Police Tactics

[Autolykos]

Greetings, everyone. I'd like to share a little anecdote about police tactics in this day and age.

This past Saturday night, one of my friends held a party. Many people came, and we carried on well into the early morning. (I myself didn't get there until nearly midnight.) Due to our noise-making, one of my friend's neighbors called the police. Upon their arrival, the police could easily see that we were partying and drinking. They told my friend that everyone had to leave. Some people did leave, but most of us (including me) stayed. Our impression was that the cops would wait for some people to leave, figure the party would die down, and then leave themselves.

As it turns out, our impressions were only partly correct. We soon heard, from those who had left, that the cops were waiting patiently by the front entrance to the subdivision. At least one driver was pulled over by one of the cops and was told to perform a field sobriety test, which I believe he passed. However, the point is clear. The cops, having seen that we were drinking, said that we had to leave, i.e. drive home. In the meantime, knowing that at least some of us would probably obey, they waited for cars to pass them by, which they would then pull over in the hopes of charging the driver with a DUI. There is a term for this procedure. It is called entrapment, and it is supposed to be illegal.

Due to this and other incidents, it seems apparent to me that the police are making entrapment part of their standard procedure. For those who don't know, the formal definition of "entrapment" is "forcing a person to commit a crime that they have not yet committed and otherwise would not commit". To me, this perfectly demonstrates the flawed foundation of modern police forces. They supposedly exist to fight and prevent crime, yet they depend on crime for their livelihood. In other words, the less crime that occurs, the less of a justification they have to keep operating at the same levels. Therefore, it is in the interests of police to maximize the amount of behavior that is considered to be crime so that they can continue to justify current (and higher) operating levels. Of course, it should come as no surprise that this is how all bureaucracies work, and that modern police forces constitute a bureaucracy.

As a result, I think my story serves to show how the police do not actually try to fight or prevent crime. Rather, they seek out crime so that they can get more money. In other words, crime may not pay for criminals, but it does pay for cops.

Any thoughts?

- Rob

[zynner]

Yes, it is also related to asset forfeiture. They can steal your cash or other property, charge you with no crime, give you no trial, and keep your property to pay for their operating budget, clearly ignoring constitutional rights. Why?

It's because the state has reached a point now where it's primary objective is no longer protection of individuals' rights, but the perpetuation of the state's existence.

BTW: Will your friends be able to right this wrong, or will the courts (government employees) engage in additional abuse?

~ zynner

[Boetie]

Autolykos,

It's not entrapment. Those whom were drunk could call friends or family or have some one there whom wasn't drinking to drive them home.

As for the police waiting this is done quite often. For instance what if a police waits near a bar that is about to close and pulls someone leaving the bar over and gets a DUI?

I have no problem with the police getting drunks off the street, by whatever means. But if you want to hear something really thought provoking, how about a drunk driver with a fifth offence finally killing someone and that drunk driver didn't even lose his or her license after four offences?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: zynner Yes, it is also related to asset forfeiture. They can steal your cash or other property, charge you with no crime, give you no trial, and keep your property to pay for their operating budget, clearly ignoring constitutional rights. Why? It's because the state has reached a point now where it's primary objective is no longer protection of individuals' rights, but the perpetuation of the state's existence.

When has the State's primary objective ever been the protection of individuals' rights? To me, it's primary objective has always been to perpetuate itself.

Quote by: zynner BTW: Will your friends be able to right this wrong, or will the courts (government employees) engage in additional abuse?

None of them were charged with anything.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Boetie Autolykos, It's not entrapment. Those whom were drunk could call friends or family or have some one there whom wasn't drinking to drive them home.

Perhaps this is true, but how likely do you think it is? Besides, the only ones who left were those who had designated drivers. At least one of them was pulled over and asked to perform a field sobriety test, despite the fact that he was sober. All because the cop claimed he could "smell alcohol in the car".

Quote by: Boetie As for the police waiting this is done quite often. For instance what if a police waits near a bar that is about to close and pulls someone leaving the bar over and gets a DUI?

