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.htmNext: "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.htmlA 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."
