Stop Granting Special Privileges to the Police

America’s cops need more oversight, not more leeway to evade the law.

The horrific Boston bombings already have led to irrational calls for more security cameras and more police officers, with some Democrats absurdly using this tragedy as a reason to stop the slight sequester-mandated cuts in federal spending growth.

Never mind that police spending primarily is a local matter. The bigger questions that Americans have rarely asked, especially following the 9/11 attacks: Do we really want the government to hire new armies of police officers? Do we really want to pay the price for this?

Knowing my views on the growing public-pension crisis, most readers probably think the “price” I’m worried about the nation’s multi-trillion-dollar unfunded pension liabilities driven largely by the “3 percent at 50” pension deals that cost taxpayers millions of dollars for each “first responder” who retires at 50 after 30 years of service.

That’s a huge problem — the result in part of Americans’ irrational embrace of the “more police” logic after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. But that’s not the main source of my concern. My real concern involves our safety and civil liberties given that police officers, and other groups of public employees, have become a protected class that does not have to follow the same rules as the average citizen.

A few years ago the Orange County Register reported on California’s special-license plate program that puts the addresses and license information of many public employees and their family members in a special database that shields them from getting tickets when they drive on the toll roads without paying the toll. That’s somewhat infuriating.

But a series from the Sun Sentinel newspaper in Florida found that “professional courtesy” — i.e., the way police allow other police officers to speed, drive drunk, and violate every manner of traffic law provided they are members of the law-enforcement caste — also has dangerous consequences for the general public.

The newspaper series, announced as a winner of a Pulitzer Prize the same week as the Boston bombing, details the tragedies of essentially giving one group free rein to drive in any manner its members choose. In one incident documented by the newspaper, a 21-year-old girl was driving with her 14-year-old step sister and a deputy accelerated from 24 to 87 miles per hour in 24 seconds as he rushed to aid a fellow officer who had pulled over a driver with — get this — a broken tail light. He T-boned the car, injured the driver, and killed the passenger. The 14-year-old girl’s body was found 37 feet from the accident.

The newspaper found police speeding routinely in excess of 120 miles per hour — not on emergency calls, but simply to get to work or for the fun of it. We’ve all seen it on the highways and there are news stories of tragic accidents with police killing citizens throughout the nation. Many times, off-duty officers drive in the same dangerous manner knowing that fellow officers will give them a pass at the sight of a badge.

Here’s the Sun Sentinel, which reported that 21 Floridians have been killed or maimed by speeding cops since 2004: “Speeding cops are often spared severe punishment in the criminal justice system. Cops found at fault for fatal wrecks caused by speeding have faced consequences ranging from no criminal charges to a maximum of 60 days in jail. Inside many police agencies, speeding isn't taken seriously until it results in tragedy. Even then, some cops are disciplined but stay on the job — and the road. The dead include seven police officers who crashed at speeds up to 61 mph over the legal limit.”

On the last point: Police unions often point to the dangers of their job. But about half of the police on-the-job fatalities are due to traffic accidents, and a large portion of them are no doubt the result of reckless driving by the officers themselves.

Recently, the Sacramento County sheriff was pulled over for a speeding ticket and he made a big deal of telling the public the police do get tickets. Maybe on occasion, but the “professional courtesy” problem is real and it applies not just to speeding but to every sort of police misbehavior.

Meanwhile, in California in particular, police unions have exempted police disciplinary records of misbehaving cops from the state’s public records law so the public never learns about the bad actors in police agencies — the ones who routinely abuse the public or who are involved in multiple car accidents due to their own speeding.

Police unions continue to push for special privileges — not just higher benefit levels, expanded disability pay, and other such benefits, but exemptions from every manner of oversight. Given the power of the police unions among union-friendly Democrats and law-and-order-supporting Republicans, there is no powerful civil-liberties lobby to stand up against this endless drive for more “protections” for those who patrol our communities.

The nation’s crime rates are at 40-year lows. Many studies have been done on the link between more police officers and crime rates and there’s little if any connection between the two. We cannot create a society that is entirely safe — especially from attacks on “soft” targets such as marathons and other such public events.

And we should not blindly embrace the call for more police without first reading the Sun Sentinel series about the potential downside.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Steven Greenhut: Stop Granting Special Privileges to the Police

    New Headline: Steven Greenhut: Guess Who Finally Arrived at the Party?

  • Copernicus||

    You can have my Special Privileges when you can pry them from my cold, dead hands.

