The Wisdom of a Police Trainer...

I haven't been around nearly as long as many other cops I know and respect. In fact, my partner in this blog is an old guy (smirk), and could probably do this job blind with a closed-head injury.

Despite this, I have learned a few things. Some of these things I have learned from great cops who taught them to me, some of them I figured out on my own. Some of them are vehemently challenged by cops I know. I believe them to be truths.

#1 There are two kinds...

There are essentially two kinds of people that we deal with as police officers: people who screwed up, and criminals.

The vast majority of people that the average officer runs into during their shift is someone just like the officer themselves. Regular, fallible joes that either made a dumb mistake, or let their emotions get the best of them. Sometimes they are regular people that just see things a little different. For example, I had one guy say, "Yeah, I was speeding. I know that I was driving 60 in a 45 zone. So what? Who was I hurting?" Since there was no one else on the road, the answer is "no one". Here's your citation, sign here...press hard, 5 copies.

The remainder of the people we deal with are criminals. These people see things waaaay differently. They really don't care about the people around them. Those "innocent bystanders" are just standing in the way (or off to the side) of what they want. The criminal doesn't care, all they see is the brass ring! They go to jail, get tased, etc., not necessarily in that order.

Trainee: treat the "regular joes" like your brother, sister (unless you grew up in Montana), cousin, mother, etc. Treat the criminals like objects: your broken television, your goat (especially if you're from Montanta), that leaky faucet, whatever. The "regular joes" deserve respect, the criminals deserve "proper handling".

#2 You are a garbage man...

Okay, no disrespect to garbage men. Also, no, I don't know what the "politically correct" term is for garbage man, and I will not call them "garbage persons", so don't ask. Also, councilman, policeman, man-hole cover, Mannheim steamroller, man chowder, "F" off.

The first thing I get when I say this? "Yeah, we take out the friggin trash. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout, son." No, no, hell no. Do not call me son again, or you will not wake up the following morning.

Here's the real deal (and, incidentally, the deal that groups like the International Association of Chiefs of Police don't want you to know)... In most states, the citizens have the same powers of arrest as the police do. Rats right raggy. Anyone can arrest Monsieur Douchebag when he breaks the law in front of them. Handcuffs and all. Tacklin's and Tasin's. Have fun!

So, why do they call us? Because the police, like garbage men, have special tools and training specific to their job duties. You could take your own trash to the dump (I do...I'm a cheap bastard!), but it's sort of nice to pay a garbage man to do it. Why? No trunk funk, no time wasted, no gasoline burned (by you), and it's mostly disease free. Plus, you make at least one new friend.

Similarly, the police have shiny cars with cages and flashy lights. The cop comes to your door (30 minutes or less, or the butt-whooping is free), and takes care of your "problem". No fuss, no muss, no lawsuits.

Nice analogy, huh? But why would I tell the trainee this? To drive home an exceptionally important point: We are no better than anyone else. The garbage man (God bless him) gets up at the crack of dawn, and does a job not many people would do, willingly or otherwise. When he goes home, he's just him. He's not anything exceptional. He's just a guy. So are you. Get over the badge, and grow up.

#3 Trains don't stop for flashy lights...

This one is pretty self-explanatory, but I had to throw it in because this concept sometimes escapes even veteran officers! Yeah. Don't drive in front of the train, EVER.

The bigger point is this: sometimes semi-trucks can't stop for flashy lights, drunk people can't figure out what the flashy lights mean, old people can't see the flashy lights through the top of their steering wheel, guys from Montana are citizens of heaven and don't have to recognize your flashy lights, etc. I see cops every day BLAZE through red lights at crazy speeds. Not smart. Someday, someone is gonna get killed. You're going to feel bad, then worse, because you won't have a job, a house (unless you count your cell), and a big guy named "Mr. Zero" will be your new wife.

The world doesn't stop because you're "running code".

#4 No one cares...

Have you been to the doctor lately? Did your doctor say, "Before we begin, I wanted to let you know that I graduated from the Univeristy of Washington Medical School. I interned at the Mayo Clinic, where I worked with Dr. Nogginkraker, the world-famous neurosurgeon. I am certified in liposuction and rhinoplasty, which I consider the most progressive form of recycling. I also hold certifications in G.H.U., A.S.S., B.S.U., and K.I.S.S." If he did, run screaming, then find a new doctor.

