LOVE to see the cop get a ticket. STICK IT TO THE MAN!)
" or the exact same attitude that as a younger police officer you looked down on the public with contempt and as potential lawbreakers (and, now no longer do so)? "
no. i never had that attitude. as a younger police officer, i was certainly incredibly naive about how criminals act, as most people who are not consistently exposed to the criminal element IN their element are generally naive. shows like "COPS" etc. have helped educate the public.
"I'll assume you meant that you used to have the attitude of not respecting police (I hope that's the correct guess in furtherance of continuing this conversation)."
to some extent, yes. but the more contacts i had with police, the more i learned to respect them. because i saw that they were fair, and did their job pretty darn well.
" Well, for what it's worth, I used to resepct the police a lot, and used to always give them the benefit of the doubt. Until several things changed my personal attitude: the proliferation of unnecessary SWAT teams and use of dangerous midnight raids (often with police shooting innocent people), the Duke rape case where the police were complicit in a bogus frame job, viewing Youtube videos of police hassling citizens engaged in lawful carry of guns, and reading the Cops Writing Cops forum where police complain about not being exempt from the law. "
whatever. there will always be cases of misconduct, incompetence, etc. ime, they are relatively rare.
"For the record, I've never been arrested, never used drugs nor am I sympathic to the use of drugs at all (I don't like hippies),"
hippies suck!(cartman)
i could give a flying #$(#($ whether people use drugs or not. it's illegal, and i generally can't give warnings for felony drug crimes (i can for misdemeanors). the reality is that the vast majority of people who use drugs, specifically marijuana will never be arrested (fortunately) especially if they have the common sense to do it in private. and when and if they are, they will get in the vast majority of circ's a slap on the wrist, assuming no major criminal history.
" I've never gotten a traffic ticket, I've never been pulled over or hassled by police, and etc. I should be your natural ally. But you've lost me"
groovy. but if you think a cop shouldn't be able to park in a no parking zone while on duty to pick up his dinner, then i would hope to "lose you" because imo that's just a ridiculous belief to have.
i want cops to be well fed. not hungry. hungry cops are grumpy. im only half joking.
seriously. to me this is like a reasonableness litmus test to me. regardlessof what the law is (and the law clearly should allow cops to do this), anybody who thinks its somehow WRONG for this cop to have done what they did strikes me as an example of a person who has an unreasonable way of assessing such a situation.
one of the most important qualities we look for in recruits and during their training, is the ability to make sound judgments.
Highlight the word you want to use as the link. Select "Link", paste the url into the prompt box that appears, and select "OK."
I forgot one other thing: the video of the kid who parked in a lot at 2am to pick up his friend who was threatened by the cop that the cop would invent some false evidence to arrest him, only to see the cop change his attitude when he learned he was on camera. That was certainly an eye-opener.
Then there was the video of a man who was pulled over because of a domestic disturbance complaint by his (ex?) wife and the cops (MANY OF THEM) tried to plant drugs on him, until they realied that the cameras on their patrol dashboards were rolling. That was in the news a couple of weeks back.
Those things, happening in such a short time, definitely made me think that perhaps police corruption is more widespread than I had previously thought.
groovy. but if you think a cop shouldn't be able to park in a no parking zone while on duty to pick up his dinner, then i would hope to "lose you" because imo that's just a ridiculous belief to have.
It sounds ridiculous, but give a mouse a cooke and he'll ask for a glass of milk. Police are only human, after all. Do I think this particular cop should've been cited by this citizen? Probably not. I wouldn't do it. But the reason I wouldn't do it is because if I did, I'm certain that the cops would be looking for any excuse to pull me over in the future and that I'd be hassled for it. I'm afraid that if I were to become such a target, the police might try to plant evidence on me, like drugs or something, as revenge.
My attitude is that police corruption occurs more often than not that a law-abiding citizen should be afraid of dealing with the police.
except i was responding to a person who didn't even think a cop should park illegally to apprehend a FELONY FORGERY IN PROGRESS.
so, it's not a strawman. it's in direct response to a scenario.
"If the officer is just getting some food or otherwise not discharging their duties in the course of enforcement or emergency, then they should be neither exempt nor above the law."
iyo. not in my opinion. while on duty, i think they should be able to park illegally (for example to pick up food) or do any other # of mundane tasks, especially if there are no close by legal parking spots.
we can agree to disagree, but this is my opinion, and i have seen no arguments that dissuade me of it.
