Cops and Laws and Other Things

[jarandhel]

Someone on my friends list (herself a cop) recently talked about encountering people who hate cops, all cops. Got me thinking about my own stance on cops... which was a little more convoluted and confused than I expected. Please take all of the following as me thinking out loud. Feedback, as usual, is appreciated.


I don't think I hate cops. The fact that I have at least one that I know of on my friends list seems to indicate that's true. I've also known some good cops, including the father of one of my friends in high school. I've let a cop (same father of a friend, actually) search my house without a warrant before when a house across the street from ours was robbed, I'm always polite to police officers if I'm ever stopped on the highway, even been complimented for it before (not that it got me out of the ticket), and in general I would not even hesitate to go up to an officer to ask for directions or help under any circumstances.

So why is it that every time I'm on the road and I see a police car, I tense up, even when I'm not doing anything wrong? Why do I hate hate HATE having a cop directly behind me on the road? They're just doing their job, right? Looking out for the safety of everyone on the road, myself included... right? Maybe, I guess... but that's not how it feels to me. Frankly, it feels like an elaborate game of "gotcha". No seatbelt? Gotcha. Failure to use a turn signal, even if the road behind you was empty and there was no one to singal TO? Gotcha. Speeding, even when the road is EMPTY, there are no pedestrians around, it's a two-lane highway to begin with, and the fucking speed limit is 25 mph? Gotcha! Oh, and that last one might be "reckless driving", too, depending on your local statues. Double gotcha.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but so MANY of these things involve penalties for things where no one was even harmed, it starts to make me wonder if the purpose of these laws being enforced is really to keep us all safe or if it's to make the locality a few extra bucks through ticketing. I also have to wonder... is there a point at which you start making things offenses in order to give your cops people to arrest? 'cause, let's face it, in our society we're not about to pay cops for standing around doing "nothing" even if the reason for that is that crime in the area is virtually nonexistent. We'll make some new crimes so they can earn their keep.

Maybe it's not cops I have the problem with, thinking on it more... maybe it's the law-makers I have the problem with, and cops just appear to be the problem because they're visibly enforcing the flawed laws made by the legislature. Not sure. That seems to work at first, but then I think back and note that I've had cops use their discretion to let me off tickets before when they didn't think they were warranted, and I've also had other cops who seem to think speeding on a back road in the middle of nowhere on a clear day with no traffic and no pedestrians is an offense worthy of an 80+ dollar ticket. Or who think that turning right on a green light is an offense for which I should be stopped and ticketed simply because I didn't notice the "no turns" sign (some idiot who designed the roads apparently decided all turns onto a particular road should be made through a separate road, rather than on the main road itself. I wasn't familiar with the area, didn't see that effective off-ramp, and didn't have time to read all the signs at the intersection before turning since the light was already green and I wasn't expecting a no turns period sign.) In neither of these cases did my driving in ANY WAY endanger anyone. So why didn't I get let off with a warning in these cases too? *shrugs* I don't know, though I suspect it might have to do with timing... I've noticed that when I do get pulled over and actually ticketed, it seems to disproportionately be within a few days of the end of a month. I've heard from many cops that they don't have quotas for tickets, but I'm sorry that does seem like a strange coincidence to me.

All in all, I'm not really sure where that leaves me with cops. I'm grateful for the work they do in apprehending actual criminals, but I worry that there is a line they flirt with and too often cross over where normal citizens are made into criminals for them to catch. I worry about statistics I've heard where a disproportionate number of people in our prison system are there for drug-related offenses. Frankly, I'd like to see us do away with drug offenses altogether. If someone does violence while on drugs, charge them with violence. If someone has an accident or even drives badly while on drugs, charge them with vehicular manslaughter and/or reckless driving or whatever. Make it about the act, rather than about the drugs one uses on your own body. And for gods sake, do away with possession as a crime. Please. I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even use drugs except a moderate amount of alcohol from time to time. It's not our business what people do to their own bodies. And yeah, I know this is more about the lawmakers than the cops again, but the cops are the ones who enforce it and it does seem to me that if enough of them banded together they could also choose NOT to enforce it and thereby pressure the lawmakers to change the laws.