The people you come into contact with every day (even other officers) DO NOT CARE if you are a D.R.E., B.T.S., C.V.S., A.T.M. (ass-to-mouth, people), etc. They don't care that you are the "traffic guy" or the "narcotics guy". They are scared shitless, and just want to fucking know what you want. Which brings me to my next point:

#5 ALWAYS tell them why FIRST...

Ho-leee crap! I get mad just thinking about this. Have you ever been pulled over, had the cop morph his way out of his police car, walk up to your window, and say.... "Do you know why I'm stopping you today (cheezy grin)?"

My partner's answer, "Okay. I'll play your silly fucking game... Is it the dead body in my trunk?" My answer, "I sure hope one of us knows why I'm getting pulled over, jackass..."

DO NOT EVER ASK THIS MORONIC FUCKING QUESTION! It makes the officer asking it look like a complete ass, in every sense of the word. You will look like you have no clue what you are doing. You will appear pompous and condescending. Are you trying to get them to admit to something you didn't notice? I have a cure for that...PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. You are *supposed* to be a trained observer. OBSERVE. Then, SAY WHAT YOU OBSERVED. Sheesh!

#6 You will attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Bullshit works best.

Alright. You're a big, bad cop. I know, I know, the world must bow down at your feet and praise you for the mercy you've shown the "little people". Watch that head. You might not be able to fit it in the door of your patrol car.

If you are nice to people, once they get used to you standing around with a gun and various other implements of death and dee-struction (I love Arlo Guthrie. Sorry.), they will relax. The regular people will accept you, and treat you nice. The criminals will see you as Barney Fife, and try to lie to you, mostly because "cops don't act like that".

Use this to your advantage. Pretend like you are the biggest idiot on the planet. Pick your nose in public if it will help. Whatever. Be nice, and don't appear too aggressive. Don't act like you really know what's going on.

Sooner or later, everyone (even criminals) will open up. They will tell you all manner of crap that they really should NOT. It's almost embarassing, except it's not. You almost want to stop them, but you're all set. You hand them the rope, and they do the hanging!

Arrests, particularly, are SOOOOO much easier when you guys are "good". When you're "tight". When you're "tizite". You get it. The officer just says, "*sigh*, Well, I know it sucks, but you're under arrest. Turn around and put your hands behind your back. Click, click." When they say, "What about my [dog, car, one-legged thai prostitute, strap-on, etc.]?", just say, "I'm just taking you to jail. What do you want me to do with your [leather assless chaps, imaginary friend, complete collection of Mother Jones, etc.]?" When they tell you, if you can, do it. Make them feel like you really went that extra mile, because you did! Most people expect the cops to treat them like crap. You aren't. You still have to do your job, but you're a "nice guy". No shit, most people thank me from their holding cell as I'm leaving the jail.

DISCLAIMER: Officer saftey is the most important thing. No officer should ever truly let their "guard down". Good way to get killed. Keep your "guard" up, just don't be a prick.

#7 DO NOT LIE. EVER.

I have three kids. Ask my kids how I feel about lies. Go ahead, ask them. Here is what they will tell you: "There is no such thing as a white lie." There isn't.

The thing about lying, or any behavior, is that it's comfortable. I mean, yeah, there are exceptions. If you get in the habit of putting sewing needles in your anus, I wouldn't think that would ever get comfortable... I'm digressing.

If you are accustomed to lying, even about small things, you will eventually feel comfortable lying whenever it suits you. Someone texted me today, "You working?" I replied, "To be accurate, I'm currently AT work."

Don't go down that road, even if you feel like a dork.

I'm here to tell you, if you get caught ONE TIME lying in court (or even testifying to things that aren't COMPLETELY accurate), forget it. Find a new job. You have no credibility. Think about that for a few seconds... You really shouldn't have any credibility -- you're a liar!

#8 Reproductive organs are troublesome.

Think with your big head. This is a close second to lying. I struggle, dear GOD do I struggle! We all do. I absolutely, positively say shit I should NOT.

"Girls have a button, and boys have a pole, and wicked touching takes it's toll, and those who disobey will burn the firey VD infested pits of hell!!!" (Superstar...Love that.)

Don't use your reproductive organs on the citizenry. 'Nuff said.

#9 One team.

