Feeling Conflicted, cop assualts civilian and I'm not outraged

[Citizen]

I didn't "make the offense worse" because of "who did it", the trappings of power make the offense worse in a very real way.

I'm really surprised at your inability to distinguish. You're usually pretty good at seeing distinctions. Certainly, you're usually better and faster than me. What's going on here that I can distinguish betrayal of trust as an element--the element--but you can't?

The offenses are the same. The person doing it doesn't make the crime worse. What makes it worse is the betrayal. Punish the betrayal. Don't go around pretending the crime itself is worse when its actually something else that makes it worse.

 

[marshaul]

I'm really surprised at your inability to distinguish. You're usually pretty good at seeing distinctions. Certainly, you're usually better and faster than me. What's going on here that I can distinguish betrayal of trust as an element--the element--but you can't?

The offenses are the same. The person doing it doesn't make the crime worse. What makes it worse is the betrayal. Punish the betrayal. Don't go around pretending the crime itself is worse when its actually something else that makes it worse.

Because it's not the betrayal to which I am referring.

Consider the act of rape when it happens that there is no disease spread, nor pregnancy caused, nor any other form of physical abuse (say the victim was drugged). Despite these apparent mitigating factors, we still consider this one of the greatest wrongs that can be done. Why? Because of the psychological damage.

I assure you that there is psychological damage done by being victimized at the hands of an all-powerful behemoth (the state) which is simply not present in otherwise similar crimes. And it's not the betrayal which causes this (although that is a very real, but distinct, wrong), it's the mere fact of the situation: being made to feel utterly powerless is a far greater wrong than simply depriving someone of some small amount of property (as in my example).

 

[Citizen]

Because it's not the betrayal to which I am referring.

Consider the act of rape when it happens that there is no disease spread, nor pregnancy caused, nor any other form of physical abuse (say the victim was drugged). Despite these apparent mitigating factors, we still consider this one of the greatest wrongs that can be done. Why? Because of the psychological damage.

I assure you that there is psychological damage done by being victimized at the hands of an all-powerful behemoth (the state) which is simply not present in otherwise similar crimes. And it's not the betrayal which causes this (although that is a very real, but distinct, wrong), it's the mere fact of the situation: being made to feel utterly powerless is a far greater wrong than simply depriving someone of some small amount of property (as in my example).

Ummm. The reason I didn't mention this earlier was because I figured you were just in a hurry and overlooked it.

If you make a cop's offenses actionable--for real--then his victim is not powerless to fight back. The all-powerful behemoth is on the victim's side just as much as with a common criminal.

 

[MAC702]

I didn't say there was a penalty for violating oath of office.

I disagree that an offense is greater because a cop done it. The harm caused the victim is the harm caused the victim. The mere fact of being a cop doesn't make the bone more broken. ....

I wasn't trying to call you out. I was/am ignorant of the answer.

I disagree and maintain an offense is greater if a cop does it. If a man swings at another man, the fight is on. If a cop swings under the authority of the uniform, a humble citizen will just take the beating, so, yes, leading to a more likely/severe injury, with the metaphor expandable to other offenses.

 

[Citizen]

I wasn't trying to call you out. I was/am ignorant of the answer.

I disagree and maintain an offense is greater if a cop does it. If a man swings at another man, the fight is on. If a cop swings under color the authority of the uniform, a humble citizen will just take the beating, so, yes, leading to a more likely/severe injury, with the metaphor expandable to other offenses.

This I can agree with. I can see a citizen taking a beating rather than fighting back against a cop. But, the severity of the beating is the severity of the beating. Aggravated assault is already a crime. However! The cop essentially rendering the citizen defenseless because of his position is whole other matter.

On the other hand, not all cop offenses are beatings or rapes. So, the rendering defenseless to preventing physical injury applies only to a narrow few offenses. And, not all citizens will forego fighting back. So, yes. I could go along with making such a separate charge for those situations where the victim did not fight back because it was a cop. For example, aggravated assault, rape, the wife who can't defend her husband who is being tasered, etc.

 

[MAC702]

This I can agree with. I can see a citizen taking a beating rather than fighting back against a cop. But, the severity of the beating is the severity of the beating. Aggravated assault is already a crime. However! The cop essentially rendering the citizen defenseless because of his position is whole other matter...

I see no way for the cop to not have his position of authority assumed by the citizen to the point that a beating (to extend this metaphor that can be anything) would not be more severe because it was a cop doing it.

