|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:48 PM February 8th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
When I was in the military it was supposed to be against regulations to do the same thing. All law enforcement are para military organizations. I can see the rule for hitting on a fellow members spouse, regardless of gender because of the esprit de corps that they have to maintain. In so far as the general population is concerned it makes some sense as well. Aren't the law enforcement People supposedly held to a higher standard than that of the People that they wield power over? I can see how it would cause problems for an individual regardless of gender if their spouse started dating a law enforcement officer on the side, somewhat intimidating I would think for most, almost an abuse of power? When one takes upon themselves the mantle of living their lives as an example to everyone else there are sacrifices. If a law enforcement officer does not try to set an example for others, they do not deserve their job. Just some of my thoughts on this matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 12:01 AM February 9th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, to some degree of course I agree with the sentiment that people who volunteered to be law-enforcers have to live in some ways to a higher standard than others, but for me it is in the context of obedience to the laws and acting in ways most likely to uphold public safety in general.
This matter though of who you are sleeping with, whether they be spouses of fellow officers or not, is different. While being involved in marital infidelity is distatsteful it is not generally against the civil law. [Though for some states, particularly the ones that were part of the original 13 colonies, laws against infidelity are still on the books -- however they have not been enforced for a very long time and I would suggest doing so would be a really bad idea.]
If I were married and my wife were having an affair with someone else, cop or not, the problem would be that SHE is cheating on ME, and would likely have done so with someone else, be he a cop, banker, lawyer, Indian chief, whatever.
Also, in the armed forces, one voluntarily submits to a completely distinct and admittedly much-more strict code of conduct under a completely different system of jurisprudence. In the armed forces, all manner of things are a crime that are not a crime in the civilian world. Insubordination for example, or failing to obey an order. Can you imagine what life'd be like if upon failing to obey your idiot boss' directions about something stiupid, he/she could have you arrested and tried for it? Or how about failing to greet/acknowlede a superior who is within a certain distance of you-- that is also a breach of regulations. Imagine having to say "hi" to your boss every time you saw them on a day-to-day basis if they got with 10 feet of you or whatnot?
The point I am making is that police are civilians. They live under state and US law. Some laws apply to them that don't apply to us because the laws specifically address police officers. They have a set of rules and guidelines they have to adhere to that are from their depts., but that is simply a matter of complying with an employer's wishes as part of having a job (uniform a certain way, reports a certain way, etc.).
I do understand that this sheriff's dept. is not trying to make a law where none exists. I am just pointing out this: would you like it if your employer made adhering to a personal moral code, such as refraining from diddling someone else's spouse, a condition of employment? In practice, in work-at-will/for-cause states, sure, they could fire you for that reason... but how would you like it if they did? Is it REALLY any of their ^&*?!&^ business?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:37 AM February 9th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
If it were a condition of employment, or in this case "SERVICE" since all law enforcement officers are supposed to be "CIVIL SERVANTS" I would imagine that would have to be taken into consideration before one took an oath, or signed on a dotted line, no? The "EMPLOYER" that we are supposedly refering to here is the GREATER COMMUNITY of People that these individuals are supposed to serve. Some departments do require certain decorum within their ranks such as addressing superiors as Sir or Ma'am. Same thing with uniforms, as they are all the same within each department. I do believe that they should be held to a higher standard, or else they are nothing more than thugs enforcing rules upon the GREATER COMMUNITY with impunity. In so far as me liking it, the government has made me suffer under the removal of my Constitutional Rights without my consent or approval. I Don't like it. I have taken oaths in my life, the Marines, an officer of the Elks, Chairman of the board of Trustees, and I followed those oaths to the best of my ability. The simple fact is, that law enforcement People in this country in a lot of cases are unchecked by anything. Perhaps enforcing some behavior guide lines, and reaffirming the fact that they do serve the People would solve some of the problems that we now have. No one forces them to join the law enforcement field, even though it is one of the major growth industries in the "land of the free". How about that? But I suppose it should be OK for law enforcement individuals to do as they please within the community, no behavior guidlines, no restrictions, since most of them believe themselves to be above the general populace anyway; perhaps we could bring back the practice of first right for law enforcement? My point is simple. When one "actually" does want to serve the Greater Community one acknowledges the fact of certain sacrifices. One then willfully takes an oath and willfully adheres to that oath. I don't see a real problem with the proposed rules by this Sherriffs department. Except perhaps for existing Deputies that don't want to adhere to the new rules, then of course they would be able to quit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by klp on 01:16 PM February 9th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Gentlemen:
Your points on law enforcement are well taken. I agree with most of them.
The point I wanted to make was that false accusations of cheating against deputies (mostly male) is now another weapon to wreck careers. Nowhere did the article describe how (or if) accusations would be investigated to weed out unsubstatiated claims; or for that matter, the accused appeal process.
Here in Chicagoland, there is already a large problem with gangs lodging unfounded complaints to internal affairs about officers who are too effectual for their tastes. Also firearm restrictions in various anti-DV laws have had a profound effect on law enforcement and military personnel.
How will the higher-ups weed out crank calls (e.g. Dave Letterman's TRO), vengeful criminals or vengeful ex-SO's? What's the plan? Is there a plan?
I agree that off-duty officers should be reducing call not creating them; however, anything that can be abused will be...sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 12:07 AM February 10th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Chicagoland, been there a few times, sold xmas trees there 4 years. Chicago, like any other major city in this country is based on abuse. The grease, payoffs that make the city work are responsible for the gangs in the first place. The connections that they have to purchase weapons, drugs etc. are not existing in a vacuum. There are people that have big bucks that go to church every Sunday that are making big profits off those sales. The drugs help keep the poor and oppressed quiet, and provide jobs for law enforcement. The illegal guns that the gangs buy help keep them busy fighting each other, and killing each other off. In so far as innocent People getting killed, well they are the poor aren't they? As far as a plan is concerned, I have no idea if they have one. But culpability has got to start somewhere, and since it isn't being practiced where it actually should be, at the top, then it has to start somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by quetzal on 01:35 PM February 10th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Pinellas county, FL. The St. Petersburg Times here said the law means that: a sheriff's deputy may not become involved with another deputy, if either party is married. I will attempt to give a link to the article later.
In another vein, I find that the Pinellas and Hillsborough (Tampa) police here are way overly aggressive, and look for any excuse to pursue men, even if they just "seem suspicious". Basically it amounts to this: Feminism and the current related bias against against men, and the resulting legislation "tough on crime", domestic violence laws, ridiculous drunk driving laws (.08% B.A.L.), etc., have simply given the police, who are always looking for on an excuse to "be tough/crack down" on people; and aggressively pursue someone even if they simply exhibit odd mannerisms. That is all it takes to get the abusive jerks going.
Note: I am NOT paranoid.
--quetzal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:09 PM February 10th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
No, your not paranoid. It isn't a coincidence that federal dollars were spent in every state in the U.S. in the late 80's and early 90's to build maximum level security county jails in counties with a certain amount of population. It isn't a coincidence that the roles of counselors in government positions, both state and federal increased as well. All those law enforcement officers, D/A counselors, and lawyers need to get paid. That is why the oppressive nature of law enforcement. If they do not oppress the People, they will lose their jobs. You are just facing the truth of life in the "land of the free". We ain't free! No your not paranoid, if you are prey paranoia is a survival technique that comes from instinct. But be careful, being aware has its' own problems! "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:11 PM February 10th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, it wouldn't be paranoid if one were to believe that government agents were monitoring this site. It would actually make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
klp writes "Deputies in Pinellas County, Florida