  • ||

    But Dunphy sez police don't get special privileges! Unless, by "special", you mean they get treated more harshly in the justice system! DERP.

  • ||

    an officer in my unit got punished for beating a homeless man i think that was an appropriate punishment hth k bye

    I have no idea how to write like a retard, so my dunphy impression sucks monkey balls. Sorry.

  • Generic Stranger||

    needs more acronyms.

  • $park¥||

    I have no idea how to write like a retard

    Don't sell yourself short.

  • ||

    I said I don't know how to write like a retard. My level of personal retardedness is a separate issue. At least I can type.

  • Almanian!||

    yeah but what are you bench pressing these days? most guys in my squad are doing regular 350+ with no steroids. drinking lemon juice helps and the supermodels love it. hth kthxbai

  • ||

    God, you're pathetic. Morgan Fairchild is really fucking old. Currently I'm banging Alessandra Ambrosio and squatting 600.

  • Copernicus||

    Don' sell yourself short judge, You're a tremendous slouch.

  • Blogimi Dei||

    someone step on a duck?

  • Ted S.||

    I have no idea how to write like a retard

    Write a letter to Gabby Giffords and ask her for advice.

  • deified||

    OT: The New York Times goes full retard.

  • Almanian!||

    The New York Times goes continues to be full retard.

    fixed

  • Andrew S.||

    The other day when there was the article about the Sun-Sentinel getting the Pulitzer for their cop speeding expose, Dunphy said that cops not getting tickets for speeding was a totally acceptable perk of the job, and the rest of us plebs should just deal with it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's for damned sure. Allowing government employees to have different and superior rights to the rest of us--along with taking away their accountability for illegal, immoral, and unethical actions--is a sure path to tyranny.

  • Brett L||

    Something about "no person is above the law" seems applicable here. Or is that just for black and white movies?

  • Pro Libertate||

    "You know the score, pal. You're not cop, you're little people!"

  • np||

    The problem is that immunity and special privileges are actually part of or allowed by law.

    Positive legal system will always end up this way sooner or later. You'd need to remove or fundamentally reform the idea of state sovereignty, which are extended to its agents, but not its citizens, to fix it.

  • Sevo||

    Cops are the janitors of society; please clean up the mess on aisle #4 and be quiet about it. Oh, and no back-chat to your bosses.
    That should be engraved in the lenses of every cops' glasses and the windshield of every cop car.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Are you planning on enslaving people to form a police force?

    Cops have a shit job to do. While that doesn't justify making them above the law, it does justify the pay and benefits. Unless you want a third-world police force which is expected to supplement their salary with bribes.

  • califernian||

    Since 90% of the laws they "enforce" are immoral in the first place, I say pay them shit and let them quit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Most laws that local police are enforcing are ones that libertarians are generally OK with. You know, violent crime, property crime, etc.

    The drug laws are the big exception, along with maybe some traffic laws.

  • califernian||

    please.

    Cops spend almost all their time taking reports and handing out tickets.

  • Gray Ghost||

    There's pay and benefits, and then there's PAY AND BENEFITS. Go look at the salaries and pensions CA pays police officers some time.

    Where else can you retire after 20 years and clear a six-figure pension, all with a HS diploma and a few hours at a police academy? Ooh, maybe you might also need an Associate's in CJ?

    I agree with you that it's a shit job. But Sevo's right, and moreover, IME the cops I know would agree that they're basically armed janitors.

  • Zeb||

    Mot cops seem to rather like their jobs and very rarely have to deal with anything terribly unpleasant.

    I agree on paying them a decent rate while they are working, but retiring at 50 with a defined benefit pension is bullshit unless they are legitimately disabled because of their work as police.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Mot cops seem to rather like their jobs and very rarely have to deal with anything terribly unpleasant.

    You're basing this on.... ?

  • Sevo||

    "While that doesn't justify making them above the law, it does justify the pay and benefits."

    Yeah, Tulpa, you're right! I shouldn't require them to work for nothing!
    Did you bring your own strawman, or just find one on the way?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You said they should be treated like janitors.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 4.19.13 @ 1:55PM |#
    "You said they should be treated like janitors."

    Actually, I posted that they *are* society's janitors. WIH does that have to do with pay and benes? Do janitors work for nothing?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The scum janitors deal with doesn't shoot back at them.

  • sloopyinca||

    What % of cops have been shot at?

    But I'll at least give you credit for saying "shoot back at them". I doubt it was intentional, but it at least recognizes that cops shoot first almost every time.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 4.19.13 @ 2:09PM |#
    "The scum janitors deal with doesn't shoot back at them."