I guess, by and large, I think cops are probably ok... just like I think, by and large, people are ok (even if large numbers of them are apparently also stupid). But I worry they've been given too much power and that the bad ones among them can and do abuse that without the good ones stopping them. Because what can you do about a coworker who is following the very letter of the law, even while breaking its spirit?

I feel like there's more I want to say, but I'm not sure what. Somehow this overlaps with some hacker-related reading I've been doing lately, as well. I'm finding much of my view of criminal hacking, including cracking and warez, to have been overly simplistic and often outright wrong as a result... adding new data at present that is painting quite a different picture than my first impressions. Many more shades of gray than I first thought. And parts of it do intersect with the criminalization of normal activity. I got pointed to this text as part of the reading I'm doing, and even though it's not specifically about hacking it does interrelate: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html Check it out, and really think about what it's saying. It's very thought provoking. It also leads me to the conclusion that some criminal hackers are, in a sense, warriors in a war for our civil rights that most are not aware is even being fought, and that their actions have only been made criminal due to repressive statues like those mentioned in the article. It also leads me to the conclusion, as bizarre as it may sound, that a constitutional right to possess hacking tools may exist. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Hacking tools are the first arms for the battlefields of tomorrow.

Comments

Well done

[daughterofodhin.livejournal.com]

I think you expressed your thoughts clearly. Yes, it is the lawmakers that write the laws, and the cops are asked to enforce them. I think WE as citizens need to act and have laws replealed by making a HUGE fuss over them.

Cops need to join us, but I fear their job security if they get tooooo involved.

Re: Well done

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Well, there's also the corrolary too... if some laws may be made in order to keep cops busy (criminalizing rather harmless things, for example)... how many laws must be being made in order to keep LAW MAKERS busy? I really wonder if that's not the perfect explanation for the legal system we've ended up today, with so many laws on the books that it's hard to follow them all, let alone know all of the ones relevant to you and your business.

Ohhhhh

[daughterofodhin.livejournal.com]

and if we show by making it that we SAVE money in the long run, and reduce overall CRIME in the long run?

That'll really get their attention.

Re: Ohhhhh

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that'd work... I'm not sure people would understand it, really. People have gotten so used to thinking of crime as simply that which is against the law that they've stopped realizing that innocent, legal actions can be criminalized as well through legislation. There's not even a real distinction in our language between the real concept of crime, and the concept of something being against the law.

more rambling

[dancinglights.livejournal.com]

I think the confusion in how most people interact with law enforcement generally arises in considering the uniform instead of the people. Every single one of them is a person, with individual motivations and issues. There are cops out there doing their job because they really do want to help people. There are cops out there just doing their job because it's their job and they've stopped caring why (and for both of these people, even if/when there isn't a quota, it certainly looks good to have been obviously doing something at your job than sitting on the side of the road). And there are cops out there that, no matter the original reason for their career choice, are mentally whacking off to the power trip they get from the authority their shiny badge and gun give them over everyone on the street they perceive as overpriveledged or generally beneath them -- which may be some subset of the populace, or everyone in general. I've known a few of the first kind, and listening to their embittering tales over the years, I can see how they could become the latter in the face of the kind of crap they have to deal with from horrible people. It makes me sad, but I'm always glad they still try.

I'm on the same page as you are on drugs and such victimless crimes, but I doubt anything will ever be substantially changed here in the US. And as for hacking stuff, paying enough attention to various cases over the years leads me to believe most of the legal absurdity comes down to lawmakers and judges ruling on technology they do not understand in a global arena over which no one understands the true limits of their jurisdiction. They do try to bring in technical experts to help clarify things, but I'd like to see more of those not be bought and paid for.

