<p>ADad - You are far too reasonable to be posting on this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, we can use your logic to conclude the following-If people like Emily Good use their cell phone cameras to record every person in town doing their job, it is a nondiscriminatory campaign to improve job performance. If they use their cameras only to record police officers doing their jobs, it is harassment.</p>
<p>
You do not see the difference between … a private citizen deciding when to exercize their rights … and the authorities/police choosing to selectively enforce a law against someone with whom they have an issue?</p>
<p>^^ Um, I’d like to point out that Good had no authority over the policemen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Selectively exploiting the law is the same no matter who does it, IMO.</p>
<p>Cuse - I’m with you Man! You go grab Good, and we’ll tour homes of Rochester policemen. Any car we find parked too far from the curb we’ll ticket and tow! Righteous Brother! Equal authority for all!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t have a problem with that at all, if we had the legal authority to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Police have the power to arrest or summon Emily Good to court. Emily Good does not have the power to arrest or summon the Police (as you essentially pointed out in #87). </p>
<p>The power to arrest and summon is a unique, dangerous power. Those with that power are therefore subject to special constraints, constraints that may not apply to other people. </p>
<p>One of those constraints is that they must not use that dangerous power to strike out uniquely against those who disagree with them. They must not, for example, organize a campaign to arrest or summon only or mainly those who disagree with them, or only or mainly those who wish to scrutinize the exercising of the dangerous power to arrest or summon.</p>
<p>Police are savages.</p>
<p>Here’s one reason why the cops don’t want bystanders standing too close:</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Guy Helps His Friend Escape From The Police](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>
<p>Police often organize campaigns to summons and arrest people it’s part of police work. It is called strict enforcement. That is often employed when they are dealing with a chronic or dangerous problem. The police also have the power of discretion and they use it often. Are there bad apples and can it be used improperly? Sure, there are bad in every profession (especially lawyers and politicians) but that is not the norm. It is also how the law is applied by them. They have the discretion to summons as well as arrest in many instances. So is it lawful for you to be stopped and warned for going through a red light and the next guy ticketed for the same violation? Yes. So when that argumentative/60’s fight the power type person shows their true colors during a police contact the police are more than happy to enforce the law to the fullest extent and **** them off.<br>
Oh, and for the OP and many others here especially those defending little Johnny and Susie. Just a little tidbit for you and I know it may be a shocker, but your kids lie to you. In all of the horrific cases you’ve pointed out with your kids most if not all were not with them, but I’m sure you have the exact story and you believed your kids 100%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing you said is contrary to what I said. </p>
<p>The Police may not organize a campaign specifically aimed at those who disagree with them. The Police may not organize a campaign specifically aimed at those who wish to scrutinize how they are using their dangerous powers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am glad you know my son so much better than I do. What I do know is that he didn’t have to tell me anything, lie or otherwise. They did not get a ticket, did not get in trouble, did not have anything other than a conversation with an officer who turned out to be nice and chatty with them. The only reason he even mentioned it is because it was an interesting event that happened to them on the way home. He wondered what he would have done if he didn’t have his ID (see my post #14) I don’t recall saying anything was horrific, I just wondered if it was normal that passengers were asked for ID. I am sure people think kids lie about everything, maybe some kids do and maybe your kids (if you have them) do, but don’t project your experiences to every kid. He had no reason to lie or even mention the stop at all. It was just a conversation we had (one of many we have, because we actually speak to each other like adults) about an event in his day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is fascinating to me that people like you are so eager to embrace authoritarianism. </p>
<p>Of course, I would bet that it is only because you see yourself on the power side of the equation. You think that the police are there to serve YOU, and keep everyone else in line, to your benefit.</p>
<p>What law was enforced? The police were not following law in these cases. They were making it up. You bet I’m against that. As would be any defender of the Constitution and the ideals of the USA.</p>
<p>Parent, if you couldn’t figure it out I was being sarcastic with the “horrific”. As with many threads this took a turn and it went to a cop bashing thread which I will not stand for. To your original post, not it is not out of line to ask the passenger for ID. It all depends on the stop and your son did the right thing and provided the ID, the stop turned in to a casual conversation and a warning, the way it should and the way many stops do. Most people talk themselves into a summons. And yes, when it comes to the authorities most kids do lie to their parents about the encounter and the parents usually believe them. I’ve brought many a teenager home while they were drunk to their parents and although in some instances the kids could not speak legibly or threw up in front of their parents they insisted the kids had not been drinking. Or the kids who physically fight with the police and insist they did not are believed even though there is video evidence to the contrary.<br>
garland, the law was being enforced in regards to the original post. The officer believed the driver was exceeding the speed limit and he had every right to stop the child with the possibility of enforcing the law agains exceeding that limit, but the child was cooperative, polite, not intoxicated and was set free as the officer was probably fishing for more than a speeder let him off with a warning as the officer saw fit to use his discretion which is well within the scope of his duties. Keep fighting the power, but be aware you will probably lose.</p>
<p>The original post asked about the passenger, not the driver. The passenger was not exceeding the speed limit.</p>
<p>What’s this fighting the power silliness? I’m standing up for my country.</p>
<p>My rebuttal (96) to the original post addressed the passenger and again it is not uncommon to ask the passenger for ID. Fighting the power is far from “silliness” as traffic stops are one of the most dangerous duties a cop can perform and seemingly innocent passengers may be asked for ID and those same passengers are capable of killing that cop on a simple traffic stop for a broken tail light or for possibly exceeding the speed limit. Just look in your own state of NJ where the troopers are still waiting for that savage Joanne Chesimard to be brought to justice. People are fighting the power every day. Many are just anti-authority, but some are violent savages with ill intent. “Silliness”, I know. BTW I have and continue to defend and stand up for my country too. Semper Fi</p>