Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
Lol, jar_e states that he's policing in the absolute best possible way that every officer and police service should strive for
And he gets a pat on the head of a child style "I don't think your intentions are bad" response from IggyOi. That is hilarious.
|
Yup, jar_e (who I am literally judging based only on what he's said in the last few hours) presents as pretty much the gold standard for policing. Using good judgement, thinking about what's best for the person he's dealing with, focusing on the outcome and not the piece of paper. That's the bar, that's where you want every officer to get to.
The response? "I don't fault you for your approach/I don't think your intentions are bad." Really? That's the lightest way you could possibly say "thank you for having a great approach and having great intentions." Because that's the appropriate response here.
Laws
should act as guidelines, that's what we
should be striving for. Not some archaic "so it is written, so it shall be done" mentality. I understand the thinking that if you leave some things up to discretion it allows for people to be treated unequally based on pretty dubious conditions, but if you leave nothing up to discretion, all you're left with is a bunch of laws that might not really make sense and police officers who have no choice but to enforce them. You want a $78 ticket for going 81 in an 80? Congrats, that's your new reality. You want a ticket every time you jaywalk, even if it's perfectly safe? Congrats, you got it.
What it does is set up a system where more time and resources is poured into petty crime and minor offenses, and less time spent on education and building positive experiences with the communities they serve to protect. That's the goal of everything happening, that outcome. If you want to further destroy the relationships between police and the communities they serve, having them become objective penalty machines is a fast way to do it. So, good luck with that.