A cop can verbally assault someone with much greater likelihood of not being assaulted in return, simply because he is wearing a uniform. He couldn't help it if he tried. Many may be so used to the uniform's power, they honestly forget the power is in the uniform and think that people just respect and fear THEM, not the office.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

How about the charge of, Resisting Arrest!, with no other underlying charge?

How about, covering your face with your arms and hands,
to protect your self,
from blows of the cops night stick,
as he yells "stop resisting",
as he hits you, and yells,
and you try to protect your face again,
as he yells "stop resisting",
ETC, ETC!!!

I cant violate your rights, but Some cops will!
If I attack you, I expect you to fight back, with all of your might!
Some cops believe that they have a right to assault people, because they can get away with it.
That makes it worse than an assault or an attack or a robbery by some piece of shlt ciminal out on the street!

 

[Citizen]

I see no way for the cop to not have his position of authority assumed by the citizen to the point that a beating (to extend this metaphor that can be anything) would not be more severe because it was a cop doing it.

A cop can verbally assault someone with much greater likelihood of not being assaulted in return, simply because he is wearing a uniform. He couldn't help it if he tried. Many may be so used to the uniform's power, they honestly forget the power is in the uniform and think that people just respect and fear THEM, not the office.

I understand, but there's really no difference in severity between, say, a cop beating a man who just takes it because its a cop, and, say, an elderly man or woman who can't fight back because of age. The severity is the severity. The distinction is whether the cop's victim foregoes defending himself because its a cop.

Y'all gotta stop trying to make similarities into samenesses. Or, more precisely, stop making dissimilar things into samenesses. Use your differentiators. I know you got 'em. I've seen you use them. So, you won't have any luck convincing me you all suddenly lost them.

 

[HP995]

marshaul: I assure you that there is psychological damage done by being victimized at the hands of an all-powerful behemoth (the state) which is simply not present in otherwise similar crimes. And it's not the betrayal which causes this (although that is a very real, but distinct, wrong), it's the mere fact of the situation: being made to feel utterly powerless is a far greater wrong than simply depriving someone of some small amount of property (as in my example).

Very true. (Also physical damage, expenses, and sometimes lethal danger.)

 

[marshaul]

If you make a cop's offenses actionable--for real--then his victim is not powerless to fight back. The all-powerful behemoth is on the victim's side just as much as with a common criminal.

Right. Because the state never sides with its agents against an innocent citizen.

Back to the rape analogy: the rapist may go to jail. That doesn't leave the victim all of a sudden empowered by the experience. In the same way that a rapist may make a victim feel like he controls their entire life and fate, so too do many people who are victims of police abuse, even when the act seems relatively minor compared to other possible abuses.

 

[Citizen]

Right. Because the state never sides with its agents against an innocent citizen.

Back to the rape analogy: the rapist may go to jail. That doesn't leave the victim all of a sudden empowered by the experience. In the same way that a rapist may make a victim feel like he controls their entire life and fate, so too do many people who are victims of police abuse, even when the act seems relatively minor compared to other possible abuses.

Wait a minute. That makes no sense. Why bother to criminalize police abuses if the state isn't going to prosecute? You're arguing conditions before and after the change. Yes, the prosecutor will side with the cop unfairly sometimes--absolutes are unachievable and all that. But, if you think its going to be system wide, then you're arguing for a null law. Why make double or treble the penalty on the cop if you think it won't be enforced?

We're not getting anywhere. I'm gonna stand on what I've said so far. Thanks for helping me sort out my position by being a sounding board.

 

[marshaul]

Wait a minute. That makes no sense. Why bother to criminalize police abuses if the state isn't going to prosecute?

Oh, so now because the state is sometimes corrupt, we shouldn't bother discussing what crimes are worse? All crimes are now equal?

And who knows: it may be that "the system" is more likely to side with a cop over his victim when "all" he did was just punch the guy, because, after all, according to Citizen a punch is just a punch.

 

[MAC702]

I understand, but there's really no difference in severity between, say, a cop beating a man who just takes it because its a cop, and, say, an elderly man or woman who can't fight back because of age. The severity is the severity. The distinction is whether the cop's victim foregoes defending himself because its a cop.

Y'all gotta stop trying to make similarities into samenesses. Or, more precisely, stop making dissimilar things into samenesses. Use your differentiators. I know you got 'em. I've seen you use them. So, you won't have any luck convincing me you all suddenly lost them.

I don't think I disagree with these points. What I am trying to convey is that your scenario is impossible.

In all situations, if the attacker is wearing a uniform of the state's authority, the beating is likely to be more severe because of the fear of defense on the part of the victim.

 

[OC for ME]

Words mean things? That is extremely profound.

