The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

There have been several recent threads in this forum on the misconduct of police officers, with some very negative comments coming from lawyers. Thought the below story would give lawyers pause and think about the conduct of their own before they pick on other professions...

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/12/anti-military-l.html

Yep, the guy is a jackass. Keyed a marines car and then maneuvered to avoid criminal charges for it.

But he was not doing so under the color of law.  My problem is not that police misbehave, it is that they do so under the color of law.  

quote:

---

By account of the Illinois State's Attorneys, Grodner is likely to get away with defacing Mike's car with no penalty because, 1) Mike is about to deploy to Iraq and will not be available to appear in court, and 2) Grodner is a lawyer and can get out of this very easily.

---

Whoa!  Is there a special lawyer gets away with it card that I was not issued?  He might be able to maneuver himself out of it (delay until witness is gone), but anyone willing to hire a lawyer could do that.  It would be like saying a body mechanic gets away with running into a tree because he fixes his own car.

I'm sorry some idiot keyed a car, ANYONES car.  Sorrier still that it happened to a Marine about to deploy (actually just took a friend to the airport to go back to base in San Diego).  And what's more, it is unfortunate that he shares my profession.

HOWEVER, incidents of idiots keying cars are rarely, if ever, prosecuted as a felony.  The proper course of action would be to drag this guy threw the mud with a civil suit for the damages AS WELL as keeping the pressure on the DA to at least charge him (statute of limitations probably tolls for deployment or other state law deployment provisions) .  Like nearly everyone else he will probably just get a misdemeanor charge (vandalism has to be pretty extreme to waste resources on a felony prosecution).  His real punishment will be to his name and hopefully to his business.

A better example for you to use would have been the Duke lacrosse prosecutor - actually abusing ones post under authority.  But in any event, I loathe the fact that people who share by profession abuse their education and community standing in many ways.  Please note that I am not excusing this or other attorney's behavior simply because they have a tough job, work long hours, and are often under appreciated (no lawyers = no liberty, justice, property rights...).

And for the record, many of us are underpaid considering our 7-8 years of college [:P]

99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.  [:D]

But us 1% are so damn lovable, I think we redeem the profession. [^]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

But us 1% are so damn lovable, I think we redeem the profession. [^]

---

Yeah, what CF said. I guess that leaves IP and Conan as the rest comprising that 1%

I dont know if this thread says more about a lawyer acting like a child or a cop acting like a child.

Here is an update:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946463/posts

So he did get prosecuted in court and the Marine got a quick hearing so he could give his statement and deploy. Basically, he got everything he wanted.  

The attorney sought a continuance, standard practice.  The case was not dismissed and the "I'm an attorney so I get out of it easily" card was apparently not played.

So a citizen broke the law and due process is rolling to punish him.  I guess I fail to see what the difference between this attorney or any other jackass keying a car?

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder


So a citizen broke the law and due process is rolling to punish him.  I guess I fail to see what the difference between this attorney or any other jackass keying a car?

---

Are you kidding me? You chastized me on another thread on 12/13/07 as follows:

Guido, you are clearly not getting the point....
If nothing else, answer one question for me:

Is expecting officers to follow the law an unreasonable expectation?...

I guess "f nothing else, answer one question for me: Is expecting attorneys to follow the law an unreasonable expectation?"

Apparently not, since according to you attorneys are just like every other jackass keying a car.


 

Again Guido, you are not getting the point.  Though you never answered my question directly, I will happily engage yours.  

quote:

---

Is expecting attorneys to follow the law an unreasonable expectation?

---

No, I fully expect attorneys to follow the law at all times and preferably err on the side of compliance if ever in doubt.  Never is it acceptable for an attorney to use their education, profession, or knowledge to help them commit any crime or break any law.

What's more, I fully expect them to comply with all other laws just as any ordinary citizen should.  While it is particularly important that they not abuse their position, that detracts nothing from the fact that they are expected to behave like any law abiding citizen.  If an attorney speeds, runs red lights, assaults a person, or keys someones car I fully expect them to face the same retribution any other person would face.

Clear enough for you?