"The reason I said "above," is quite specific. The officer should be "exempt" in plenty of situations. Sitting down to grab a bite isn't one of them. Hence "above."
except we disagree. fwiw, it is not clear to me whether the officer parked there in order to wait for his food for takeout OR was actually gonna sit down and eat it. imo, both are justified but im not sure which is the case.
if the officer was OFF DUTY i would agree with you. but as long as the officer is EXPECTED to be able to reroute for emergency calls, then i think his parking is fine.
"What's more is in the long run, your arguments are scorched earth. Even if the policy argument that a cop should be able to hurry to the car (a dubious argument, but I'll stipulate for this moment),"
the fact that you think this is a "dubious argument" shows me you are either willfully ignorant or just plain clueless.
believe it or not we do have to hurry to our cars sometimes to respond to in progress details.
and believe it or not seconds count.
that's the reality of street patrol. i suggest you actually do a ridealong with an agency so you can get a clue.
i've gone from sitting down to dinner to rushing to a shooting call SEVERAL TIMES. seconds count.
i, and any other street cop, has had scores of occasions where they have had to leave a meal (before or during eating) for this type of thing.
it's common. the fact that you think it's dubious, imo, renders everything else you say ridiculous, since you clearly do not udnerstand how patrol works.
" then you're seeing the ill effects right here in this thread. "
the ill effects on this blog are common. there is almost always a kneejerk "the cop is wrong" response on this blog from a lot (but not all) of the people here. i expect that. the only other sites where i have seen similar responses is democraticunderground.com and reason.com which also take reflexive anti-police positions.
and anybody who think it's "dubious" that on duty patrol cops should be close by their cars is woefully ignorant of patrol and obviously taking a reflexive kneejerk position out of ignorance and bias imo.
"That very perception of "above the low" whether right or wrong is contributing to the gulf between cops and the rest of us. It's just more "us versus them" that makes people fear/dislike/distrust the police."
except the vast majority of people don't fear/dislike/distrust the police. again, check the polls.
we are FAR FAR FAR more respected liked and trusted than lawyers, for instance. whether that's justified or not, that's the truth. check the polls.
so, i don't find your conclusion supported by evidence. and we in law enforcement like this pesky little thing called "evidence" vs. assertions without any support.
in my experience (and the polling data supports this) the VAST majority of people respect the police. the vast majority trust the police.
so, whether or not you want to admit it, that's the facts.
" It makes people resent you and want nothing to do with you. It lends itself to the growing perception that Officers are no longer peace officers, but law enforcement officers. And it hurts the cause of the police in the long run when the people they "serve and protect" don't trust them.
"
and i say again, anybody who thinks a cop in a MARKED PATROL CAR who parks in a no parking zone to pick up his meal is engendering resentment and mistrust needs to get out into the real world.
fwiw, i have had NUMEROUS occasions where i am in line for a meal and people ask me to go before them because they recognize that we often don't have the luxury to sit down and eat, and might have to rush off. this has happened dozens of times to me. so, again, reality disagree with your beliefs.
perception DOES matter. i think it would be a bad idea for example, for two cops to sit down at lunch for 2 hours (assuming they got no calls). THAT kind of stuff tends to make some people go 'hmm...".
but parking in a no parking zone in a marked cruiser? absolutely not.
"And as a somwehat successful organizational leader (I have a C-level executive job at a pretty successful corporation), the "little perks" argument doesn't cut it and shouldn't."
i'm not claiming it's a "little perk". im claiming it should be a clearcut right of an officer in a marked patrol car.
there are lots of little perks in our job, and there are also lots of things that we can't do that civilians can, and there are lots of ways we are under far more scrutiny and restriction than others. that's fine.
" When people make little mistakes in my organization, and then tell me, "It's just a little thing," my response is, "If I can't trust you on the little things, then I'm damn sure not going to trust you on the big ones.""
and i agree. but imo parking in a no parking zone is not a "little mistake." imo, it is perfectly acceptable behavior imo for the police officer to do this, and i support him. there are lots of things he might do i wouldn't support. parking in a no parking zone to get his lunch is not one of them.
fwiw, cops NEED no parking zones. if you have ever been a cop in an urban area, you know that is often the only place you can park. and whether you are parking there to do some foot patrol, get your lunch, talk to a storeowner (community policing) etc. i support that.
" I think that's roughly analogous here and speaks volumes to the trust and "scorched earth" issue."
not at all. since i don't see this as a breach of trust or a case of misbehavior. i think he should be authorized to do this. i am not saying this is a minor transgression, as you seem to think. i am saying it is not a transgression AT ALL.