"We're the Sheboygan Police Department, and we're the best!" "We're the Paduka County Sheriff's Office, we're the highest authority in the county." "Firefighter's just put the wet stuff on the hot stuff." "Those EMS guys are complete assholes..." "If dispatch could air a call correctly, we might actually, I don't know, catch some criminals!?!"

Uh, ex-fucking-scuse me? We are one team. Learn it, know it, LIVE IT. There is no difference between you, a Lafayette Police Officer, and the dispatcher who is giving you the call. Or the firefighter that comes to put the burning vehicle out at your traffic collision. Or the EMT that stops the bleeding on your suicidal guy. You are not a unique snowflake. We are all part of the same festering dung heap. (I like Fight Club, too.)

Point is, these are your teammates, and you WILL NOT talk shit, or you will have MY boot so far up your ass that it will say "Danner", in reverse, on the roof of your mouth.

Interesting story... We had an UBER bad storm a while back. They were predicting tornadoes. I live in a mountainous area, and WE DON'T (used to think CAN'T) get tornadoes here. Chaos. Not only did dispatch not have radios, but they had no phones. There were people in the street, waving their hands as we drove around. I got reports of everything: medicals, crimes, utility problems. Cell phones didn't work, so, many times nothing could be done to help these people. Every officer was using his or her radio car-to-car. To make things worse, the radio repeaters were all down.

Go through something like that -- a day where dispatch just magically isn't there. Work through that. Then come back and tell me that dispatch isn't part of your team. Get in a fight and have an unarmed firefighter help you wrestle a tweaker to the ground, and then come back and tell me Fire isn't part of your team. Have an EMS guy stop the bleeding on your broken nose. He's part of your team.


Well, I know there's more to be said, but it ain't in my head. Send me your suggestions, and I will filter them through this compost heap, leaving only the purest scraps of horse manure to post!

So You Think You're Above The Law

I very very seldom post anything about my job as a police officer but something happened today to make me change my mind and vent a little bit. At the time of the incident, I was very happy to smile and be overly polite; that being with the intention of making this person fume in their own gaseous rage. As the day progressed and I was able to process this occurrence and go over it again in my mind, it really pissed me off. Let me explain.

Idaho Code 49-654 is the Idaho Law for basic speed rule and maximum speed limits and gives the maximum allowable speeds on Idaho roads. The exceptions to the maximum allowable speed limits include but are not limited to conditions, the right of a city government to reduce speeds within its jurisdiction under Idaho Code 49-207(2)(a and b), and finally if the speed limit is "otherwise posted". This is what happened.

Today, I stopped a car for going 69 mph in a posted 45 mph zone. Yeah, you heard me right - 24 mph above the speed limit. After activating my overhead lights and then subsequently getting a grand tour of the area around the local Walmart store only to finally come to a stop where I wanted the person to go in the first place, I got to talk to the driver. My first words to him were, "Get back in your car!" and that was over the P.A. So we're really off to a great start. I approach the car and talk to the driver about his speed. He first tells me that he just did a U-Turn but when I asked him where, he couldn't tell me which is cool with me because he's not from the area and it's kind of a non issue anyway. I tell him that he was still in a 45 zone and then he tells me that the car is new and he's not used to it and besides, "I'm a retired cop". Although I didn't say it, my first thought was this.

How many times did you, as a cop, get to listen to the bullshit you're trying to feed me now?

So I ask for his driver's license which he hands to me and then his registration and insurance. While his wife is frantically digging around the glove box for the registration and insurance, I look at the driver's hands because he is fumbling around with his wallet. This guy has his retired I.D. about half out of the sleeve so the only thing showing is a red band with the word POLICE in big white bold letters and he was rubbing it with his thumb. I actually had to stifle a laugh because I was sitting there thinking to myself

Oh yeah, right there. Do it a little harder now. Yeah, that's good...

Eventually, I got all of his information and went back to my car where I promptly wrote him a speeding ticket for 69 mph in a posted 45 mph zone. In Idaho, the fines are set by the State Legislature and there are only two fines for speeding. 1-15 mph above the speed limit is $75.00 and 16 or more above is $140.00. So I go back up to the car knowing full well what to expect and give him is stuff back and explain the citation to him. He asks me what the fine is and I tell him that it is $140.00. I never would have expected what came next.