Now substitute the word "police officer."  Can you state the same thing?  Because you wouldn't before.  Interesting that the police are not expected to follow the law and are entitled to abuse their positions in your world, but attorneys are not.  I hold both to a high standard and while recognizing that most abide by those standards wish those that do not just punishment under the law.

What's more, THE ATTORNEY IN THIS INSTANCE WAS NOT ACTING IN ANY CAPACITY AS AN ATTORNEY. His act is as pitiful for an attorney as it is for anyone else.  he acted under no color of law and hid behind no covert authority in his actions.  And, justifiably so, was punished like any other jackass.  But that same attorney can go to work the next day and not be a hypocrite (unlike an officer who breaks the law and then punishes others for doing the same).  This act would have the same significance if it was committed by a plumber, a welder, an accountant, or a senator - it's someone being a jackass.  Him being an attorney is only relevant in-so-much as the article makes him out to be a notable member of society.

If, honestly, you do not understand the difference between acting hypocritically in an official capacity (or similar abuse of power) and someone who happens to be a member of a profession acting like a jackass, let me know and I will try to explain it to you.  If, on the other hand, you simply harbor a grudge because I think the police should be expect to follow the laws - let me know and I'll move on.

Cannonfodder shoots, he scores!

The attorney being the one to personally file the continuances, or otherwise string it out long enough to render a witness useless isn't any different than the priveledge of hiring someone else to do it for him like so many non-attornies do every day.

I really don't see the point as to how he's abused a position or power in this instance.  

Paying for lap dances out of his client trust account?  That's more like it if that's what the journalist was reaching for.

Not spearing you Guido, I just don't see that some attorney being an immature pr!ck was even noteworthy for the news wires.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71



Not spearing you Guido, I just don't see that some attorney being an immature pr!ck was even noteworthy for the news wires.

---

Come on Conan, it was news-worthy because this lawyer's attack was not only against a soldier but that the lawyer plainly tried to avoid criminal liability because of his victim's deployment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Again Guido, you are not getting the point.  Though you never answered my question directly, I will happily engage yours.  

quote:

---

Is expecting attorneys to follow the law an unreasonable expectation?

---

No, I fully expect attorneys to follow the law at all times and preferably err on the side of compliance if ever in doubt.  Never is it acceptable for an attorney to use their education, profession, or knowledge to help them commit any crime or break any law.

What's more, I fully expect them to comply with all other laws just as any ordinary citizen should.  While it is particularly important that they not abuse their position, that detracts nothing from the fact that they are expected to behave like any law abiding citizen.  If an attorney speeds, runs red lights, assaults a person, or keys someones car I fully expect them to face the same retribution any other person would face.

Clear enough for you?

Now substitute the word "police officer."  Can you state the same thing?  Because you wouldn't before.  Interesting that the police are not expected to follow the law and are entitled to abuse their positions in your world, but attorneys are not.  I hold both to a high standard and while recognizing that most abide by those standards wish those that do not just punishment under the law.

What's more, THE ATTORNEY IN THIS INSTANCE WAS NOT ACTING IN ANY CAPACITY AS AN ATTORNEY. His act is as pitiful for an attorney as it is for anyone else.  he acted under no color of law and hid behind no covert authority in his actions.  And, justifiably so, was punished like any other jackass.  But that same attorney can go to work the next day and not be a hypocrite (unlike an officer who breaks the law and then punishes others for doing the same).  This act would have the same significance if it was committed by a plumber, a welder, an accountant, or a senator - it's someone being a jackass.  Him being an attorney is only relevant in-so-much as the article makes him out to be a notable member of society.

If, honestly, you do not understand the difference between acting hypocritically in an official capacity (or similar abuse of power) and someone who happens to be a member of a profession acting like a jackass, let me know and I will try to explain it to you.  If, on the other hand, you simply harbor a grudge because I think the police should be expect to follow the laws - let me know and I'll move on.