I think it is fair to ask how many lawyers take various "short cuts" on their way to heaven, such as double billing, padding expenses, or looking the other way when one of their fellow lawyers does something a little outside the norm or, in effect, against the law? I think the answer is a fair amount of them. And you know what if I were a lawyer, chances are under certain circumstances I would do the same thing.
look. nobody denies that some cops are corrupt, some bad stuff happens, bla bla
can we stick to the fact pattern HERE?
imo, this is not a "minor transgression."
imo, what this cop did SHOULD be legal, and should not be discouraged. for reasons i explain in other posts.
Ok, you've convinced me. Cops might need to run to their cars. Fine.
Maybe in the future you can try to convince me that cops aren't to be avoided at all costs, because the risk of running into a corrupt one is too great.
huh? you want to explain how being raped "ranks up there" with a plumbing problem?
so, they both drove by in the same car?
That's just terrible. Seeing it in your own son... Sheesh. Police corruption is like a cancer that only spreads with each person it contacts. There's a word for that: evil.
Also, stupid. Your son will end up on Youtube one day if he doesn't fix that attitude. That's my one hope: that technology may be able to put a dent on that sort of thing.
Is it just maybe, slightly possible that you are not the one being reasonable. Oh, and in the same comment you claim that the "U-turn for Johnny Dirtbag with Six Warrants" comment came in response to my comment about parking in a handicapped parking spot while a big scary felony forgery was in progress. It wasn't. You were responding to someone who said noone (sic) should be above the law (your comment at 6:11). I never said "noone" should be above the law. You were responding to Noops at 6:01. So, yes, you were analogizing to an officer who was NOT in an emergency situation.
BTW, I think, at heart, this is the problem with most (though not all) police officers. Once they make up their mind that facts are a certain way, it'll take heaven and earth moving to change it.
Not to be too cynical, but unless you have been on a ride-along with him (or better yet, heard an audio where there wasn't a ride-along and he didn't know he was being recorded), you don't know that he's a great guy. You only know that he's a great guy TO YOU. And, of course, you know him socially. How people act socially and at work is often different for regular people. For cops, who believe they are dealing with criminals IN their element, to paraphrase whit, and thus treat people as if they were scumbags, the effect is often heightened.
You've said on this thread, and many others, that the best advice is NOT what defense lawyers regularly say...shut up and wait for a lawyer. Let me ask you a question. How many innocent people have you arrested after they told you a story that was true but slightly unbelievable? I'm assuming your answer will be none (or none that I knew at the time to be innocent), because I truly believe that you try to do your job the right way. But, you've been a cop for over a decade (I think around 20 years) in three different jurisdictions. The odds are you've arrested LOTS of innocent people without knowing it (or at least arrested people who were innocent of the crime you arrested them for). The point is; you don't know who those people who screwed themselves by talking to you are, because if they opened their mouth and told you a true story that really reasonably sounded like bullshit, you assumed you were being bullshitted and arrested them.
I guess what I'm saying is it's true that defense attorneys have a certain perspective....but so do you.
I flew Medivac for 7 years. During that time the cops would also leave us alone, since (as backup crew) we would get called in for urgent medicav's and have to drive to the air field.
That's exactly my take, actually.
I avoid interactions with cops at all costs. If I were a crime witness, I would NOT come forward for fear that a cop looking to close his case would find a way to pin it on me. It's just not worth the risk to me.
Yet I don't see any tension at all from believing: a) there are enough crooked cops that it's best to avoid all cops; and b) many cops do valuable emergency work and thus should be near their cars at all times.
Now flip the script and imagine what people would say to this headline: "Fleeing Rapist Escapes Capture As Nearby Cop Sits At Donut Shop."
People would say, "Why was this lazy cop not at his car?!" Yet those same people want cops to be away from their cars.
It's a good example of bigotry. To the bigots, a cop cannot do anything right.
I prefer a nuanced approach.
Sorry, hattio1, but I've known my friend since we were in high school, and he's the straightest character anyone will ever know. So yes, I do know that he's a great guy, and I find it amusing that you think I'm not qualified to say so. Tell me, do you have any evidence that I'm lying or that I'm misrepresenting my friend? (particilarly in light of my previous comments that I'm distrustful of cops?) Seriously, do you have an actual argument?
I do. I hear audios of our local cops all the time. They treat suspects like scumbags. I also hear their friends, who have known them since they were in high school, talk about what wonderful people they were. Every once in a while, one of these wonderful friends is somehow connected with a case (or more likely it was THEIR child, friend, nephew, etc.). Then these wonderful friends get an earful of how their cop friend acted...and usually don't believe it. And then they hear the audio.
So, do I have any information specific to your friend? No. Do I think you're lying, or intentionally misrepresenting your friend??? Again, no. Do I think that, waaaaaay more likely than not you're mistaken? Yep.