This guy looks up from his window and tells me, "You're a fucking asshole!". Fortunately for me, in 12 years, I have grown a very thick skin and often times find these types of exchanges quite entertaining. This was no exception. My response to him was, "Yeah, so?" I think I caught him off guard because he didn't say anything so I told him to "have a very nice day", smiled and started walking back to my car. As I was walking away, he told me, "I was a fucking cop for 19 years and I can't believe you'd write me a ticket". I couldn't resist. I returned to his car and asked him if during that time, he treated people the way he was treating me now? He told me to "fuck off" and I again got to tell him to have a nice day and even waved at him as he sped away.

I want to clarify that I am not upset about another cop treating me that way. I don't really care because we are all human and as such have failings. What pissed me off, was the fact that he "expected" to get a break because he was a cop. Well that just doesn't sit well with me. If you took the time to read the laws that I linked to, there is one really important thing that is not in them. They do not say anywhere that you may not exceed the posted speed limit, unless of course you're a cop or a retired cop.

Ethics is a really important issue to me and this is the biggest thing that made me mad about this person. He EXPECTED that I would give him a break. Apparently ethics was not a huge issue back in the day. Well it is now and I for one, am ethical. When it is all said and done, at the end of my career, my integrity will be intact. In Idaho, we have a Law Enforcement Code of Ethics which is designed to guide the actions of our officers and it is a BIG DEAL. Officers have lost their jobs, careers and certifications over ethics violations.

I just absolutely hate it when another officer "badges" me as if that is going to make some kind of difference. I understand that in some places, it is department policy to identify yourself as an officer yet I find it rude to shove a badge in someones face. There are a lot more polite ways to identify yourself as an officer. Even so, expect the unexpected. I don't even identify myself as a police officer when stopped because I look at being stopped by the police realistically. If I get a ticket, I most likely deserve it...and...it also makes up for all the times that I didn't get caught. I'm pretty sure that you don't have to be a cop to understand that line of thinking either.

Obeying the law from it's simplest form to it's most heinous is really just a matter of common sense. With respect to today and an infraction violation for speeding, this is definitely a common sense issue because since the dawn of time, we have learned in driver's training to not exceed the posted speed limit. In some cases, (like me as a juvenile...ahem) remedial training is provided by people in fast cars with flashy lights.

Now a special note to the person who I stopped. "Man Up" and take responsibility for your actions. You're lucky I'm not vindictive or I would post your name here too. Maybe you'll think about that next time....

oh yeah....I'll be watching!!

The INDIVIDUAL'S right to keep and bear arms

Well, the venerable Supreme Court of the United States of America decided what is probably the most fundamental question brought before them this century. On June 26, 2008, in a landmark decision, the highest court in the U.S. decided that the second amendment to our national constitution protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

While, I believe, that such a decision by our highest court is simply a formality, it is good to have a "bright line" determination on such an important issue. The People have just had affirmed that which always was: We have the right to protect ourselves, individually, everywhere in our nation. No jurisdiction can legally abridge that right. We also have the right to protect ourselves from an obscenely overreaching federal government. These are good things.

Unfortunately, to look at the written decision on this case, it is clear that we must be ever vigilant, even after such a tremendous victory. This was a 5-4 decision, with Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Darth Vader Ginsburg (she must be sustained by the pure evil coursing through her demonic veins) dissenting. In the dissenting opinion, it is clear they have no valid justification for their views. In it, you will find all manner of "red herring" arguments...

For one thing, they seem to believe that this right was intended for the State's Militias. The sad fact is that, after the Civil War, all of the State's Militias were nationalized. So, let me see if I understand this correctly... The framers of the U.S. constitution put, as the SECOND amendement, no less (just behind the five rights guaranteed by the First, which are seen as fundamental), the ability, if we take the dissenting justice's reasoning, to provide each state with its own separate army. The purpose of these armies would be to provide for the security of a "free" state. If one was to read the writings of these framers, contemporary with the U.S. Constitution, it is clear that these armies were to be The People's check on the authority of the federal government. In essence, these dissenting justices believe that the second amendment should protect the right of the State's Militias to bear arms, even though they no longer exist. They truly believe that we are stupid, I guess.