---

Under color of law??? Official capacity??? What difference does that make to a victim of a crime perpetrated by an attorney unless the you are into some horse crap § 1983 standard. Just as police are empowered by the state, so are attorneys. Once an attorney is LICENSED by the state, they are attorneys 24 hours a day—presumably knowledgeable just as a police officer that keying up someone’s car is illegal. Furthermore, I would argue that powers an attorney has such as to “O.R.” people out of jail and issue subpoenas compelling action of private citizens “under color of law” plus the fact that they are indeed considered “officers of the court” places them at least in the same category as police officers. Most certainly, the notion that a lawyers’ criminal conduct should be classified to those in purely private professions such as a welder or an accountant, etc. is just wrong.

The point I was making in that previous thread and that I tried to drive home here is that attorneys need to clean up their our own house before thinking of cleaning up someone else's. Apparently, that’s not the case with you and that is unfortunate.

As far as my unwillingness to engage your issues from the previous thread, if you want to take me on on the subject of police misconduct, let's open it up. Where do you want to start? Number of police stops made every day in this country compared to the number of the "Rodney King" incidents. Better yet, let’s start with some facts. How many daily incidents are there of police officers violating a law and turning around and punishing people for doing the same? How many officers engage in this activity? I would like to know these facts before I have an opinion as to whether I “think the police will ever change” (which as you know was the title of the thread you started). Obtaining these facts should not be too hard since you conceded in that thread that misconduct used to be a “rarity” and that the police need to “learn and start playing by the rules, or just learn that they need to ensure they are not being recorded before breaking them…”

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71



Not spearing you Guido, I just don't see that some attorney being an immature pr!ck was even noteworthy for the news wires.

---

Come on Conan, it was news-worthy because this lawyer's attack was not only against a soldier but that the lawyer plainly tried to avoid criminal liability because of his victim's deployment.

---

I guess you could just say I'm underwhelmed by it all.  Attornies get paid to interpret, manipulate, and parse the law, that's why it doesn't shock me.  This guy's been doing it all his life with a smirk, as do thousands of others.  For so many it's not a matter of doing what's right it's a matter of doing what the law allows.

I'm not saying it's right, this Grodner guy is a walking pr!ck.  I notice his web site is off-line.  Since the latest account of the hearing today sounds like he's going to get tagged with a felony, the Ill. bar may have the final say on his legal career anyhow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71



Not spearing you Guido, I just don't see that some attorney being an immature pr!ck was even noteworthy for the news wires.

---

Come on Conan, it was news-worthy because this lawyer's attack was not only against a soldier but that the lawyer plainly tried to avoid criminal liability because of his victim's deployment.

---

I guess you could just say I'm underwhelmed by it all.  Attornies get paid to interpret, manipulate, and parse the law, that's why it doesn't shock me.  This guy's been doing it all his life with a smirk, as do thousands of others.  For so many it's not a matter of doing what's right it's a matter of doing what the law allows.

---

Got your point. However, when it comes to issues involving soldiers, I consider it more personal.

I have been very clear and answered all your questions, all I ask is for you to do the same.

1. This entire thread is an EXTREMELY thinly veiled attempt to "open up" the previously discussed issues.  In fact, it was you who referenced the Police Misconduct thread, so don't pretend like I'm dragging up ghosts of the past.

But since you want to discuss it again, I can easily report that MOST police officers that I encounter daily are breaking standard traffic laws.  Speeding, failure to use a signal before changing lanes... all sorts of simple little things.  Less often I see officers turn on their lights to get through a red light for whatever reason (say, for instance, because their wife is on a ride along and has to pee - since you remember the thread so well).  Anyone who fails to see such petty misconduct just is not paying attention, and the fact that the police enforce these laws is common knowledge.

What's more, incidents of police misconduct are on the rise in the media.  I doubt it is because there is more misconduct, simply it is because it is easier to prove and makes better news (videos make better news than someone saying "cop tried to frame me").  If you recall, my point was that the perception of pervasive misconduct is as damaging as pandemic misconduct actually occurring and thus, police should be careful to conduct themselves accordingly.  Specifically I referenced how stupid the cops were who harassed the kid with the cameras.

