Yet another NM Law Enforcement Issue

[joseephuss]

Not knowing your rights as a citizen; willing to give Government blind authority, etc.

I know my rights and I haven't willingly given away anything. I also am not as stupid and this lady and her son.

 

[Denim Chicken]

This things just going in circles now....

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Driving at 71 mph in a 55 mph zone is more dangerous than breaking the glass. Running from the cops and crossing into oncoming traffic is far more dangerous than the glass being broken.

You have got to be jiving

 

[joseephuss]

You have got to be jiving

No. I speed. Everyone speeds. Going 16 mph above the speed limit is dangerous. Did you see the roads she was driving on? Going that much faster than the flow of traffic is dangerous. It is a no brainer that crossing into oncoming traffic is dangerous. That was just stupid.

 

[Dodger12]

Well your definition of the "attack" on the PO is just as big a stretch, no? You seem to think POs can be as rough as they want but God forbid a skinny teen even attempt to separate the "macho" officer from his mother? So "attack" when the teen is involved, but not even a "little rough" for the cop's aggressive physical actions?

Not sure what size has to do with it. These officers in the attached video probably never thought a scrawny 16 year old passenger was that much of a threat until it was too late. It's nice that so many can judge after the fact and with the benefit of hind sight. I too am not so sure of the wisdom of the officer firing his weapon but once the lady decides to flee the after the initial stop, then all bets are off. These officers have no idea what they're getting into and the traffic stop is longer "routine."

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Not sure what size has to do with it. These officers in the attached video probably never thought a scrawny 16 year old passenger was that much of a threat until it was too late. It's nice that so many can judge after the fact and with the benefit of hind sight. I too am not so sure of the wisdom of the officer firing his weapon but once the lady decides to flee the after the initial stop, then all bets are off. These officers have no idea what they're getting into and the traffic stop is longer "routine."

Clearly, this cop must have been harassing these fine gentlemen.. there's no audio so how do we know that the cops weren't bullying them or threatening them off camera? Seems like another case of police abuse to me, just these officers got true justice!

 

[BigStar]

Clearly, this cop must have been harassing these fine gentlemen.. there's no audio so how do we know that the cops weren't bullying them or threatening them off camera? Seems like another case of police abuse to me, just these officers got true justice!

We get it, cops do no wrong, incapable in fact because their jobs are dangerous; voluntary occupations.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

We get it, cops do no wrong, incapable in fact because their jobs are dangerous; voluntary occupations.

We get it.. every cop is crooked. The majority of cops have bad intentions.

Yada, yada, yada..

 

[BigStar]

I guess you're not getting my point. The structure of the system is crooked, not the individual police that can be carrying out the will of Big Brah. Some policemen, or good cops are well intentioned in their purpose, they just don't see the oppression they are permeating (majority of them) while perpetuating the drug war and bloated domestic LE budgets after 9/11 that have transformed police officers into paramilitary. This pushes little discretion on behalf of policmen and Federal Mandates in drug sentences don't allow judges the discretion to not put a first time offender away for minimum 15 years, etc.

 

[Dodger12]

I guess you're not getting my point. The structure of the system is crooked, not the individual police that can be carrying out the will of Big Brah. Some policemen, or good cops are well intentioned in their purpose, they just don't see the oppression they are permeating (majority of them) while perpetuating the drug war and bloated domestic LE budgets after 9/11 that have transformed police officers into paramilitary. This pushes little discretion on behalf of policmen and Federal Mandates in drug sentences don't allow judges the discretion to not put a first time offender away for minimum 15 years, etc.

This is where the broad brush comes into play. Not every policeman is involved int he "drug war". And the paramilitary nature of law enforcement is in response to the threat posed. It's unfortunate, but as criminals started carrying automatic weapons, law enforcement had to change along with them. It wasn't all that long ago that these folks carried .38 or .357 revolvers until they were outgunned. Look at the LA bank robbery shootout, as an example. Police officers at the scene had to arm themselves with firearms from a local gun shop, as they had nothing to counter the long rifles and armor piercing bullets used by the suspects. As a result, I think you'll find many cruisers in LA now equipped with long rifles. Again, this was in response to the threat, not an escalation by the system or law enforcement.

And the mandatory sentencing guidelines are being changed, if they haven't already. Lastly, I find it kind of ironic that you used the word "discretion." I get it, people don't like the police but it's unfortunate because I think at some point, we've reaped what we sowed. Law enforcement today can't win. Years ago, police were able to exercise some "discretion." Today, they open themselves up to liability so everything becomes black and white. No more getting a ride home in small town America, no more confiscating booze from a young person and getting a kick in the *** from your parents as opposed to a criminal record, etc. No more responding to a domestic disturbance, getting the scene under control, diffusing the situation and walking away. Now, someone has to go to jail, hire a lawyer and go to court only to have the charges dropped because a couple has reconciled. Discretion has nothing to do with it......