    Yeah, some of it is just poisonous. Keep beating that strawman!

  • ||

    Cops are the janitors of society

    You said they should be treated like janitors.

    Did you quit English classes in the 3rd grade, or are you running for police union rep there Tulpa? Jesus.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Cop pay should be determined by the market, not by pols who want their union support at election time.

  • sloopyinca||

    Agreed. They should abolish the unions, drop the pay by 20% over and over again until they get enough applicants +10% for the jobs available.

    After all, it's a job that requires a GED or high school diploma. Hell, most of those jobs start at minimum wage, so these guys should be happy they're starting higher than that.

    Also, no more automatic raises for getting a degree. If they want to get an education, why should I be forced to pay them more?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But if a police officer had reason to believe he might be held accountable for his actions, that could make him stop and think before shooting wildly at random vehicles.

    Where do you think you are, Somalia?

  • Brendan||

    I always love when the police or their supporters say things like that.

    "Hey, if you start holding us accountable for doing illegal or out-of-police things, we won't be able to do our jobs at all because we'll be too 'retrained' because we're afraid to mess up."

    I see that as a feature, not a bug.

    I want to use this excuse to get a law to stop the police from following a car too closely and/or for too long on the road.

    "The police shouldn't able to follow cars on the freeway because drivers can't drive effectively and safely if they're too cautious because they're afraid the cop behind them is going to pull them over for doing something wrong."

  • Brendan||

    out-of-police should be out-of-policy

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    And retrained should be restrained. But the meaning is clear.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    PS-

    Abolish police unions.

    Locally, there is an ongoing drama being played out, in which the chief of police actually fired a guy who was becoming increasingly aggressive, belligerent, and unpredictable. Guess what. He went to the union's crack legal counsel and appealed, and the results of the arbitration hearing are pending. I suspect there is about an 85% likelihood he will be reinstated, with the added reinforcement of his expectation of being able to do anything to anybody with absolute impunity.

    When this guy finally wigs out completely and does something truly egregious, we can sue the union, right?

    RIGHT?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Quite possibly the only thing FDR was right about was his opposition to public sector employee unions.

    Cops, of all people, should be at will employees. One strike, and out the door.

  • John Galt||

    Public sector employees can't unionize without creating an immense conflict of interest.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That should be true of anyone in government. Anyone--appointed, elected, volunteer, what have you.

  • $park¥||

    John should be along any second now to laugh at your retarded Utopian ideas.

  • Pro Libertate||

    To be fair, I think he's always been all for. . .the Censor!

  • UnCivilServant||

    Ahem.

    Contrary to popular belief, not all of us who have the misfortune of calling a government agency our employer are overpaid or underworked. I for one actually ran the numbers. Counting benefits and payroll taxes, it costs my employer less in total than the comperable salary alone would be on a private payroll. (In case you're wondering, I only ran them recently, buying into the lies people told about the relative benefit packages. I'm now seeking employment outside the public sector)

    The salient point however is thus - The rate of increase in compensation for the unionized employees at my workplace has barely kept up with inflation over the past two decades. The non-unionised employees? Their real wages have fallen, leaving them making far less than people in the same job who happen to be union members. As a result, the only people who stay there are those nearing the retirement age, who've sunk so much into this career that they've developed some sort of stockholm syndrome where they don't realize the abuse they recieve from the Governer's office is unacceptable for any employer to be dishing out.

    In short the only thing which has kept us from falling even further behind our counterparts is our collective bargaining. For the record, I work in IT, making it quite easy to compare Public and Private sector employment in the industry.

  • sloopyinca||

    In short the only thing which has kept us from falling even further behind our counterparts is our collective bargaining.

    Hint: you have no "counterparts" in the private sector. We are all paid according to the profitability of our employer and the benefit we provide them and have a bottom line to answer to. PubSec employees do not have any of those and are able to grow their departments regardless of utility or profitability.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I'm almost laughing at your blind ignorance.

    I'm a sysadmin. I provide a service to my employer in exchange for renumeration. The fact that that employer currently happens to be a government doesn't mean I don't have sysadmin counterparts whose employers happen to be companies. My skillset is quite portable, which is why I'm looking to move private - they pay better and have better benefits.

    Over the time I've been here our department has shrunk to the point where we can no longer keep the computers running despite the insistance of the commissioners that we have no downtime. I see the attitude of "we must grow" in those people who don't have correlating positions outside of public service, but they also regard IT as nothing but a cost sink rather than a facilitator.