Go ahead and shout "you hate cops, jerk" all you want, clearly you have been waiting this entire thread to revisit that point.  But alas, I do not.  I respect their difficult job and am damn glad they are doing it instead of me.  That does not, however, mean I do not expect the best of them - which includes them following the laws.  So while I believe most officers follow the same laws I do a large amount of the time, I want them to be roll models instead of giving lowlifes like me the opportunity to complain about the petty things.

2. You still will not say you expect the police to follow the law.  It is not a hard statement to make and I do not understand why you expect anything less.

Question A: Should the police and attorneys be expected to follow the law?

3. An attorney takes an oath to practice ethically and in good faith.  We are not sworn to uphold the law not charged with it's enforcement.  The only special privileged we are granted is the legal representatives of another in court - and their behavior when engaged in such is expected to conform to approved standards.  Just like a plumber is licensed to work on plumbing, or an MD to practice medicine, or a CPA to do your taxes... outside of that sphere there is no power granted and no raised expectations (OMG!!! A CPA acts as an approved representative to the Government [IRS] and one of them was drunk at Octoberfest!!eleven!!).

Attorney's can call upon the state to exercise it's power with a subpoena, a summons, or a writ of replevin - but those devices are open to ALL citizens to request of the state.  The only difference is an attorney can utilize those devices at the bequest of another.  Just as an officer is not supposed to turn on his lights to get home faster - an attorney cannot, on his own accord, decide to issues a summons to a high school bully to serve his own purposes.

Police, on the other hand, are sworn to uphold the law, charged with its enforcement, and granted enormous amounts of privilege to carry out that task.  What's more, while acting under the color of law they are vested with the full authority of the state.  They act on behalf of the government.  When driving a police car and violating traffic laws, for instance, they are exercising their granted power by the state.

Question B: Do you understand that all police act daily with the full power of the state, where attorney's can only request the state exercise it's power?

4.

quote:

---

Guido wrote
The point I was making in that previous thread and that I tried to drive home here is that attorneys need to clean up their our own house before thinking of cleaning up someone else's. Apparently, that’s not the case with you and that is unfortunate.

---

quote:

---

Jesse wrote
I fully expect attorneys to follow the law at all times and preferably err on the side of compliance if ever in doubt. Never is it acceptable for an attorney to use their education, profession, or knowledge to help them commit any crime or break any law.

---

Aside from the fact that your example, as illustrated in great detail above, is totally irrelevant to the point you are attempting to raise; I covered this point ad naseum above. Seeing as you failed to read it or grasp the concept, let me summarize it in an even dozen words:

I expect all citizens, no matter the profession, to follow the law.

Question C: Was that clear enough for you?

5. Since you fail to realize the significance of authority, I want to reiterate this point.  Lets use a logic paradigm:

quote:

---

An attorney has no privilege under the law to damage the property of another.

A man, who is an attorney, keyed someones car.

Therefor, the man was not acting under the law nor any authority as an attorney.

---

Using this simple logic device one can surmise that the act was therefor unrelated to the man's profession.  Under your impression, ANY illegal act committed by an Attorney would be an abuse of his power - in spite of the fact that he has been granted no power beneficial to his nefarious cause.

What's more, such an act is not even hypocritical.  It is entirely possible that said attorney is a communist and does not believe in individual property rights.  As an attorney, he has not sworn to believe in property rights nor uphold such laws.  In all likelihood the bar Association will censure this man for his dumb acts that reflect poorly on the profession - but so long as he does not go to work the next day and prosecutes vandals he is no more hypocritical nor abusive than anyone else who commits the same act.

quote:

---

A police officer is granted authority under the law to violate traffic regulations.

A police officer in a marked car violated traffic regulations.

Therefor, the police officer was acting under the authority of the law.

---

Conversely, an officer is granted express authority in many instances to violate the laws they are sworn to uphold.  This is necessary in the regular performance of their duties.  Most often such laws are abused by police officers in fairly pedestrian ways and it really is not a big deal.

However, such acts are still an abuse of the authority they are granted.  And what's more, they are often mirror acts to those that officer may have spent his day fining other people for committing.  Having been sworn, granted special authority, and paid to uphold those very laws - the act of breaking them is a different matter than for anyone else.