Re: more rambling

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I used to think it was a matter of not understanding, but I'm starting to wonder. More and more it's just looking to me like the lawmakers are in the pocket of the companies involved, and the laws are tailored to make them increased profits through dubious means. Even white papers that have come out of the government on technology subjects are rather blatantly biased. There's a really good writeup on it in one of the articles linked to from the "Right to Read" article I cited: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/white.paper_pr.html

As for the judges, maybe it is still a matter of not understanding... I really can't tell. But given the number of judges with obvious political agendas these days, it makes me wonder if perhaps there are more back-room deals being made than most people would like to believe.

[kitten-goddess.livejournal.com]

I never want to attract the cops' attention. It helps a little that I'm white, so my skin color doesn't flag me as a target. I see them as cogs in the giant wheel of Authority, not people. If I ever was arrested, I'd be real polite and do and say anything they wanted so they wouldn't bash my head in with their nightsticks.

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

I don't hate copse, but I do have a suspicion of them. It's definitely guilt by association, lumping the good people in with the bad, but I've never met what I consider to be an honorable cop, and that's with having some who, while off duty, were my friends and did have honor. Once the uniform goes on, something changes.

Crimes get a special designation when they are perpetrated on an officer, some official and some unofficial. Officers are legitimately allowed to cricumvent certain laws in appropriate circumstances as being necessary for their job.

Unfortunately, I have far too often been witness to officers disregarding the very traffic laws they are there to enforce without reason (after having called the station to see if there was a reason), and there are plenty of news accounts of officers being... found negligent, at least... and receiving a suspension at best. Sure, sometimes they get fired, but that's rare unless the 'crime' they are guilty of is insubordination or costs the department money.

They are, largely, given authority and power, but they are not held to a uniform standard of behavior and responsibility. Some few hold themselves to it, but as I say, I've never met one who did it consistently (while on the job).

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with most of what you're saying about the traffic laws. The seatbelt thing... well, okay. If someone wants to be a complete idiot and take the chance of turning a bad accident into a fatal one, then I guess that's their life, their prerogative. Except that there is a flaw to this argument, even. You never know when an accident is going to happen. While the person without the seatbelt is the one to pay the ultimate price, what if the accident involves another car, and even if the fault is not that other person's, they have to live with the fact that they were in a car accident where someone died for the rest of their life? Especially when it could have been prevented?

The reason these laws are enforced are as deterrents. If you choose not to follow the law when -you- feel there is no risk (How -do- you know some child is not going to suddenly run out into the street after a ball from behind a hedge or something on that apparently empty street?), why should the police officers believe that you follow it every other time? Traffic laws are not optional. They are not suggestions. If you choose to disobey them, willfully, then I'm sorry, but a ticket is deserved if you're caught. (Yes, I would apply this to myself as well, and I have a bit of a speeding tendency.)

In the sole case of honestly not seeing the 'no turns' sign, then that is different. A warning or a ticket could be the result, and in this case, I think it really depends on the attitude of the cop involved. Another thing to keep in mind is that, especially regarding traffic violations, people lie to cops all the time. It's always an accident, or the first time, and they won't do it again, they promise. After you hear so many of those, it is a wonder any cop can believe that anyone has any integrity these days. Also, they are still people. They have good days, and they have bad days, like everyone else. No, it should not affect their job performance, any more than a bad day should be allowed to affect someone doing insurance claim payouts or someone flipping burgers at McDonald's. They are not robots, though, and cannot be honestly expected to perform as one.

The drugs, I'm not sure where I stand. I think marijuana should be legalized, and taxed to hell the same as is done with alcohol and cigarettes. I also believe, absolutely, that no one should be reporting to their job under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and that such should get one fired. However, I cannot believe that legalizing drugs such as crystal meth, cocaine, or LSD is any kind of a good idea. They destroy a person's ability to function as a contributing member of society, and are highly addictive. I don't believe in paying welfare or disability to someone who has a condoned habit that is making him or her unable to work.