 

[joseephuss]

I guess you're not getting my point. The structure of the system is crooked, not the individual police that can be carrying out the will of Big Brah. Some policemen, or good cops are well intentioned in their purpose, they just don't see the oppression they are permeating (majority of them) while perpetuating the drug war and bloated domestic LE budgets after 9/11 that have transformed police officers into paramilitary. This pushes little discretion on behalf of policmen and Federal Mandates in drug sentences don't allow judges the discretion to not put a first time offender away for minimum 15 years, etc.

None of what you said has anything to do with this dumb lady and her dumb teenage son acting like idiots or the one cop who fired his weapon.

 

[BigStar]

This is where the broad brush comes into play. Not every policeman is involved int he "drug war". And the paramilitary nature of law enforcement is in response to the threat posed. It's unfortunate, but as criminals started carrying automatic weapons, law enforcement had to change along with them. It wasn't all that long ago that these folks carried .38 or .357 revolvers until they were outgunned. Look at the LA bank robbery shootout, as an example. Police officers at the scene had to arm themselves with firearms from a local gun shop, as they had nothing to counter the long rifles and armor piercing bullets used by the suspects. As a result, I think you'll find many cruisers in LA now equipped with long rifles. Again, this was in response to the threat, not an escalation by the system or law enforcement.

And the mandatory sentencing guidelines are being changed, if they haven't already. Lastly, I find it kind of ironic that you used the word "discretion." I get it, people don't like the police but it's unfortunate because I think at some point, we've reaped what we sowed. Law enforcement today can't win. Years ago, police were able to exercise some "discretion." Today, they open themselves up to liability so everything becomes black and white. No more getting a ride home in small town America, no more confiscating booze from a young person and getting a kick in the *** from your parents as opposed to a criminal record, etc. No more responding to a domestic disturbance, getting the scene under control, diffusing the situation and walking away. Now, someone has to go to jail, hire a lawyer and go to court only to have the charges dropped because a couple has reconciled. Discretion has nothing to do with it......

The majority of police wouldn't have jobs or be "required" if it weren't for the drug war.

"There is a drug arrest every 19 seconds in the U.S. Of the more than 1.6 million drug arrests in 2009, 82 percent were for possession alone."

"Teens say obtaining illegal marijuana is easier than buying legal, controlled and age-regulated beer."

Keeping a lot of folks employed for a shadow cause is starting to make some question US law enforcement's "impact" or lack there of?

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html

 

[BigStar]

"Ever wonder why police spend so much time enforcing failed drug laws? To find the answer, you just need to follow the money. Funding schemes and asset forfeiture laws have given law enforcement agencies strong financial incentives to continue the drug war. Because funding for drug task forces is often based on the number of arrests made and the amount of property seized in drug busts, the easiest way for local police to up their numbers and boost their careers is to target low-level drug offenders, not violent kingpins. To create arrest opportunities, police routinely rely on untrustworthy informants, conduct dangerous home invasions on flimsy evidence, frame suspects and commit perjury. Asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to seize property with minimal proof, putting the burden instead on suspects to prove their own innocence. Because these assets often go straight into the coffers of the enforcement agency, these laws have created financial incentives for property seizures that encourage corruption."

http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/distorted-incentives/our-priorities

 

[Dodger12]

The majority of police wouldn't have jobs or be "required" if it weren't for the drug war.

You can not be serious. Depending on the source you use, there may be as many as 1 million law enforcement sworn law enforcement officers: "In 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million persons on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers). Agencies also employed approximately 100,000 part-time employees, including 44,000 sworn officers." This from Wiki so I don't know if the numbers are firm but you get the picture. A large number of these officers are uniformed police that enforce a myriad of laws. If the "drug war" were to end tomorrow, a majority of these officers would still be employed.

"There is a drug arrest every 19 seconds in the U.S. Of the more than 1.6 million drug arrests in 2009, 82 percent were for possession alone."

Interesting that you state that the majority of police wouldn't have jobs if it wasn't for the drug war when, according to your link, law enforcement made an estimated 13,687,241 arrests (except traffic violations) nationwide in 2009. Of these arrests, 581,765 were for violent crimes and 1,728,285 were for property crimes. In other words, drug arrests accounted for approximately 11% of those arrested. In fact, more people were arrested for property crimes but I don't hear you calling for legalizing them. In addition, "possession" is a vague word in the sense that you don;t know if someone was arrested for 1 gram or 100 kilos of any particular drug so I'm not sure that mere possession implies a less serious offense.