Yet, all I ask is that they be treated like everyone else. I don't want to see an officer fired for speeding for god's sake, but I'd love it if there was a mechanism to deter the behavior just as they deter it in me.  

Question D: Do you under stand the difference between private action and action under authority as illustrated above?
- - -

Now Guido, the issue appears to be that an attorney was a jerk to a soldier.  If somehow you misconstrued my expectation of officers to follow the law means that I'm ok with attorneys keying Marines car - then I must inform you that you are incorrect.  I again, have been very clear on this point above.

Now really - what's the deal?  You can not be this obtuse.

No, guido is not that obtuse, cannon.

But his indignation seems to overwhelm everything he posts on this forum. He's basically a one-trick pony.

Look over his other posts and see whether you disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588

No, guido is not that obtuse, cannon.

But his indignation seems to overwhelm everything he posts on this forum. He's basically a one-trick pony.

Look over his other posts and see whether you disagree.

---

Butt out RW, none of this concerns you. CF does not need any cheerleading help. He's an adult.  

I will get back to CF hopefully this afternoon...




 

Really Guido, if it will save you some effort... just say "police should follow the laws and so should attorneys."  

If you fail to understand the difference between the actions as discussed at great length above, so be it.  But a refusal to agree with the above quotation would solidify our difference and render  further discussion totally pointless as you will not convince me that any group is above the law.

<guido wrote:

Butt out RW, none of this concerns you.

<end clip>

Make me. [}:)]

Besides, I'm having too much fun watching cannonfodder pwning you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588

<guido wrote:

Butt out RW, none of this concerns you.

<end clip>

Make me. [}:)]

Besides, I'm having too much fun watching cannonfodder pwning you.

---

Heh.  Rwarn just said "pwning."

I love the interwebs [^]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588

<guido wrote:

Butt out RW, none of this concerns you.

<end clip>

Make me. [}:)]

Besides, I'm having too much fun watching cannonfodder pwning you.

---

You should know about being pwned after I handed you an first class whooping on the 14th amendment issue and illegal immigrants a few weeks back.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Really Guido, if it will save you some effort... just say "police should follow the laws and so should attorneys."  

If you fail to understand the difference between the actions as discussed at great length above, so be it.  But a refusal to agree with the above quotation would solidify our difference and render  further discussion totally pointless as you will not convince me that any group is above the law.

---

I got caught up at work today and I hope to get back tomorrow.

Sorry I am late getting back to this. I had a serious family emergency I was dealing with. If you are ready and still game, here we go…

CF wrote: "This entire thread is an EXTREMELY thinly veiled attempt to "open up" the previously discussed issues.  In fact, it was you who referenced the Police Misconduct thread, so don't pretend like I'm dragging up ghosts of the past."

Where to begin with this point…First, I apologize for leading you to believe this entire thread was an "EXTREMELY thinly veiled attempt" at anything. I thought my last post was an EXTREMELY, absolutely, unmistakably, and "thickly" veiled attempt at discussing previously discussed issues.  I thought the following questions I posed (which you did not answer) should have made it clear:

How many daily incidents are there of police officers violating a law and turning around and punishing people for doing the same?

How many officers engage in this activity?

In your post, you provided no facts whatsoever. Instead, you state your personal observations and “common knowledge” that most police officers break standard traffic laws. This sort of self testimonial "It happens to me then it must be true" evidence means nothing. Indeed, the only "proof" of police “corruption” that prompted you to initiate a thread entitled "Think the police will change" was one case where a minor was interrogated without the presence of his mommy and daddy and the police lied about it.

Nevertheless, if your point now is to criticize the police because in your personal experiences they do not obey traffic laws, then I will bail out. Arguing that that the police are corrupt because they violate traffic laws is pointless and inane.

You next wrote: "If you recall, my point was that the perception of pervasive misconduct is as damaging as pandemic misconduct actually occurring and thus, police should be careful to conduct themselves accordingly."

No, your point evolved into one about perceptions because you must have realized that arguing whether police will change staked on that one incident with the teenager was untenable.  

