Police honored for firing at the wrong family

[BT]

I don't believe i claimed cops don't screw up. Are you saying this incident is representative of police work nationwide?

[Universe Prince]

The quote suggests that rather than assume guilt and expect innocence (or at least not guilty status) to be proven later, and rather than simply be out to get the bad guys, officers of the law are supposed to uphold the law even when the law gives protection to the bad guys and/or the guilty.

That makes no sense. The quote itself says officers are to enforce the law. Is the quote suggesting that the majority of arrests are unlawful?

I don't see anything in the quote commenting on the legality of the majority of arrests. It merely suggests what I said it suggests. It seems straightforward to me.

Yes, the quote does speak of enforcing the law. Not bending the law, distorting the law, or otherwise circumventing the law to arrest the presumed guilty and/or get the bad guys. The quote is not an anti-police quote. It is not an anti-arrests quote. It is not an anti-law quote. It is not an anti-government authority quote. It is, in fact, pro-law, pro-government and pro-police. The reason I chose to use it is because it is also a pro-justice quote. Or, if you prefer, and anti-abuse-of-authority quote. I think it speaks to much that is wrong in our justice and political systems. Hopefully my use of the quote will prompt some people think about the matter.

So thank you for pointing out the quote and giving me an excuse to say more about it.

[BT]

Which brings us back full circle. How do you enforce the law, while upholding the law, without arrests.

This part indicates that arrests are not the favored action:

Captain, I don't think a policeman should work like a dog catcher in putting criminals behind bars.

Dog catchers are primarily charged with rounding up loose unleashed uncontrolled canines in violation of local ordinance. They either respond to a complaint or observe a transgression first hand. If they don't capture the strays they are derelict in their duties.

Can the same not be said for policemen?

The quote seems contradictory to me.

[Universe Prince]

Which brings us back full circle. How do you enforce the law, while upholding the law, without arrests.

No one is arguing that police should never make arrests. You're taking one quote that is outside its context and trying to extrapolate the quote into some sort of anti-law-enforcement diatribe. I have no idea why. Have you seen the movie "Touch of Evil"? If not, I suggest you watch it.

This part indicates that arrests are not the favored action:

Captain, I don't think a policeman should work like a dog catcher in putting criminals behind bars.

Dog catchers are primarily charged with rounding up loose unleashed uncontrolled canines in violation of local ordinance. They either respond to a complaint or observe a transgression first hand. If they don't capture the strays they are derelict in their duties.

Can the same not be said for policemen?

The quote seems contradictory to me.

Yes, I'm sure it does.

Anyway, I've explained what the quote means. If you really want to think it is some sort of anti-arrest or anti-law-enforcement comment, I doubt I can stop you. This has gone about as far any discussion between us can go. I'm not even going to publicly wonder why you chose this particular thread to criticize the quote in my signature.

[BT]

I don't believe i was criticizing the quote in your signature.

I didn't understand the contradictions built into it. And simply sought clarification. I took the quote at face value. The first sentence does seem to criticize arrest. In context. And no i haven't seen the movie. Is that necessary to understand the quote?

I never placed a value to the quote. Never said it was anti-arrest or anti- police or anti-anything.

My point was it seemed to be contradictory.

And to me it still is.

[Universe Prince]

I don't believe i was criticizing the quote in your signature.

Yes, I know. You never criticize. You merely question and refuse to answer questions. You question the soundness of comments made by others and seek clarification while refusing clarifications to others. But you never, never criticize.

I didn't understand the contradictions built into it. And simply sought clarification. I took the quote at face value. The first sentence does seem to criticize arrest. In context.

No, it does not criticize arrest. It criticizes a method or operating procedure for determining who is to be arrested. It does not say "I don't think a policeman should work putting criminals behind bars." It says, "I don't think a policeman should work like a dog catcher in putting criminals behind bars." You may think the methods of dog catchers are just fine. Some folks are not so keen on rounding people like dogs as police procedure.

And no i haven't seen the movie. Is that necessary to understand the quote?

Not at all. However, you seem to have dismissed everything I said about the meaning of the quote. I thought perhaps you would prefer to see the source for yourself.

I never placed a value to the quote. Never said it was anti-arrest or anti- police or anti-anything.

My point was it seemed to be contradictory.

And to me it still is.