  • sloopyinca||

    And what essential and enumerated service, pray tell, does your department serve?

  • UnCivilServant||

    That can be debated, Personally I don't think it has a justified function, but it is one mandated in the state's constitution. It's purportedly supposed to prevent cronyism in government employment (which is impossible when the cronies control the laws) and we also manage the employer provided health isurance for everyone from the local yokels to the governer's office.

    Weither or not the agency needs to exist is irrelevent when arguing about weither or not those of us who happen to work there should be treated like serfs (which is the governer's expressed opinion of all state employees without a badge or a campaign fund).

  • ||

    I'd like to see the calculations and sources you used to reach this conclusion about your serfdom. Even if true, this serfdom pay gap is likely specific to your state or department. The CBO figures the fedgov pays 16% higher than the private sector for equivalent jobs when benefits are factored in. The gap for professional jobs is lower than for low-skill jobs.

    In any case, the fact that you have ostensibly worked years upon years in a job that you believe serves no justified function for serf-like pay, utterly unaware that you could be reaping a much higher salary and benefits in the private sector actually adding value to an organization (leaving aside such trivialities as the fact that IT is glutted with workers, wages are falling, and unemployment in the industry is in double digits right now), makes me think you're probably right where you need to be.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I'm not arguing in defense of the police - who've gotten to be a bigger problem than the crooks, but I have found that most people who without qualification rail against public sector employees being unionized don't look all that closely at the facts regarding the bulk of the workforce. Police get a shockingly light touch from the Governer during contract negotiations, while their opening position with everyone else is "four zeros and a pay cut"

  • sloopyinca||

    but I have found that most people who without qualification rail against public sector employees being unionized don't look all that closely at the facts regarding the bulk of the workforce.

    By being a taxpayer, I'm very qualified to complain about it. Our government now is more than double the size it was under Bill Clinton. There's no way in the world it needed to grow one iota let alone more than double. We live in a time of automation and increased efficiency/man hour, yet the government sprawl continues apace.

  • UnCivilServant||

    "Without qualification" meaning not qualifying their commentary and drop blanket statements.

    Sorry for being unclear.

    I don't know about Feds, not my area of expertise, so perhaps I should have qualified my commentary by stating I deal with a lot more people who rail incessantly at the state workforce (which has been chrinking at the worker bee level and growing at the directorship level) tarring everyone with the same brush.

  • Sevo||

    "Contrary to popular belief, not all of us who have the misfortune of calling a government agency our employer are overpaid or underworked"

    Bull......................
    shit.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Yank their qualified immunity, thereby making them get malpractice insurance like every other professional, and get rid of pubsec unions. Both of those would help tremendously.

    So too would getting rid of the idea that the justice system is about making money for people (prisons, the rehab/probation industry).

    On public sector unions, I'm about at the point of wishing we were back on the spoils system.

  • Brendan||

    It just occurred to me, can/do doctors and other worker at government hospitals (VA, etc.) be protected under qualified immunity?

  • Gray Ghost||

    Per this document, No, they aren't fully protected by QI, but you have to go through the Federal Tort Claims Act in order to do it. I don't know if you can go after the doc in state court if the ALJ or District Court finds that the doc wasn't within the scope of their employment.

    Scanning the document, it looks like you can't get punitives, and it's a bench trial, but there isn't a damage cap. Although the document goes on to say that state limits on general damages may apply.

    As usual, if you think you've been wronged, don't rely on some faceless asshole on the Internet's advice: go find a lawyer and talk to them, 'cause I sure ain't one.

  • $park¥||

    Abolish police unions

    This is really all that needs to be done to solve almost every problem.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Police don't get special privileges. What's this article even about?

  • Sevo||

    "Alameda deputy hits, kills pedestrian"
    "The deputy, a nine-year veteran whose name wasn't released, [...]
    "The deputy involved is obviously devastated. It's a tough and terrible thing to have happened.""
    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/ar.....z2QvauNajL
    Yep, the passive voice will be used while we address who is really the victim here.

  • Almanian!||

    Procedures. Were. Followed.

  • ||

    police unions have exempted police disciplinary records of misbehaving cops from the state’s public records law

    I would guess it were the lawmakers who exempted police at the behest of police union lobbyists. Let's not give a pass to the "civilian" politicians.

  • T||

    If this isn't atextbook example of preaching to the choir, I'm not sure what would be.