Next: "Go ahead and shout "you hate cops, jerk" all you want, clearly you have been waiting this entire thread to revisit that point.  But alas, I do not.  I respect their difficult job and am damn glad they are doing it instead of me.  That does not, however, mean I do not expect the best of them - which includes them following the laws.  So while I believe most officers follow the same laws I do a large amount of the time, I want them to be roll models instead of giving lowlifes like me the opportunity to complain about the petty things."

I do not think you "hate cops". My impression is that you have an unreasonable demand that the police behave as saints, which they are not. They are human beings prone to personal failures-just like lawyers-but because they wear a badge their failings are either inexcusable or they evidence “corruption.”  I think you paint them all with a very large brush. I have a tremendous amount of respect for police, so much so that I cannot envision making time (wasting breath) pondering how their rampant traffic violations are damaging public perceptions of them or if running red lights are actions "under color of law." In my opinion time is probably better spent thinking about what they do for us as a society first and foremost, always remembering that the likelihood of an officer dying at work is much higher than some lawyer. If you want something to think about, in 2005 over 150 police officers died in the line of duty, protecting the average citizen from crime. http://www.tommyduggan.com/VP010506policedeaths.html. You can have a family and job with some sense of safety and security because of these sacrifices, but hey, “think the police will ever change?  It's sickening to me when people like you CF (and RW), either ignore those statistics or hide behind some disingenuous disclaimer about how appreciative your are while turning right around and focusing on traffic violations. That’s what has triggered my "obtuse" response.    

Finally, your inconsistent statements you made in your post did not go unnoticed. On the one hand, you wrote that “MOST police officers that I encounter daily are breaking standard traffic laws, then later IN THE SAME POST, you wrote “I believe most officer follow the same laws I do a large amount of the time.” Well, which is it, do most police break the law or do most follow the law?

You wrote: "Should the police and attorneys be expected to follow the law?"

For whatever reason you are obsessing over my not answering such an irrelevant question, well here it goes: Should I expect police to follow the law? Absolutely. But I am also absolutely not convinced the police are out there rampantly breaking laws as you believe.

Next: "An attorney takes an oath to practice ethically and in good faith.  We are not sworn to uphold the law not charged with it's enforcement."  

Uh, what oath did you take to become a lawyer? The oath I took reads as follows:

You do solemnly swear that you will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Oklahoma; that you will do no falsehood or consent that any be done in court, and if you know of any you will give knowledge thereof to the judges of the court, or some one of them, that it may be reformed; you will not wittingly, willingly or knowingly promote, sue, or procure to be sued, any false or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will act in the office of attorney in this court according to your best learning and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to your client, so help you God.

5 O.S. § 2. Second, as far as not being sworn to uphold the law, tell that to district/ appellate/Supreme Court judges, administrative law judges, DHS lawyers, certain hearing officers from state agencies, and, oh, district attorneys. I guess those folks who are nearly all attorneys, should be arbitrarily excluded by you. I guess it makes your argument work better not having to deal with the likes of Mike Nifong and other lawyers that engage in prosecutorial misconduct. http://truthinjustice.org/WI-25.htm


Next: "The only special privileged we are granted is the legal representatives of another in court - and their behavior when engaged in such is expected to conform to approved standards."  Just like a plumber is licensed to work on plumbing, or an MD to practice medicine, or a CPA to do your taxes... outside of that sphere there is no power granted and no raised expectations."

Ah, so lawyers, who apparently only have the authority to act as legal representatives, are no different than plumbers, doctors, or CPA's.  It's a shame that lawyers NEVER ACT ON THEIR OWN or misuse their particular knowledge of the legal process to take advantage of someone else (like the attorney that was the subject of my post who attempted to take advantage of his crime victim leaving for Iraq).

Next: "Attorney's can call upon the state to exercise it's power with a subpoena, a summons, or a writ of replevin..."  