Keeping a lot of folks employed for a shadow cause is starting to make some question US law enforcement's "impact" or lack there of?

Again, from your own link, a vast majority of arrests are for non-drug related offenses. And what "impact" do properly laws have when they account for more arrests than drugs? Why aren't you making that argument when it comes to other crimes that account for more arrests?

 

[Dodger12]

"Ever wonder why police spend so much time enforcing failed drug laws? To find the answer, you just need to follow the money. Funding schemes and asset forfeiture laws have given law enforcement agencies strong financial incentives to continue the drug war. Because funding for drug task forces is often based on the number of arrests made and the amount of property seized in drug busts, the easiest way for local police to up their numbers and boost their careers is to target low-level drug offenders, not violent kingpins. To create arrest opportunities, police routinely rely on untrustworthy informants, conduct dangerous home invasions on flimsy evidence, frame suspects and commit perjury. Asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to seize property with minimal proof, putting the burden instead on suspects to prove their own innocence. Because these assets often go straight into the coffers of the enforcement agency, these laws have created financial incentives for property seizures that encourage corruption."

http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/distorted-incentives/our-priorities

Do you even read what you post? The link you gave from a pro-legalization web site questions the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program which accounts for roughly 600 state/local personnel funded with monies from the program.....600...... The reason for programs like these is because state and local departments can't afford to pay for specialized units out of their police budgets so they rely on funding from the Federal government for things such as equipment and overtime. You may not believe in these programs but I bet you don't live in a drug infested neighborhood either. And I'm sure the Federal government provides funds to hire uniformed police officers, as well as other non-drug related enforcement programs.

And the part about framing suspects and committing perjury is just plain hogwash. I'm sure you can pull up links of police corruption but these folks are the exception, not the norm, I can guarantee you that the prevailing thought in law enforcement is that no drug seizure or amount of drugs is worth someone's life or career. And if you're going to disparage forfeiture laws as "funding schemes," at least know how they work because there's a lot of fail in your post.

 

[BigStar]

You can not be serious. Depending on the source you use, there may be as many as 1 million law enforcement sworn law enforcement officers: "In 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million persons on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers). Agencies also employed approximately 100,000 part-time employees, including 44,000 sworn officers." This from Wiki so I don't know if the numbers are firm but you get the picture. A large number of these officers are uniformed police that enforce a myriad of laws. If the "drug war" were to end tomorrow, a majority of these officers would still be employed.



Interesting that you state that the majority of police wouldn't have jobs if it wasn't for the drug war when, according to your link, law enforcement made an estimated 13,687,241 arrests (except traffic violations) nationwide in 2009. Of these arrests, 581,765 were for violent crimes and 1,728,285 were for property crimes. In other words, drug arrests accounted for approximately 11% of those arrested. In fact, more people were arrested for property crimes but I don't hear you calling for legalizing them. In addition, "possession" is a vague word in the sense that you don;t know if someone was arrested for 1 gram or 100 kilos of any particular drug so I'm not sure that mere possession implies a less serious offense.

Again, from your own link, a vast majority of arrests are for non-drug related offenses. And what "impact" do properly laws have when they account for more arrests than drugs? Why aren't you making that argument when it comes to other crimes that account for more arrests?

 

[BigStar]

Property laws are crimes against other individuals, not against themselves (possession) (what police are for). Possession is a simple term used for small amounts of drugs being on a person, possession with intent to distribute (felony) is definitely categorized differently than simple possession? The bloated budgets that have resulted from the Drug War have nothing to do with keeping all of these "necessary" employees? You state numbers on how many employees LE has been able to hire as a result of the bloated budgets? Thanks

 

[BigStar]

None of what you said has anything to do with this dumb lady and her dumb teenage son acting like idiots or the one cop who fired his weapon.

I moved on...

 

[BigStar]

And the part about framing suspects and committing perjury is just plain hogwash. I'm sure you can pull up links of police corruption but these folks are the exception, not the norm, I can guarantee you that the prevailing thought in law enforcement is that no drug seizure or amount of drugs is worth someone's life or career. And if you're going to disparage forfeiture laws as "funding schemes," at least know how they work because there's a lot of fail in your post.


Lot of opinion in this post, you guarantee it so.... cool

 

[BigStar]

I was wrong about the "intent to distribute" point after looking over data but noticed you picked property crimes (conveniently) because they are the highest reported crime (1,369,658 incidents) only after drug arrests (1,305,191). Though intent to distribute must be included, it still accounts for excessive monetary resources and manpower (police force) being asked to pursue a dated strategy that is meant to keep the money flowing, not to curb the problem in anyway.