The hackers, I know nothing about, and am not going to touch with a ten-foot pole. *grins*

(Of course, you might want to take this all with a grain of salt. I'm used to dealing with Canadian, and not American, cops. I have had plenty of personal experiences with them that make me still believe that I could go up to a man, or woman, in uniform when I am in trouble and that they will help me. I also, at one point, was ready to sign up for police academy.)

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure bad feelings and having to live with oneself are enough reasons to enforce manditory seatbelt laws on everyone. Is it really the role of the state to protect people from themselves, or to protect other people's feelings?

As for traffic laws, you're right they're not optional... which means there's no room for personal judgement or exceptions, even when common sense dictates that there should be. We have in our current traffic system mandatory set speed limits that remain the same rain or shine, or even in the middle of winter blizzards. We have speed limits that remain the same on days when kids are home from school, and on days when they're all safely ensconced in classes. We have speed limits that remain the same when the highway is busy and when it's empty. We have speed limits that remain the same during rush hour and at 2am. Does that really make sense? One-size fits all? The main variations in speed limits seem to come not from actual measures of how dangerous the road is, or how busy the neighborhood is, or anything like that... it seems to come from zoning. A divided highway with two lanes going in each direction in a residential area around here can have a speed limit of 25 mph. And every day I've gone past that road, I see a cop SITTING there waiting to pull people over. And it's not a very busy road. This seems to imply that a large percentage of people who use that road speed down it, which seems to imply that common sense says that the speed limit on that road should indeed be higher. Is the speed limit changed? No, cops just take advantage of it for an easy ticket. Meanwhile, the roads that you turn onto this street from at either end are both two-lane *undivided* highways with a speed limit of 45mph, as the areas they go through are slightly more commercial than residential. And predictably, no cops are sitting on that major road to stop you even if you do speed.

Ultimately, I look at the traffic laws and I have to think: should we really have this many laws that are just deterrants? I'm in favor of making people more directly responsible for their actions... let people drive what speed they think is safe, like the law Montana had from 95-99 where people would drive at a "reasonable and prudent" (but unspecified) speed. IF they cause an accident or an injury as a result, then they should be liable for it. But not just for the possibility that they MIGHT not be able to control their car and COULD cause one. And for that matter, I'm really kind of tired of the argument that speed limits in residential areas need to be so low because "a kid might run out into the street and get hurt". Parents need to FUCKING CONTROL THEIR KIDS THEN. I grew up next to a road where the speed limit was 50 miles per hour, and my parents NEVER let me run out in the middle of it and always made it very clear to me that to do so would be dangerous. Why can't other parents take this same responsibility rather than heaping it on the drivers that go past their houses?

As for the no turns sign... increasingly, I find, traffic signs are becoming unreasonable. It's getting to the point where at many interesections in urban areas I can't even read the entirety of one sign before having to move through, let alone all of the signs there. I've found this to be especially bad in northern virginia and dc, where they actually have signs like "No left turns except for buses and taxi cars" and "No turns between 4:30am and 7:30pm". Think about those for a minute... major streets where only buses and taxis are allowed to turn left? Streets where the time of day is important for making a turn? (And I'm not talking ones where it's one way for a certain period of time either.) And let's not even get into the fact that on 66 around here there are certain times of day when you can't go in certain directions unless you have more than two people in your car, because the ENTIRE ROAD in that direction becomes "HOV" (High occupancy vehicle) only. Our traffic laws are getting fucking ridiculous.

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's not the role of the state to protect people from themselves, but to protect the innocent public from the assholes? I always thought that was part of the point.