What do you mean, “call upon”. What does that mean? Attorneys by statute can issue subpoenas compelling a private citizen to produce his body or documents at a specified date and time at a specified location. A private citizen cannot do that. An attorney can sign a person jailed out of jail pending court appearances out of jail. A private citizen cannot do that. And incidentally, your point is supposed to be public perception. Do you think it matters to a private citizen how an attorney is empowered to issue subpoenas? No. The average, private citizen just cares that an officer of the Court, presumably with the full authority of the courts and the ability to request significant sanctions (including possible jail) for non-compliance, will comply. Your attempt at trivializing the importance of the subpoena power shows your lack of understanding.  
Finally, you understand that police “call upon the state” whenever they act in any official capacity. A police officer’s power is derived from the authority granted them by the state and not from any other source. They do not have such power inherently.

Next: "What's more, while acting under the color of law they [police] are vested with the full authority of the state. They act on behalf of the government. When driving a police car and violating traffic laws, for instance, they are exercising their granted power by the state.

"Where are coming up with your fallacious premise that police officers that violate traffic laws are doing so "under the color of law." Where in the law does it state that the police are excused from following speed limits or basic rules of the road simply because they have a badge? Don’t bother looking because there is no law.  They are acting like any other citizen and can be ticketed or even arrested. Honestly, you know police officers ticket one another for traffic related offenses such as speeding or DUI? If you have not, try this one on for size: http://www.cbs46.com/news/14530063/detail.html
A police officer that violates traffic laws, or violates any laws, for purely personal reasons is NOT exercising power granted by the state. Indeed, a police officer's actions will not be under “color of law” when the conduct is personal and not an exercise of state authority. See, e.g., Boliek v. Frendlich, 2005 WL 1363980, 4 (D.Md.); Miqui v. City of New York, 2003 WL 22937690, 4 (E.D.N.Y.)

More importantly, why are you using the legal expression "under color of law" in this connection? This expression carries significant and historical legal connotations largely reserved to matters where a persons civil rights have been violated as a result of state power.

Next:

"I expect all citizens, no matter the profession, to follow the law."

Wow, what a strong position to take. Maybe that should have been the title of your previous thread. That, however, was NOT your original position. Your question was whether police will ever change had nothing to do with speeding or running red lights. It began with you discussing the aforementioned incident with the teenager.  

Now to the easy part--your “logic paradigms”, or as I call them, invalid syllogisms. Your first:

"An attorney has no privilege under the law to damage the property of another.

A man, who is an attorney, keyed someones car.

Therefor, the man was not acting under the law nor any authority as an attorney."

The problem with this logic paradigm is its plainly circular reasoning (1st and 3rd sentences) and the presence of a suppressed premise. As to the latter, you apparently have used the expression “privilege under the law" as a synonym for "acting under the law nor any authority.” These two expressions are not the same. Furthermore, I do not know where you believe the conclusion in the third sentence is any way supported by the prior two sentences.

Let's look at your second logic paradigm:

"A police officer is granted authority under the law to violate traffic regulations.

A police officer in a marked car violated traffic regulations.

Therefor, the police officer was acting under the authority of the law."

First, this syllogism is both an oversimplification and is a circular argument Second, in the first phrase your use of "a police officer", is equivocal: it is used with two different meanings.  In the first sentence, it refers to ALL police officers (a universal claim); in the second sentence it refers to a PARTICULAR officer (a particular claim).  The first sentence is incomplete because it plainly presumes that the police are free to violate laws regardless of the circumstances. To correct this logic paradigm/invalid syllogism, the more accurate statement might be "a police officer is granted authority under the law to violate traffic regulations when acting in an emergency).  
 
Now CF, hopefully you understand the difference between a valid and invalid syllogism and how using the latter will yield an unsound conclusion.

In sum, I hope you now know that legal terms have significance. My hope is that you will not toss around "Under color of law", "privilege" under the law, "private action", and whatever other legal terms as if they have a common understanding. They do not.  

Attorneys should spend more time fixing its own problems rather than worrying about whether on-duty police officers fail to use a freaking turn signal and how that somehow creates a public perception of "police corruption." In a sense I wish you would have stuck to your guns in the previous thread and that this debate was about real police problems like perjury or perhaps excessive force. My belief, however, is that those incidents are so rare that they would be statistically insignificant--and you know it. Your retreating to a position that cops should not run red lights or everyone should obey the law I think shows the inherent weakness in the question whether "police will ever change."