If you think the cop who breaks the law is equal to the citizen who breaks the law, that is your opinion. The penalty should be harsher for those who abuse their powers and do illegal actions under the color of law. The willful assumption of more responsibility and certain powers puts the greater burden on the officer. So yes, crime is crime in the broadest sense, but there are aggravating factors such as voluntarily assumed responsibility, public trust, and the duty to uphold that which is right.

Assumed responsibility means greater accountability.

Firstly, in Missouri there are a few misdemeanor laws that could only apply to "state" agents in virtually every case, regarding false official statements and official misconduct. Has a Missouri cop ever been charged let alone prosecuted for making a false official statement? Who knows and I really don't care, but the laws are on the books. Start charging cops with lying on a official police report, making a false official statement. Charge a cop for a unlawful arrest, official misconduct. Then charge that cop with assault and battery. A citizen can lodge a charge against the cop who lied on a police report. Whether or not he gets prosecuted is a different issue.

Secondly, your call for harsher punishment for cops because of their position violates equal protection under the law. You called for equal this or that under the law. Which is it? Equal or unequal?

If you want to hold liable, criminally, for violating the public trust, get a law or laws passed that hold cops liable criminally for violating the public trust. But, what you consider a violation of the public trust may be exactly another citizen believes what a cop did is exactly what that cop was supposed to do.

You continue to glom on to this false notion that cops can be held to a higher account and should be held to higher account under the law. Professionally speaking, I agree, their boss should hold them to higher account. Even the appearance of violating the public trust should bring harsh consequences as a matter of employment.

<snip>

Hell, a great place to start would be just start charging cops for criminal offenses in the first place, instead of having to go to federal court for rights violations. Make an illegal detention an assault or whatever the common law offense really is. Handcuff a guy without RAS = assault and battery. Coming onto somebody's curtilage without a warrant or warrant exception becomes trespass except unless its for a consensual encounter/knock-and-talk; remaining after being told to leave, definitely a trespass. That alone would be a huge improvement, never mind the oath-breaking angle.

All I want is for a thug cop to be charged as any citizen would be charged for the same law violation. I do not want cops held to a higher account. All I want is cops to be held to account.

 

[marshaul]

All I want is for a thug cop to be charged as any citizen would be charged for the same law violation. I do not want cops held to a higher account. All I want is cops to be held to account.

I'd prefer both.

 

[palerider116]

Redacted

 

[OC for ME]

I do not see how this violates equal protection because due process has been served through a trial and the attending functions. Harsher punishment does not violate equal protection because there are enhanced penalties for subsequent offenses for certain crimes and sentencing guidelines allow flexibility in regards to the facts of the case.

It cannot demonstrated that equal protection is violated by an enhanced penalty if a crime is committed by a LEO while acting within the scope of his duties.

It's a matter of opinion. I'm tired of arguing a matter of opinion that really has no effect on anything.

Violating the public trust is a nebulous "charge." I provided specific examples of laws, in Missouri, that cops can violate that a citizen cannot violate. I too grow tired of discussions regarding violations of the public trust by state agents.

 

[marshaul]

The SCOTUS opined in Bivens v. Six Narcotics Agents:

An agent acting -- albeit unconstitutionally -- in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/388/case.html

It may be dicta, but it supports my belief that the crime itself is inherently more severe when committed under color of law.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The SCOTUS opined in Bivens v. Six Narcotics Agents:



It may be dicta, but it supports my belief that the crime itself is inherently more severe when committed under color of law.

+1

A law enFORCEr should have no excuse of ignorance either.

 

[The Donkey]

As a practical matter, the legal system stacks the deck in favor of the police: in the courtroom, they are presumed more credible; on the street, they are presumed to be acting within the proper scope of their authority; if accused of misconduct, they are usually protected by police "Bill of Rights" statutes which immunize them from the kind of tactics often used on mere civilians to extract damaging evidence. What is more, they are the face of the government in our neighborhoods.

When they use excessive force and abuse their position and powers, they take advantage of the privileges we afford them, and seriously damage the credibility of the "people's government" in the eyes of individual citizens. It is completely logical for a 16 year old kid to question whether the laws mean anything at all after having his ass kicked by the cops for no reason at all.

That is why it is crucial to enhance penalties against the police in the rare circumstances in which they are caught abusing people and violating the law. We can understand the stresses of their very difficult jobs, and how easy it is for them to fall into frustration, rage and illegality in these circumstances, but these real dangers are very much among the reasons that we need to hold them to a higher standard, however much we may sympathize.

As a people, it is among our fundamental responsibilities to guard against the guards.