The violation is just as bad, and I said as much. Where the difference lies is with how the overzealous officer handles himself afterwards.
As I said, everyone makes mistakes. Unfortunately, sometimes when some people make mistakes others get inured or die, and other have their rights violated. I wish as much as any one that we could eliminate these mistakes, but we cannot, and probably will never be able to do so. Until that time, we have to live with the reality that mistakes happen, and when some people make mistakes, really bad things happen as a result. Its how the overzealous officer handles themselves when they make a mistake like this that I think is important. I think most people will agree, they can accept that mistakes happen. I also think most people would agree the best way to handle any mistake, or any size, regardless of the outcome, is to 'man up', admit the mistake, and learn from it. I think an overzealous officer can learn to be a 'good' officer, I do not think a 'bad' or 'corrupt' officer can. On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Overzealous to me is just as bad as a bad officer. The intention is > irrelevant as the end result is the same. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 11:30 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: US Man refuses to answer Immigration questions.Apparently, he > was right. > > > I think you are back stepping a little, or maybe just clarifying your > position. > > Pretty sure it was you who made a comment earlier that was similar to > 'I assume all cops are bad until proven otherwise'. > > There is a way to protect your rights and NOT have this attitude. > Which I guess is also part of my point. > > I also think there also is a big difference between a 'bad' police > officer and say, an over zealous one, even though they often get > lumped together. > > A 'bad' police officer, to me is one who disrespects their profession > willingly. One who actions are designed to purposely violate your > rights. These guys make me sick. I have encountered a few of them > myself. They are pretty much scum. > > I do not think an over zealous police officer ever intends to violates > someone's rights (does not make it any less wrong), but, instead, in > some cases, they may have been genuine in their actions, but did not > fully contemplate the results of their actions. > > I will not try and say that if your rights are violated by a bad > officer it is worse than if they are violated by an over zealous one > (because its not - a violation of your rights is a violation of > rights, regardless of whether or not that was the intended goal), > however, there is one very important difference. The over zealous > stands to learn from the experience and become a better police > officer, maybe even a better person, the 'bad' one won't give a shit. > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Sisk, Kris <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I never said it was fair. It is, however practical and often necessary >> with officers. As someone else pointed out it's not so much a matter of >> prejudging them as it is a matter of taking precautions to protect >> yourself. >> >> Let's put this another way: Imagine you're in an area where open carry >> is legal and you see a man covered head to toe in tattoos, including >> some that have shown up in TV dramas as depictions of gang tattoos, and >> wearing a wife beater with a gun on his hip. I'd venture a guess that >> you'd go out of your way to avoid this person. >> >> You're right that prejudging people is wrong, but there is a difference >> between thinking that all officers are bad and taking the protections >> afforded to you just in case the one who just stopped you is. Just like >> there would be a difference between assuming the man in the example >> above is a criminal and going out of your way to not irritate him. >> >> What it boils down to is this: the law gives us certain rights to >> protect ourselves. Contrary to popular belief, these protections are >> there to protect the innocent, not the guilty. If you choose not to use >> that right to protect yourself, fine, whatever. To me that's kinda like >> cutting in line at the checkout counter in front of that guy in my >> example above. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 9:53 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: US Man refuses to answer Immigration questions.Apparently, >> he was right. >> >> >> Kris, slice it any way you want, justify it any way you want. you are >> still judging an entire group of people based on the words and actions >> of a few. If its wrong to do that for one group, its wrong to do it >> for all groups. >> >> I will try one more example. I recently had a discussion about those >> who 'cheat' the system, in terms of welfare, medicaid, etc. >> >> I think it is safe to assume that there are as many people in each >> town who 'cheat the system' as their are 'bad cops'. Would it be fair >> to automatically assume that all people on welfare are cheating the >> system until proven otherwise? No, it wouldn't. >> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:327562 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
