Marcus
1641
Shit it wasn’t but 15 or so years ago that we could have one drink at lunch while on duty.
No problem. I don’t think I ever properly learned that one, unlike the ones people screw up all the time.
I believe the article meant drunk driving while not on duty.
Marcus
1644
One thing I can tell you for fact is that if you get a DUI off duty and work for the CHP they will terminate you.
Getting back to the op, here’s a thing from Reason.tv on Allen Kephart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR-UOmo8FLA
Amazing. So the disincentive for misbehavior is … what, again? Oh, right, NOTHING.
Oops, looks like we have the wrong house. But we’ve already removed our tasers from their holsters, so like a Narn blade, it must see combat before we can put it away. Let’s get to tasin.
That article is confusing. Were they really at the wrong house, or had the person who reported the incident just left already? Conflicting stories (big surprise), looks like. They handled the situation poorly, to be sure, in any case.
This was a large crowd that grew unruly and action had to be taken to get control of the scene there.
Heaven forbid the police just say “oops, wrong place” and leave rather than guaranteeing things escalate. Or even be polite to the people they “serve and protect” (I actually managed to type that with a straight face).
You’re assuming the officers on the scene knew it was the wrong place at the moment they were there.
There’s a lot of bad cop stories where it is clear the cops are willfully in the wrong. This story and the one above about the rifle on the hood aren’t necessarily in the same ballpark as the willfully bad crap.
True, but it is one where the cops’ behaviour make a situation worse than it had to be. Was there ever a time when a police force’s top priority was protecting the population rather than their officers? I like to think my memories of a time like that are real, rather than just wishful thinking.
Scuzz
1652
We had a cop here who got fired for driving while under the influence of prescription drugs. He was in a single car accident after falling asleep at the wheel. The drugs were not prescribed to him.
I have played in a golf tourney held to raise money for the Sheriffs charity (and know of another held by a local police organization) in which alcohol flows like water. I can only hope that most of the guys had designated drivers. Cops can be heavy drinkers off duty…and while I would not want there job…it has to be tough for their families.
Take a shot when the cops arrest the taser victims for something to justify their actions. Take another shot when the charges are dropped.
Houngan
1654
Didn’t know if this should be a new thread:
But civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel said he hopes the scanning devices will be able to distinguish between a gun and other harmless metal objects, such as an iPod.
Siegel said if the technology only picks up only fuzzy images of possible guns, it could lead cops to make unwarranted stops.
“It will make an already agressive policy of stop, question and frisk seem tame,” he said.
Cops working on a 25-meter metal detector so that they can scan the sidewalks for firearms in New York. This should set a nice precedent to slide into drug-sniffing dogs to be led down the street, you know, to protect the kids.
H.
The ACLU will have trouble getting the energy to fight this since they’re so anti-gun. I don’t know of any other significant organizations who would stand up to it, so I’d say it’s a sure thing at this point.
Well they’re anti-gun, but they’re pretty pro-civil-liberties.
Houngan
1657
Except for the civil liberty of possessing a gun. Constitution, remember?
The great thing about this is it is actually worse than walking a drug dog down the sidewalk, since drugs are always illegal and guns only sometimes illegal.
Well, to be fair, they just disagree with the interpretation of the second amendment as an individual rather than a collective right.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
Houngan
1659
Same excuse the tenthers and the no-tax people use, it doesn’t make them right. I fail to see how “the people” could “keep and bear arms” collectively without the federal or state governments being involved.
Well, it’s the well-regulated militia thing. But let’s not turn this into the nth gun control discussion, because we’re not going to agree.