I read that UK article you pointed me to, by the way. My problem here is a trust thing. I just don't trust most people to be able to determine what a 'safe' speed is. Especially after getting hit by a car. No thanks, I don't want a repeat of that incident because Joe Blow thinks he can safely do 60 in a 30 zone and can't stop when he realizes he's about to hit me, when I'm crossing within pedestrian laws. (And incidentally, as far as I can tell, the dude who hit me was within the speed limit, but I'd probably be dead if he hadn't been.) I'd be interested in seeing a similar study done in the USA, since there's no guarantee the results would be the same. So, I guess I'm approaching this from a pedestrian point of view, and not a driver's. You also have a much greater faith in 'common sense', which I believe is severely lacking in a large portion of the population these days.

It would be nice if parents could control their kids, yes. Unfortunately, that's not the reality, as I've seen on numerous occasions. Hell, teenagers take great fucking plerasure in walking out in front of cars, from what I've observed. Some people are just plain stupid. Personally, I don't think drivers should take the blame for the stupidity of others, yet, at the exact same time, I don't think an innocent child should be killed for their parents' neglect either.

See, the traffic signs aren't that stupid where I grew up. That's why I said that I really couldn't comment on them. There's nowhere near the garbage that there is some places in the USA. Canadian traffic laws were really simple... 40km/h on residential side streets, 50-60km/h in commercial (IIRC), 100km/h on highways. Very few streets have no turns between x and x times, and usually those are for pretty obvious reasons.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

With drugs, I'm completely with you up to the point of legalizing harder drugs... I'm actually in favor of that, still. For one thing, I've met people using some of these drugs who were very capable of functioning (even seen drug deals go down between two of my coworkers in Harrisonburg IN THE RESTAURANT. They didn't get high there, though, and it never affected their work, so I was cool with it. And I'm not talking simple marijuana here. I forget at the moment if it was meth or cocaine, but I do know it was one of the two. Harrisonburg has a very high percentage of meth deals, but I think it was cocaine...) Second, I realize that there are many people it would destroy... frankly, I'm in favor of that. Most of the people who are succeptable to such addiction have other issues that make them a problem with society too. Look at our current president, the coke-head. Even after getting off the chemical, he has other issues that have taken its place as hungry ghosts eating him alive. And I never said anything about taking care of them... I think in the event that we do legalize this sort of thing, we should also make it mandatory for welfare and disability recipients to get drug tests; let people know that if their only disability is an addiction then we're not footing the bill. I'm entirely fine with people being allowed to burn themselves completely out of society; I think welfare and disability should be safety nets, but only for those willing to really use them to climb back up, not just as hammocks.

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

See, I have known someone who did crystal meth. Maybe they functioned for a while, but it didn't last. The problem with addictive substances is just that. (Hell, look at how nasty and jittery people can get when they're having a jones for nicotine or caffeine, and these drugs are legal and commonplace.) Normally, I'd be all in favour of letting these people kill themselves off. I realize that some people commit stupid crimes while on drugs that they wouldn't normally, but I'm smart enough to also realize that this wouldn't change whether or not the drugs were legal. At the same time, it makes me cringe at the thought of the people who would not do these drugs normally who might think that legality means there's no harm in it. It's not like Surgeon General's warnings have really made an impact on people starting to smoke, and the effects of nicotine and smoking are widely publicized. (Are you seeing why I'm having trouble on this one? I don't want to see cocaine or LSD or whatever becoming the next cigarette, yet I also can't be sure that would be the inevitable result.) I would definitely agree with the drug testing on welfare and disability people, and no money for you if you're just doing drugs. Of course, I also believe that welfare mamas spitting out baby after baby should have their tubes tied, so... *shrugs* It's not a black or white issue, in my opinion. There are a lot of factors involved.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

By the way, this is UK-based rather than US-based, but I think much of the content remains pertinent to this discussion: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html

[ebonhost.livejournal.com]

BTW, I'm not saying that I'm right and you're worng on any of this. This is only my opinion on these things, obviously coloured by my experiences. *hugs* For all I know, I'm wrong. ;)