    But hey, maybe somebody else will see it, too.

  • Almanian!||

    And some people wonder why other people have grown to hate and distrust cops as their default. At least in part it's often witnessing and being subject to exactly this, multiple times over the years, on and on, ad mauseum, and getting worse and worse - "we're special, and when we fuck up, we're not held accountable to any standard, much less the standard to which we hold YOU...HAHAHAHAHAHA! UP AGAINST THE VEHICLE, HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD! DO IT NOW!"

    Also, the word "civilian", when used by cops, makes my skin CRAWL. Fuck you, pig.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The deputy involved is obviously devastated.

    Throwing yourself under the wheels of a moving police car is a distinct and especially heinous form of terrorism. That poor, poor depitty.

  • Almanian!||

    it was a justified drive over imho. the civilian should have cleared out of the area. he was someplace he shouldn't have been. last time I saw perry mason they had a thing about this so legal opinions uphold that. it was a good crushing death. hth

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Lying perpendicular to the flow of traffic."

    That'll get you serious time. Like eternity.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    State trooper accused of holding knife to wife’s neck during argument

    East Bethlehem police Chief Mark Pomp said he responded to Packrall’s wife’s call. He said she told him that she and her husband got into an argument on the deck outside their home, and that Packrall pulled out a pocket knife and placed it on her neck.

    “It doesn’t matter if you’re a trooper or whatever your occupation is. An incident like this is dealt with immediately,” Pomp said.

    Packrall is facing charges of terroristic threats and harassment. He was arraigned and released on $25,000 bond. He faces a preliminary hearing on May 6.
  • ||

    The Chief should hire a Deputy Chief with the last name of Circumstance.

  • np||

    I bet the outcome would be quite different if he were doing something similar in the line of duty, and turns out to be a "mistake"

    What happened to those NY cops who accidentally shot like 10 bystanders? What happened in the Dorner case involving two incidents, the delivery ladies and another guy who had his SUV smashed? The only thing that happened was that they were slightly compensated.. with taxpayer's money.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Oh, no. All seeing, all knowing Tulpa glares balefully down from his cross, and refutes us.

    Move along, now. Nothing to see here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    For someone calling someone else a crybaby, you sure do seem to need a pacifier. LOL, every thread I post in seems to start you a-bawlin'.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Dunphy ??? Where are you?

    I know you support forgiving police and their relatives and friends for DUI as police work is hard work and doesn't require a bunch of nosy bodies looking at what they do.

  • ||

    I'm not sure I can parse that sentence, but unlike the DUI apologists here, I support enforcement of DUI whether the offender is a cop (and I have cop friends who have been arrested for DUI) or a noncop

  • ||

    The speeding thing is definitely near universal. I haven;t been pulled over for speeding in over 5 yrs, but last time I was I got a break. It's POSSIBLE I would have gotten a break even if not a cop (I certainly give breaks to "civilians" for speeding and other cops do too - depends on how fast they were going, attitude, etc.), but probably I didn't get ticketed because I am a cop.

    As for DUI, at least around here, I don't know any cop who would give another cop a break, and I know two guys in my agency who have been arrested for DUI pursuant to a traffic stop (not a collision, but just a garden variety stop).

    Is there a stat that shows that off duty cops have a higher collision rate than non-cops? Iow, that this policy of breaks possibly results in worse driving. I know that ON duty, according to NHTSA, cops have less than a 50% collision rate compared to civilians based on hours driven, so it's certainly not the case ON DUTY.

    I've certainly benefited from the "don't give cops a speeding ticket" perk, although I now drive so slowly it's unlikely I'll ever get pulled over again (age tends to slow your driving down).

  • ||

    "And some people wonder why other people have grown to hate and distrust cops as their default."

    a distinct small minority of people. Again, the polling data shows, and god knows my personal experience shows, that most people respect and admire cops. I love the fact that people walk up to me all the time and thank me for my service. I have had people anonymously pay for my meals when I am sitting down at a restaurant, waitress will tell me "somebody already paid for your meal and they wanted to tell you thank you for your service". It's very rewarding.

    I've got NO complaints about how "civilians" react towards police. Imo, the VAST majority treat me with respect and courtesy. Granted, I choose to work an area where people work hand in hand with the police to help us solve crime and catch bad guys. AT LEAST half the duis we get, we get because people follow them o n the roadway and call them in, and we get tons of suspicious person calls that often help us to catch burglars and prowlers, etc.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    What I don't get is how someone can claim that the public doesn't trust cops AND complain that juries trust lying cops too much.