That isn't the only interesting thing that happened this week, however. The State of Oklahoma passed House Joint Resolution 1089, which declares Oklahoma's soveriegnty under the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Oklahoma basically told the federal government to shove their mandates where the sun don't shine. The 10th amendment is about as short as the second, and goes a little something like this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Oklahoma sent this to The President of the United States, to the President of the United States Senate, to The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, as well as The President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of the other 49 states. God bless them!

Hopefully we will see a full-scale assault of this overreaching opression of The People by their government. The federal government is there to SERVE us, and they must be made to ANSWER to us. We are not their subjects, and we must not allow them to make it so. All of us, to a man, must stand together against our federal government, and prevent them from taking action in areas for which they have no lawful authority.

You are being lied to...

The United States government tells us that "peak-oil" is reality. They tell us that we must find alternative energy sources now, in order to avert an "oil crisis". The reality is this: our government is creating our energy crisis...

The world is full of stupid assholes.

Okay, let me start by stating unequivocally that I am a non-interventionist. I am also vehemently anti-war.

That being said, the last legitimate war I believe we were engaged in is World War II. We were directly attacked, on U.S. soil, by Japan. There was a fascist murderer on the loose in western Europe. We didn't want to fight the war, we had to fight the war.

A lot (and I mean a lot) can be said about WWII. I'm going to skip most of it to talk, instead, about something unconscionable I read on the internet. What made all of it worse was how much I was seeing this sophist claptrap.

I am very disturbed by the specter of nuclear war. All of my life, from the time I was a small child, there has been a fear in the back of my mind that, at any minute, some enemy was going to drop "The Bomb" on us. I guess it was seeing the movie "Testament" at the age of nine. Perhaps it was the drills we all did as schoolkids, hiding under our desks as if they would protect us from a 100 megaton thermonuclear blast, accompanied by weeks of gamma radiation from the fallout. Whatever it was, I got the message: a YouTube video is as close to a mushroom cloud as I ever wish to be.

I am also very interested in learning about nuclear weapons. This may seem like a contradiction, but the way I protect myself from threats is to learn as much as I can about them. Therefore, I spend a lot of time searching the internet for information about nuclear bombs, among many, many other things. In perusing the available mountains of data on this subject, I came across several videos of nuclear tests. One of these videos was labeled "USA terrorism: HiROSHiMA NAGASAKi Atomic Bomb". I must mention, before I go on, that the way this label is written, reminds me of a small child writing diligently, but poorly, with a crayon. I suppose I should realize, by this, that the person writing the title is a moron. While this statement is correct, I was surprised by how much more cretinism I was able to find.

It is important for us to learn the definition of terrorism. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". This will be important later.

Before going on, I must give the reader some background they may or may not know. Many readers may not agree with me, but that is irrelevant, as it is fact. Argue with the facts all you like, the only ass is you!

There is one person, and only one person, who has ever lived on this earth, who is responsible for the tradgedies that occured in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945: Japanese Emperor Hirohito. All this man had to do was unconditionally surrender. He was ultimately responsible for his country's crusade of imperialism. He was ultimately responsible for his soldier's inhumane treatment of the civilians of the lands they had invaded, and of the prisoners of war sent to protect those civilians. He was pushed back and was beaten. He understood that his country was unable to win the war it had started. For the security of the entire rest of the world, it was necessary that he surrender and be totally disarmed, for if this was not the case, he could rebuild and attack again. He and his citizens were warned that if they failed to surrender, unconditionally, that Japan would face "prompt and utter destruction". They were warned, both by leaflets and radio broadcasts, of this fact. Emperor Hirohito chose not to surrender.

On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped "Little Boy", a 13 kiloton atomic bomb, from the Enola Gay. Approximately 70,000 people were instantly killed, and 90% of the buildings in the city were destroyed.

At this point, I would like to note that many people will argue that "conventional" methods of war would have been more humane. To this I would state that enough allied soldiers had been lost, by this point, at the hands of the enemy. The only humane thing to do at this juncture would be to end the war. Hirohito would not. In fact, if the Emperor was interested in humanity, he would have surrendered on August 6. He knew what this bomb could do, and he knew who had delivered it. He also knew that failure to surrender would simply be a request for another bomb. By his actions, he requested that we bomb another Japanese city.

After the bombing of Hiroshima, President Truman said (referring to the Potsdam Declaration), "If they do not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." This seems fairly clear to me. I try to put myself in Hirohito's position. I know that one of my cities has been turned to rubble, and that many, many of my subjects have been vaporized. It is quite possible that, in the coming days, my inaction could turn many more into spots of grease and piles of ash, maybe even in the city of Tokyo. Hmmm. Maybe I should surrender... Nah!

