Thursday, June 23, 2011

"When the cops come...continued."

Another little addition to the argument after a somewhat fiery response to my last:
I am addressing you with respect and attempting to answer the philosophical reasoning behind the issues at hand. I would appreciate if you curb your terminology and treat me with the same. Your sarcastic phrasing (“valiantly” writing tickets, etc.) is unnecessary and extremely unpleasant. Furthermore, what qualifies you to say traffic stops are not dangerous? If it’s your opinion, you’re entitled. If you think it’s a fact--you’re wrong. Numerous deaths, assaults, and police training say otherwise, as do the readily available videos online showing shoot-outs in traffic stops, etc.
I agree with your inference; it is obvious that lawful order necessitates actual law--in America we proudly maintain a standard of written law (as opposed to the common law tradition of England, for example). I also agree that the court should decide whether or not this woman was interfering (as per the terminology of the penal code) and whether the action taken by the officer was extreme. You obviously have found a calling appropriate to your passion for this topic, which is great.
I must take issue with your comment about words not constituting interference. There are many examples where that is the opposite of truth (outside your profanity exemption). Terroristic threatening, for example, or providing false information. I do not think anyone in this debate has said that “distaste for others” is the law (An honest reading of Ryan’s comment that he wouldn’t like someone recording him seems to hardly merit such a leap and that is the nearest that I can see to your accusation).
I certainly do not remove responsibility of the officers--if you read my argument above you see that I clearly stated that if “law enforcement is abusing the power vested in them by the state (therefore, by the citizens) he should be reprimanded, removed, and the wrongs put to right.” There is an entire system of accountability in place for that very thing, and though it is in some ways a handicap to justice, it is also a defender of it--viz. civil liberty. I in no way believe those who uphold the law are without discretion in application--on the contrary, I think they have a higher standard to maintain. I take great offense in your nazi reference.
I also wonder at your statement that cops only respond (and too late) to rape and dead bodies. Nothing is stolen, there is no drunk or reckless driving, old ladies never need tires changed on the side of the road, no one is assaulted, children or the elderly are not abused, traffic needs no policing, wrecks don’t need first responders, people and kids don’t go missing, drugs aren’t produced and sold and abused, private property is never destroyed, and harassment never happens--or is never addressed by law enforcement? Or perhaps what you mean is that you personally have never dealt with such an event requiring law enforcement action. This means that you are truly blessed--or perhaps the police have successfully done their job and kept your neighborhood safe without you so much as lifting a finger.
If law enforcement does indeed have no effect on any of these, by all means, get rid of the entire police system in the USA. Hire more coroners and nurses and public defenders. Ryan can get a different job, and I would be delighted to not worry about him every day. But since I do believe that police are useful and necessary, and I am convinced that Ryan is a good cop doing good things and upholding the law and justice in the country I love, I am willing to put up with the stress and danger that comes with it--just as he is, “like a man” (to use your phrase).
When I said you were making ad-hominem attacks, I was referring to your comment that “Cops like you are the reason all cops are assumed to be power hungry petty tyrants drunk off their own power (and a bit of steroids as well)” That seems very personal, or did I misunderstand?
I would never dream of preventing you from airing your opinions just as Ryan aired his. The difference is, I know that Ryan has personal experience--he knows whereof he speaks. You have made your ignorance public by your comments and faulted assumptions of law and the upholding thereof.
Finally, Mr. H, since you insist on taking this to a personal level, your assumption that all Ryan is concerned about is his well-being and preference is to read his comment with a gross bias. My husband, as with most law enforcement, also holds another responsibility, sacred before God, and that is his family--and in this case, that’s me. When he is doing his job, not only does he carry the weight of making decisions in noisome, gritty, dangerous reality concerning policy and all the legal issues (which you get to observe from the comfortable vacuum of your home and in your own sweet time), but he also must remember that I am at the mercy of anyone who chooses, like you, to take this to a personal level. And while I have no doubt that you intend to keep this to mere words and my safety is not involved, many people he deals with on a daily basis have no such compunction. I have experienced personal attacks against me simply because of my husband’s job in law enforcement. His “paranoia” as you call it, is completely reasonable, when you’ve actually been on the front line and seen what the danger really is.
This is my last post on this thread, out of respect for [the owner of the facebook page]. I genuinely respect the passion Mr. H has for civil liberties and I think his chosen career is a necessary part of our judicial system. I hope this shows him a little slice of the other side--I am sure his intent is to uphold the law and defend the constitution and work to maintain our great nation.

No comments: