dself40,
Actually you explained yourself much better this time, and maybe it is me who owes you the apology. Sorry if I offended you. The subject does get me going, though I do understand how some LEOs can be real jerks. I gotta say one thing about speeding tickets: Do you ever speed by a cop and not get a ticket? It is a common thing to see police officers use discretion and not enforce laws, while at other times they may enforce them. I am not trying to stick up for the jerks - but am just talking about them in general. As for them not giving tickets to other cops, yeah I know that happens. That is a privilege thing they USUALLY extend to other LEOs but believe me not always. I'll bet though there are lots of things cops have seen you do that violate regulations or laws that they do not enforce. I don't know if it is right or not. Cops also give courtesy to the general public too. Little things like not ticketing you every time you speed, or every time you do not use your directional signal, or when you spit on the ground, or when you litter and on and on. Their job, to some extent, is enforcing the law; however they are under no obligation to do so - as was determined in the Supreme Court (pretty sure it was the SC and not an appellate court) not too long ago. The SC said LEOs are under no obligation to investigate or enforce laws (isn't that amazing - but true).
I understand how the bs of what the cops in your area are allegedly doing can be offensive, As for regular folks having to document an offense, so to do police officers, and that documentation will come out in court if they are properly challenged. You may be surprised to see exactly what documentation they have, but yes a lot of it does come down to their word against yours in some cases. The reason for that is pretty basic - lots of people try to lie their way to a not guilty verdict - could be many reasons for it - such as insurance will go up, husband will beat wife, wife will beat husband, dad will get mad, mom will get mad, I don't really think I was speeding, I was only doing 57 in a 55 zone and wasn't going 90. The thing is though that if a cop is ever proven to lie under oath (in criminal cases anyway) they can be prevented from ever testifying again in another criminal case or at least be prejudiced against by the court. If called to task, however, they will have to prove their case in more detail. It happens a lot. They will have to produce notes, show the method they used to clock your speed, show that the equipment was working properly, show what the speed limit actually was at the place you got stopped, and often produce their prior record as an LEO. In the daily run of the mill case, they don't need to do that because the judge is pretty familiar with such cases, and believes the integrity of the officer and because even the ticketed person never complains that the cop did anything wrong but just says the officer must be mistaken. Enough complaints about a cop doing stuff wrong will get him censored, reprimanded, fined, or even fired; but those complaints do need to be documented. Another reason for documentation is that people, especially guilty ones, often try to set up the cop with a complaint so that the cop will get in trouble and look less credible thereby reducing or negating the original charges.
The system we have now is not perfect, but that is all part of human nature. This is not an excuse but an explanation. I don't need to excuse human nature. Sometimes our nature sucks, but when you see that same cop who you complain about: giving CPR to your child after some freak accident, or when the cop is struck and killed by a speeding drunk driver as he writes a ticket to another speeder on the side of the road, or when that same cop takes a bullet in a hostage situation trying to save a group of people who some crazy is holding, or when you see one cop the hero for justifiably shooting an crazed criminal of his own race, yet another under virtually identical circumstances gets fried in the press and by both civil and criminal courts because he shot a crazed criminal of another race - then maybe you will understand (not condone but just understand) why they don't always give one another tickets all that often.
John,
I have read some articles on this recent event called Operation Slither. I have not seen any references to the coke snorting and pot smoking of which you refer. These things, by the way would be illegal for a LEO to do in any investigation except maybe where someone's life depended on it in the immediate time frame (such as if you don't smoke this joint I'll kill you because then I'll know your a cop - and the guy has a gun shoved in your face). Even then, as I remember my training, I am not supposed to puff away, but I think I'd rather puff on a doobie than the barrel of a 44 magnum!
I am not saying that the things you report did not actually happen, but it was not reported in the few articles I saw and I will say I strongly doubt it did actually happen. LEOs do not smoke pot and snort coke to further investigations. In fact, they often make it look as if that is what they are doing, but some officers are pretty well trained in how to fake it.
As for other actions, there is very possibly absolutely nothing wrong with them:QUOTE]In one instance one official sold a turtle to one vender at a show and not 30 minutes later another official bought it back from him.[/QUOTE]Guess what, actions like this by the police are perfectly legal (dependent upon local, state or federal regulations that are applicable to the case). That is how undercover operations are often legally carried out. So long as the police did not entrap the offender (such as by offering the illegal item at a ridiculously lowball price, or by offering to buy it an an absurdly high price) at the time of either event buying or selling, then such was likely alright legally.
You also mentioned that wildlife officials raped the woods - I imagine you mean they caught some animals to use in the sting operation. If that was the case, my guess would be that these animals are returned to the wild pretty close to where each was found. My other guess is that there are sections in the law permitting wildlife officers to capture wildlife for study and appropriate purposes. Chances are they did what they did legally. I see absolutely nothing wrong with them using a turtle as bait to catch someone who would illegally buy and sell such, It is a fact that people who do so are bringing down the pet industry, the herp hobby, and are screwing wit the environment. Sure I know some environmental laws, and laws about herp keeping suck, but that is why you need to properly keep what you can and educate the public and politicians about these animals while overcoming the prejudice against reptiles and their keepers at the same time.
I am pretty open to change my mind about what went on at operation slither - just send me the links and I'll read the articles or forums; but for now my guess would be that this was another run of the mill undercover operation.
Best regards,
Glenn b