Hirohito decided that unconditional surrender would be a bad idea, somehow. At this point, the Soviet Union decided that Hirohito was being a little bit of an ass. On August 9, 1945 at 0002 hours, the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. The Soviet Union had declared war with Japan. Rather than give in and admit defeat, the Emperor decided to declare martial law in Japan, and prevent anyone from "making peace".

On August 9, 1945 at 1101 hours, the U.S. plane Bockscar dropped the atomic bomb, "Fat Man", on the city of Nagasaki. This weapon generated heat of 7000 degrees Fahrenheit, and winds of 624 mph. It instantly, and tragically, killed between 45,000 and 70,000 Japanese.

Although he ultimately surrendered on August 14, 1945, Hirohito issued this statement:

"Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."

So, Hirohito surrendered for humanitarian reasons? To prevent "the total extinction of human civilization"? Gimme a friggin break!

So, I'm fairly certain that I've established that Emperor Hirohito was a murderous, imperialist, pompous, self-important asshole. I've also established that he was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of his citizens in August of 1945.

Also, it is important to note, it is not terrorism. Remember, terrorism is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". The U.S. did not use terror, it used mass casualties. That's called a "war".

Imagine my surprise and disgust, then, when I read this crap about how "evil" the United States was to nuke Japan! The "Future of Freedom Foundation" claims that thier mission is to "advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government." I'm relatively certain that these lofty goals would not be accomplished in a country run by the Japanese Imperial Family and Emperor Hirohito. Nevertheless, they write that "They [Truman's defenders?]concede that the bombing was an act of targeting civilians, but insist that it was for the worthy goal of ending the war." Okay, let's examine this statement. The bombing was an "act" of targeting civilians. The civilians were NOT the intended target, rather it was military and industrial centers. The fact that civilians were killed (like the civilians the Japanese had killed in the Philippines and elsewhere) makes it an "act" of targeting civilians. This is a straw-man argument, at best.

There are many, many more idiotic people, writing idiotic things like this. Here is a list. I'm not going to go into it, because it would be a waste of my time to re-read them, and it would be a waste of your time for me to suggest that you read them.

In closing, I would just like to say that it is sad, in a culture that makes learning such an easy thing, that there are so many tragically stupid people.

Do our ends justify our means?

This is a question that comes up nearly every day for me: ethics vs. morals. First, we must define our terms: by ethics, I mean the "code of conduct" by which a professional in a given occupation measures the "acceptability" of their actions. Morals should be universal, and they are the values by which we can readily identify what is "correct" and what is "wrong" (read: moral vs. immoral).

For police officers, one would hope that morals and ethics are the same exact thing. This, unfortunately, is not the case at all, in many instances. The problem is not that police officers are not moral individuals, nor is it that police officers have abandoned their ethics. The problem exists because of two forces upon the police officer, which would normally be seen as opposing one another: case law and departmental expectations.

This is all, probably, very cryptic to the casual reader. Case law is the precedent of adjudicated court cases. Basically, from a criminal law standpoint, some officer somewhere has submitted a case for prosecution, and a judge, in some capacity, has ruled on it. That ruling now binds other officers in similar circumstances. A good example of this would be Miranda v. Arizona, which gave us the almost universally accepted "Miranda rights". In this case (which, incidentally was decided on June 13, 1966!), the court found that statements made during interrogation (as opposed to casual interviews) will only be admissible in court if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of his rights. Because of this particular case, any custodial interrogation made to this day must be preceded by the suspect being read his "Miranda rights" for any of his statements to be used against him in a court. It is important to note that the reason we use these precedents in criminal law is, in part, to protect the general public from a very vigorous executive branch.

By departmental expectations, I simply mean that which is expected of an officer by his administration. These expectations are driven largely by the community in general, along with the "vocal minority". They rabble to the Sheriff, Chief of Police, City Council, Police Commissioner, etc., complaining of the ravages of "drugs" and "violent crime". These individuals are well meaning, but often do not consider the long-term ramifications of their requests. For one thing, both case law and criminal law can work against a law enforcement entity, whether it be an individual officer or an entire department, in achieving these goals. Rightly so, both types of legal instrument protect The People from a government that would be extremely invasive if not checked by such conventions.