I admire the work you do, both here, on this blog, and on the street.
this is roughly equivalent to a man saying he avoids interaction with women at all costs. because if you do, especially spend time alone with one, she'll just find a way to pin a rape complaint against you.
jeeze. what paranoia? i can't even count the #'s of witnesses, victims etc. i speak to in a year. hundreds? thank god NORMAL PEOPLE don't have this strange paranoia. it's kind of like inverse omerta.
"Yet I don't see any tension at all from believing: a) there are enough crooked cops that it's best to avoid all cops;"
see my woman analogy.
" and b) many cops do valuable emergency work and thus should be near their cars at all times. "
true dat
"Now flip the script and imagine what people would say to this headline: "Fleeing Rapist Escapes Capture As Nearby Cop Sits At Donut Shop."
People would say, "Why was this lazy cop not at his car?!" Yet those same people want cops to be away from their cars. "
word.
"It's a good example of bigotry. To the bigots, a cop cannot do anything right. "
i've become resigned to that in this blog. but it's ok.
I think, given the explanations on this thread, this very well may be true, and the legislature should probably pass laws making it so.
Until they do, why should violations be treated any differently than other things that people feel should be legal and not be discouraged? Say, medical marijuana for example?
Yep, I supposes so. But as a former policeman and now a lawyer I can say that lawyers are much more arrogant and more often to feel that they are above the law.
Most people forget that cops are mostly revenue agents nowadays. Whether ticketing innocent taxpayers who are driving home from a real job, or stealing the assets of drugdealers, cops today are not here to "protect and serve" but to increase revenue for the State.
With the state police that's true. With the city police that's not the case. But what would you do, not have the police enforce the traffic laws?
I'm with Malvolio. This is a two way street. And noone should be above the law.
This is overly simplistic. Heck, how many lawyers are "above the law" as you put it? When I was a policeman I knew of two cases where judges were involved in DWI accidents and guess what? Yeah, they didn't go to jail.
My problem with making police exempt from laws is that they will feel they have a right to violate said laws whenever they want
How about some perspective here? We're talking about a packing violation, not a felony crime. These damn slippery slope arguments are lazy thinking.
And if I may be a bit provocative here:
I find it curious that a blog dedicated to libertarian lawyers are so critical of the police. It's not as if lawyers are all that... honest. Just look at how many lawyers are disbarred every MONTH in NEW YORK alone for crying out loud.
And for all those libertarians out there... I have a libertarian streak in me as well, but let's be honest here, much of what being a "open" libertarian is about comes down to two things: (1) you want drugs legal so you can use them; (2) you have problems with authority figures. I'm not disagreeing with either of these two positions, mind you, but the idea that libertarians are all for lassie fair policies is kind of bogus. Ever notice how many libertarians favor a strong military and are pro Iraq war? How does this square with being for a limited government? (It doesn't)...
And I've got this speeding ticket.... :)
jeeze. what paranoia? i can't even count the #'s of witnesses, victims etc. i speak to in a year. hundreds? thank god NORMAL PEOPLE don't have this strange paranoia. it's kind of like inverse omerta.
In my office, when I'm talking to a women, I NEVER close my door. It doesn't matter who it is or what we're talking about. I will not be seen alone in my work environment with a woman, period. And yes, I am a lawyer and work in a BIGLAW firm in Manhattan.
Once you realize the risk of acting "normal," your behavior changes. Normal people get burned.
i think what probably happened is basically, it never came up. i've been downtown portland. there is very little (legal) parking. if a cop wants to get out of his car AT ALL in certain areas, he either parks in a no parking zone, he double parks, or he would have to go to a parking garage 10-15 minute walk away.
cops have probably been doing this routinely and nobody CARED, so it never came up. but i agree that a good solution is to simply amend the law (assuming this is necessary. im not familiar with oregon mv code) to make a specific exception for on duty cops, fire, etc.
i doubt there is a city in existence where cops don't routinely do this, as they should.
medical mj is legal in my state, fwiw.
i wouldn't be surprised fwiw, if most cops didn't just assume that it WAS legal for an emergency vehicle to park as this guy did. i don't think most people thought they were ignoring the violation. they probably didn't even realize it was a violation.
that is conjecture of course.
Once you realize the risk of acting "normal," your behavior changes. Normal people get burned."
this is a good policy, fwiw. but assuming you were single, would you forego interacting with women, let alone taking them home to show them your CD collection :) lest they be given the opp to make a false complaint of rape?
as for this drek:
Sorry but I wouldn't.
This is the "higher standard" that is supposed to apply?
How many police officers get
administerial leavepaid vacation for actions that would put normal people behind bars?Why can't defense lawyers charge cops with purgery