Enforcement
Entirely too much energy of our state police force is spent controlling honest citizens, simply because it is something they can succeed in doing.
Of course. You see, it’s easier to control them because they are honest. Going after violent criminals is hard. They shoot back. Some advocate practicing on the people to justify their ninja toys but when it’s dangerous, they use a phone call.
December 30th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Read a great article you linked to a couple of weeks ago about the current state of affairs in California. One of the lines that stuck in my head was “We need middle class misdemeanors to pay for lower class felonies.” Ouch.
December 30th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
The federal civil service system incentivizes messing with citizens. Lots of civilian government employees have a job that is essentially “protecting people.” But doing that job well does not earn bonuses or promotions. To get a bonus or promotion, a bureaucrat has to be part of something big and unique – usually writing a new regulation or guidance, or implementing a new policy.
In the private sector, one becomes rich by finding a need and filling it. In the public sector, one become rich by finding a need for more government regulation and filling it.
December 30th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
The police merely enforce laws and often have little discretion on some of them. Nanny state politicians who pass silly laws are the problem.
December 30th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
I’ll start believing that when I stop seeing police officers, chiefs, sheriffs, and LE Organization lobbyists testifying at legislative committee meetings on why these silly laws are needed so urgently. The ban on texting while driving comes to mind. Lots of police presence and input for that one.
December 30th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
“I’ll start believing that when I stop seeing police officers, chiefs, sheriffs, and LE Organization lobbyists testifying at legislative committee meetings on why these silly laws are needed so urgently. The ban on texting while driving comes to mind. Lots of police presence and input for that one.” Its called distracted driving and it is a problem. And what about no smoking within 20′ of a building, incandescent light blubs, mandatory bicycle helment use, etc? I don’t recall LEOs testifying on those.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Mike V., I don’t know about your state, but here in FL the legislature have always been notorious roundheels for any silly law the cop lobby proposed to them. Officer Safety, you know.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Why are emergency workers exempt, then? Either it’s a problem and everyone needs to knock it off, or it’s manageable and everyone should be allowed to do it. If its a problem for me to send “on my way” as I’m pulling out of my driveway, why isn’t it a problem for Doug the Paramedic to send “Whatcha doin tonight?” while going 60 miles an hour with a patient in the back?
Also, distracted driving was already an offense. Instead of clamoring for a new law, the law enforcement folks should have just said “Hey, we’re law enforcement. We enforce laws, and LOOK! There’s this one that we can use! Please stop duplicating stuff.”
The point is, if they want to stop having to enforce silly laws, they should stop endorsing and requesting silly laws.
I’d love to see some mechanism in place where in order for someone to be charged with a crime, there must be a clearly articulated victim that agrees a crime occurred and a clearly articulated harm occurred(death of the victim, obviously, being a substitute for a victim’s agreement).
December 30th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
So it’s OK for cops to drive around with a live laptop computer mounted on the dash?
One of those couldn’t possibly distract a driver.
December 31st, 2011 at 11:34 am
Mike, is the driver operating the vehicle recklessly? Isn’t that already against the law?
December 31st, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Anarcho-tyranny.