It is important to note that, before an arrest can be made, the officer making that arrest must typically have one of two things: a warrant issued by a judge or "probable cause". Everyone should know what a warrant is. "Probable cause" is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. Here is a good example. In my state, it is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia. In this example, possession of "drug related materials" is not enough to provide probable cause that someone has "drug paraphernalia". Rather, the officer (or the court) must show that the items were used, or were intended to be used, in connection with an illicit drug. In other words, a person could reach in his pocket, hand an officer an unused marijuana pipe, tell the officer it is his, and walk away. There would be absolutely nothing this officer could legally do to the person handing him the pipe.

Here the officer finds himself, trapped between what is expected of him, and what is acceptable. Any officer, being honest with his or herself, should know that "the right of the people to be secure their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." The officer should know, better than anyone else, how precious of a right this is, and how important it is that the same should be preserved. Unfortunately, there is a considerable amount of pressure exerted upon the average officer, mainly by his peers, to "bend the rules". An officer who chooses to take the moral high-ground, and respect this right among his peers is seen as not being "proactive". Many times, the officer who chooses the moral right, and shuns the opportunity to arrest a "shitbag" on what is seen as a "thin case" (not really having "probable cause"), is reviled by his peers as not doing his job!?!

I have been witness to, and have heard of countless more, cases in which officers have proceeded to arrest people without the requisite probable cause. In most of these cases, I "know" that the person arrested is a criminal. The fact of the matter is that if there is no probable cause, I (or any other officer) cannot, and should not, arrest that criminal.

An officer can "know" that the glass tubing, plastic bags, and scales in the back of a vehicle are going to be used for nefarious purposes. These items are commonly used in association with illegal drugs. That officer can also ask for the driver's and passenger's criminal history, and literally know that they are a drug user and a drug dealer. The fact remains that, unless there are also drugs in that vehicle, or unless the driver or passenger make statements, pursuant to Miranda, that this is the case, there exists NO probable cause for an arrest.

This is a sad truth about the way our laws are constructed. Nevertheless, The People, through their legislators, craft these laws. Therefore, these laws are the will of The People, and it is they whom the officers work for. The officer must obey the will of The People by following the law to the smallest detail.

Unfortunately for everyone, some officers in this situation would still choose to arrest the driver and / or passenger. The question that comes to mind is this: "How does one criminal get away with arresting another criminal?"

This is not to say that all police officers, or those in our criminal justice system, are unethical and / or immoral. There are a great many good, honest people working in the criminal justice system, who believe that the "good guys" play by the rules, and that everything will work itself out in the end. Additionally, the good people in the criminal justice system (which I personally believe to be the majority), realize that it is an impossibility to stop every crime. Therefore, society is normally saved from being railroaded by unethical scum with badges.

On the other hand, when an individual is found guilty of a crime in which all elements of the crime have not legitimately been met, someone in the criminal justice system has wronged our entire society. That person may be the officer who "bent the truth" in his report. Maybe, in the case of a court trial, that person is the judge, who finds that the state has met its burden of proof, where no proof actually exists. There are others, who, in handling the case, should know that something is amiss, or that pieces are missing. Unfortunately, creatively worded statements and questions allow the players in this tragedy to convict an innocent person. They are then able to walk away; able to say that, technically, they did not lie. But all lies are the same, whether direct lies about material facts, or lies of omission. There is no such thing as a white lie.

For many of those who corrupt our system in this way, it is a sad, strange irony that they believe that the end justifies the means. They think little, if at all, of the gross and irreparable damage they do to the fabric of our nation. They may not realize that, each time they do this, they have made all of us more susceptible to governmental tyranny. They put all of us at risk, and they must be stopped.

The moral of the story is that the citizens, all of us, including the good, law-abiding officers, must watch vigilantly. We must expose the officers who are trampling our rights, and we must bring them to justice. These individuals, whose office belies their actual character, must be expelled. The worst of the offenders must be made to pay for their transgressions in the same manner as their victims. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Proximity Does Not Equal Ability

Since as you know, we are such major Clinton Fans here at Trolling For Retreads, I felt it necessary to let everyone in on this little gem.

HT: (Sonja) and (Daily Kos)

Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.

Here endeth the lesson