False analogy. A true analogy would be if the cops came in and told the bar to close down, forcing everyone to leave, and then waited at the entrance to snag people for DUIs (or perhaps even public intoxication).

Something I forgot to mention earlier: When the cops saw that not "enough" people were leaving, they came back and notified us that we had to move all of the cars parked on the street so that they were facing in the right direction on the right side. Otherwise, they would be ticketed. Along with the fact that, from what I understand, a person can be charged with a DUI even if his car is stationary, I fail to see how this cannot be de facto entrapment.

Those of us whose cars were facing the wrong direction (including mine) went out to turn them around while others served as "spotters" looking for the cops. So, technically, I committed a DUI while moving my car.

Quote by: Boetie I have no problem with the police getting drunks off the street, by whatever means. But if you want to hear something really thought provoking, how about a drunk driver with a fifth offence finally killing someone and that drunk driver didn't even lose his or her license after four offences?

I'd have to agree with you there. That person should've lost his license well before that.

- Rob

[tman_ndsu08]

I hate to say it lykos, but the police didn't say that people had to leave by driving themselves.

Taxi cabs, called friends, walking, etc.

[jose]

The recent killing of an unarmed Virginia doctor has raised concerns about what some say is an explosion in the use of military-style police Swat teams in the United States.

Armed with assault rifles, stun grenades - even armoured personnel carriers - units once used only in highly volatile situations are increasingly being deployed on more routine police missions.

Dr Salvatore Culosi Jr had come out of his townhouse to meet an undercover policeman when he was shot through the chest by a Special Weapons and Tactics force.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4803570.stm

[Autolykos]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I hate to say it lykos, but the police didn't say that people had to leave by driving themselves. Taxi cabs, called friends, walking, etc.

As I already mentioned, the only people who left were those who had designated drivers among them. However, if you want to get technical about it, that's fine. Technically, you're right. But do you really think the cops expected anyone to do those things? I doubt it. My wager is, they expected some of us (at least) to try to drive home after drinking. Otherwise, they wouldn't have waited outside of the housing complex.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: jose The recent killing of an unarmed Virginia doctor has raised concerns about what some say is an explosion in the use of military-style police Swat teams in the United States. Armed with assault rifles, stun grenades - even armoured personnel carriers - units once used only in highly volatile situations are increasingly being deployed on more routine police missions. Dr Salvatore Culosi Jr had come out of his townhouse to meet an undercover policeman when he was shot through the chest by a Special Weapons and Tactics force. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4803570.stm

Yes, I read that article today, too. I think this line is most poignant (spoken by Dr Peter Kraska):

"The problem is that when you talk about the war on this and the war on that, and police officers see themselves as soldiers, then the civilian becomes the enemy."

In an age where domestic policy is frequently expressed in terms of war, what other conclusion could one reach?

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

The police can indeed be observed "baiting" people, even if it cannot be contrued as entapment. They also do use entrapment, depending on what they deem the atrocity of the crime to be. ( examples include child porn, sending drugs through the mail, prostitution, hiring a hit man )


I have observed the police doing things that were obviously criminal, ( including taking the cuffs off of my neighbor so he, and an officer could fist fightright in the middle of my street, and police women pretending to be prostitutes ) I also believe I have been a victim of profiling ( Third shift = easy DUI on drunks leaving the bar ) and many smaller questionable incidents in my time in the ghetto.


Who watches the watchers? ( Often, nobody in my experience )

[Autolykos]

Milton, I am sorry to hear about those incidents that you've experienced. However, I cannot say that I'm not surprised by them.

I'm thinking that "profiling" is no longer an accurate term. Perhaps a better term to use in its place is "assuming". We know what ultimately happens when someone does that.

Speaking of female cops dressing as prostitutes... that is certainly entrapment in my book. In fact, it stands to reason that a man accused of soliciting prostitution, when in reality he was soliciting a female cop, could and should not be charged, since he was in fact committing no crime. That is, the crime of soliciting prostitution presumes that the person being solicited is a prostitute in the first place.

Then again, as I've said before, cops aren't after justice... they're after our money. And they obviously can never get enough of it.

- Rob