No, you never said it was anti-arrest, but you keep insisting it must mean that the police should not arrest people. I shortened that to "anti-arrest". You'll have to forgive my deep stupidity in not being able to tell the difference between it being a statement that the police should not arrest people and a statement that is anti-arrest. The nuance there is apparently too fine for me to discover it.

As for it being contradictory, well, I've tried to help that as best I can. So far, it doesn't seem to make any difference. At this point, I wonder why I bother.

I'll give the quote some context if it'll help, but I won't hold my breath. A murder has occurred and the police are harassing a suspect and ransacking his apartment. The police captain, Hank Quinlan is having an argument with a Mexican narcotics cop, Mike Vargas, about police procedure. During that scene comes this exchange:

Quinlan: Our friend Vargas has some very special ideas about police procedure. He seems to think it don't matter whether killers hang or not, so long as we obey the fine print. Vargas: Captain, I don't think a policeman should work like a dog catcher in putting criminals behind bars. No! In any free country, a policeman is supposed to enforce the law, and the law protects the guilty as well as the innocent. Quinlan: Our job is tough enough. Vargas: It's supposed to be. It has to be tough. A policeman's job is only easy in a police state. That's the whole point, Captain - who's the boss, the cop or the law?

If it's still unclear to you, there isn't a whole lot else I can do.

[BT]

Thank you for the context from which your quote as excerpted. It does flesh it out a bit.

[kimba1]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399882,00.html

wow
not sorry for killing the dogs
since it`s the mayor
do you think their will be a change or is the police too strong to be effected.

[Amianthus]

since it`s the mayor
do you think their will be a change or is the police too strong to be effected.

Well, it was the county police that did the raid (probably supported by the state police). Berwyn Heights is a pretty tiny town (just looked up the population, less than 3,000.) The local police did not even know about the raid. The Baltimore Sun has published a letter written by the Mayor. Apparently the police involved in the raid didn't even know (or believe) that he was the Mayor.

[kimba1]

actually
with enough twisted thinking(i`m the guy do it)
that means it`s a clean bust.
since it`s a small town,it`s too under the radar to even bother with a warrant.

[BT]

actually
with enough twisted thinking(i`m the guy do it)
that means it`s a clean bust.
since it`s a small town,it`s too under the radar to even bother with a warrant.

What makes you think they didn't have a warrant?

[Amianthus]

What makes you think they didn't have a warrant?

Calvo said authorities entered his home without knocking and refused to show him a warrant when he requested one.

But Prince George's County Police Department spokeswoman Sharon Taylor said legal counsel had informed her that "no-knock" warrants do not exist in Maryland.

http://us.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/index.html

[BT]

 Says here they had a warrant:

Taylor said authorities were acting on a warrant issued based on information available to them at the time.

"This warrant was for permission to search the premises," she said. "The special operations team that supported us made a decision about the necessity of entry at the point of being on the scene."

From the same link.

[Amianthus]

Says here they had a warrant:

Then why have they failed to produce it? It's nearly two weeks later, and last I heard no one has shown the warrant to Mayor Calvo. And if they had a warrant, why did they fail to knock? After all, "Prince George's County Police Department spokeswoman Sharon Taylor said legal counsel had informed her that 'no-knock' warrants do not exist in Maryland."

[Amianthus]

OK, found another article that says they did finally produce the warrant:

Another issue that could arise in court is whether officers provided Calvo a copy of the warrant at the time of the raid, as required by law. Maloney said they did not, even though a detective signed a sworn statement to the judge indicating that he had. Instead, the detective brought the warrant to Calvo several days later, Maloney said.

From the same article:

Prince George's County authorities did not have a "no-knock" warrant when they burst into the home of a mayor July 29, shooting and killing his two dogs -- contrary to what police said after the incident.

Judges in Maryland can grant police the right to enter a building and serve a search warrant without knocking if the judge finds there is reasonable suspicion to think evidence might be destroyed or the officers' safety might be endangered in announcing themselves.

A Prince George's police spokesman said last week that a Sheriff's Office SWAT team and county police narcotics officers were operating under such a warrant when they broke down the door of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo, shooting and killing his black Labrador retrievers.

But a review of the warrant indicates that police neither sought nor received permission from Circuit Court Judge Albert W. Northrup to enter without knocking. Northrup found probable cause to suspect that drugs might be in the house and granted police a standard search warrant.

"There's nothing in the four corners of the warrant saying anything about the Calvos being a threat to law enforcement," said Calvo's attorney, Timothy Maloney. "This was a lawless act by law enforcement."

Article