  • ||

    Yes, it's one of those Reason logic disconnects that gets continually glossed over. It's accepted here (and it's a fact) that juries tend to give cops too much credibility on the stand, assume we are always telling the truth, bla bla bla and then make these sweeping statements about how we are so hated amongst the public. IF that was true, it would be reflected in juries. I've testified before grand jury over 120 times, and many many times in criminal trials and I definitely see that jurors DO trust us (and imo for good reason).

    Cops who take advantage of this and lie on the stand should be dealt with harshly. That disgusts me. But I believe, that the vast majority of cops ARE honest. Reasonoids disagree

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In PA you have to fill out a questionnaire under penalty of perjury where you have to disclose whether you would trust a cop's testimony more, less, or equal to the testimony of someone else. Presumably you get booted if you answer anything but "equal".

  • Copernicus||

    "What I don't get is how someone can claim that the public doesn't trust cops AND complain that juries trust lying cops too much."

    " Presumably you get booted if you answer anything but "equal"."

    So, 16 minutes later you answered your own question that you "don't get it".

    Juries are made up of people who don't mistrust cops.

  • Copernicus||

    I think the "lying cop" doesn't tell the jury that he's lying.

    So then, they believe him.

    I mean, if the guy would just say he's lying, then they wouldn't believe him. It would be kind of stupid to trust a lying cop, right?

    I hope this explanation helped.

  • ||

    Fwiw, I have a near perfect record as far as conduct is concerned, and lots of positive citations (medal of valor etc.) but even given that, I wouldn't be a cop if I didn't know I had the protection of arbitration and police unions. The nature of our job places us too many times in situations where we naturally are going to draw complaints even for doing the right thing - we have to take away people's liberty and use force. People often don't like that. Without union protection, it would be too easy for cop-o-crats to simply fire or discipline officers w.o due cause to appease complainers. At least where I work, the system of oversight works PRETTY well. Problem officers get investigated and duly punished and officers get protection of due process.

  • Alice Bowie||

    DO you support the elimination of Professional courtesy?

    Do you support a database of cops/family members so that computer-ticketing cameras exclude these people?

  • Andrew S.||

    It's always interesting how oftentimes when you read stories of officer malfeasance, the department is screaming to the hilltops about the officer's flawless record, their numerous positive citations, and such.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    LOL, every thread I post in seems to start you a-bawlin'.

    Poor baby, up there on your cross, you must be cold and hungry.

    It's so nice of you to suffer for our sins.

  • sloopyinca||

    As the one that (probably) posts more out-of-control cop stories on here and regularly reads PoliceOne comment boards, I think I can safely say that there is a culture of entitlement that exists within the majority of America's police departments. Just the fact that dunphy, who is probably more libertarian than 99% of the cops out there, even looks for a way to justify/parse it by making claims that maybe a civilian would have been given the same break, makes me believe it is rampant and systematic. The fact that people are selling "I'm a family member of a cop" get out of jail free cards in NYC and that's caused an uproar confirms that there is more than a double standard at play. There's a systemwide failure to equally enforce the laws, be they just or unjust. And that just plain stinks to high heaven.

    Now, shall we begin to discuss the protections an officer who is suspected of a crime gets that are not available to civilians based solely on the union contract, or should we ignore that as well? How about the protections from a speedy investigation they are afforded when they commit a crime under color of law and on duty?

    Sorry, but there is a double-standard. And until the unions are dismantled and qualified immunity abolished, there will continue to be one and it will only create a wider and wider gulf between cops and "civilians".

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    As the one that (probably) posts more out-of-control cop stories on here and regularly reads PoliceOne comment boards,

    that doesn't really enhance your objectivity on the issue....

  • sloopyinca||

    Maybe not, but it gives me a bit more insight than the average poster. And I was objective before I started reading all the stories and comment boards over at P1. If anything, it's what drove the objectivity out of me.

  • sloopyinca||

  • Gray Ghost||

    Reminded me of this guy. He made it to 94 years of age. I wonder if after the second one, he shook his fist at the heavens and shouted, "Why don't you come down here and fight like a man!"

    What's Japanese for "cockroach?" Or Rasputin?

  • forestgombosi39||

    If you think Richard`s story is nice, , four weaks-ago my mom basically also made $4739 grafting a 20 hour week in their apartment and they're best friend's mom`s neighbour done this for 8-months and got a cheque for over $4739 part-time on their computer. the instructions from this site http://www.wow65.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement