http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6343623Oh my.
The liar-in-Lost-Angeles primitive, who has NOT donated to Skins's island:
Liberal_in_LA (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-19-09 03:44 AM
Original message
Santa Monica is seeing the effects of pot decriminalization - no more arrests for pot use in homes
Three years after Measure Y, Santa Monica is seeing the effects of pot decriminalization
An in-depth review of police data by the Santa Monica Daily Press has revealed that Measure Y -- which made adult marijuana offenses on private property the lowest priority of the Santa Monica Police Department -- is having a big effect on drug enforcement.
According to the study, in the two years since measure Y took effect, Santa Monica has not issued a single citation for offenses involving the personal use of marijuana in private residences.
Supporters of marijuana decriminalization are hailing the findings as proof that Santa Monica is moving in the right direction with its marijuana policy.
"There's no harm done by individuals smoking marijuana in the privacy of their homes," said Bill Zimmerman, president of the political consulting firm Zimmerman and Markman and campaign manager for Proposition 215. "Why would we waste our police resources on an offense that 10 million Americans — including our three most recent presidents — have admitted engaging in?"
The Santa Monica police, on the other hand, claim that marijuana-related calls were already a low priority and argue that the measure is hampering the department's ability to enforce the law.
"It imposes administrative rules for something that isn't really there," said Sgt. Jay Trisler. "It just took one component of enforcement — inside residences — and delayed it due to prioritization of calls."
"Previously, we could respond in time to get there while someone was still smoking," Trisler added. "Now, we can't usually respond while the crime is still occurring, and that's resulting in possibly not finding larger crimes."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2009/08/t...
Predictably, it's a large bonfire, so only a few primitive comments, selected at random:
First up, the maudlin waif primitive, who has NOT donated to Skins's island:
Mythsaje (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-19-09 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. But let's remember that cops don't really support the drug war...
Sgt. Trisler? Please go **** yourself. With a taser, preferably.
Mythsaje (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-19-09 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well, there just aren't enough crimes happening where people can see them...
Prisons don't just fill themselves, you know.
Mythsaje (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-19-09 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I know Seattle has a "lowest priority" thing going passed by the voters a few years ago. They had signature gatherers at Bumbershoot one year when I went.
Sounds like the cops in this story are arguing against it, even though it really is the most rational stance they can take. I'm sure former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper would agree. It's too bad they want to waste their time pursuing victimless crimes in the hopes of stumbling upon a real one.
Mythsaje (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-19-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Their mentality is their own... can't blame THAT on legislators.
Can blame it on the whole militant "brotherhood" shit, though. And I do.
Mythsaje (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-20-09 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
28. Is it ethical to enforce a law one does not believe in, especially when one knows that lives might be destroyed and families torn apart because of a decision made by the police officer on the scene with the potential power to change those lives forever? Law and justice are two very different things, and if in serving law one also serves injustice, is that ethically and morally right?
Let's say you catch one of your buddies or their wife doing something illegal but not particularly dangerous. (Say skinny-dipping in the middle of the night on a secluded beach). Do you make a judgment call and pretend you didn't see it, thus sparing them the possibility of public humiliation and permanent stigma as sex offenders, or do you obey the law and destroy their lives?
Or say you respond to a call at an apartment building and, while dealing with one situation, you catch a whiff of marijuana emanating from a nearby apartment. Upon investigating, you find a middle age couple who are apparently sitting in their own home, watching television, and indulging in a generally benign intoxicant that happens to be illegal? Say they didn't hide their bong well enough and you can see it from where you stand at the door, thus giving you even more probable cause than just the smell.
The law says that you should at least arrest them for possession. Do you? Or do you attempt to confiscate their stash to "teach them a lesson?" (The lesson being you can't be robbed by a cop, despite all evidence to the contrary). And, yes, this happens. I've seen it. There were a couple of cops in Auburn many years ago who were notorious for that sort of thing.
It says a lot about you that you are a DUer, Paulsby, and that you're willing to discuss these things as openly as you do. But I have to ask you to realize the big picture here, and understand that one can follow the intent of the law with the best of intentions and still find oneself on the short end of an ethical dilemma. At what point does humanity trump legality?
You know as well as I do that you make judgment calls all the time that have nothing to do with the law. To let someone go with a warning you might have had dead to rights for a traffic infraction. To ignore the jaywalker because you really don't want to do the paperwork on a stupid ticket like that. That sort of thing. You can't honestly claim that you're "just doing your job." It's more than that, and if you were being honest, you'd admit it.
I realize we'll probably never agree on what the appropriate use of force is, and where the line should be drawn between reasonable application and brutality. As long as you never pull me over and taser me for rolling my eyes at you, I suppose we can agree to disagree on the point. I'll continue to criticize cops for tolerating bullies and sadists within their ranks and you'll continue to believe that you don't tolerate them.
I'll never forget being threatened with a K-9 for having the nerve to walk home from work along a main drag wearing a dark, heavy jacket in the middle of winter, told that "if I ever catch you out here dressed like that again, I'll sick my dog on you." I was doing nothing wrong and that incident itself turned a natural wariness into an active dislike of bully cops. I was powerless to do anything about it and that sucked. And, if I'm not mistaken, that's assault. Or, at least, it would be assault if a civilian did it.
I know you want to assume I just hate cops indiscriminately, but that's not the case. I just hate asshole cops. And I wish people like you hated them as much as I do. You have the power to destroy lives without even blinking and have to realize that that power comes at a price. Power without the moderating factor of social obligation is a dangerous thing. And since we citizens have only a limited ability to provide oversight, it falls upon the good cops to do so. When you don't, society as a whole suffers and respect for law and law enforcement takes a hit.
That cop who threatened me had a partner. A human partner who did nothing while he threatened me. Though he himself didn't engage in that behavior, he also didn't do anything about it. Which makes him, in my eyes, no less guilty than the other cop. That's the way it works with criminals, isn't it? If you're there, you're equally guilty. Right?
Mythsaje (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-20-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Being naked in a public place is a crime, whether or not someone is on hand to observe it (someone beside the theoretical cop, that is). Just the possibility someone might see them makes it not only a crime, but a crime with sexual connotations. People have ended up on the sexual predator list for nothing more. And, yes, lives have been destroyed.
You have a certain amount of flexibility, a flexibility which a good cop uses to prevent doing harm, or to prevent harm from occurring due to their involvement. And while a bad cop might deliberately escalate a situation in order to satisfy a need to flex one's muscles, or exercise one's power, a good cop would avoid doing so because the negatives would outweigh the positives.
You might well be the kind of officer who'd step out of the crowd to report on a colleague who crossed the line. But let's be honest here. It's not as though that really happens very often. Pretty much every time we've seen something submitted by citizens that suggests such a line has been crossed, the police close up ranks and no one steps forward.
Mythsaje (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-20-09 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #16
30. I generally agree...
Cocaine can mess some people up very bad, but it isn't nearly as vicious as meth. I saw meth addiction first hand twenty-five years ago in Sacramento and I KNEW the shit would be a problem. Though I'd not go so far as to say it causes crime in and of itself (that distinction belongs to alcohol), I do know that it can cause some ****ed up, stupid behavior. Not to mention aggression.
Weird thing about coke, though, is that nearly every serious coke-head I've ever met couldn't tell the truth if their life depended on it. It's like lying becomes second nature. And about stuff that didn't even matter. Very weird.
Mythsaje (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-20-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. Well, according to the FBI it does.
Precisely because of the reasons you suggest. Alcohol contributes to all kinds of crime, from DUIs to public urination to vandalism to assault and rape, often leading to actions that the person would never have contemplated while sober. When inhibitions are lowered to the point that a sudden impulse overrides any semblance of good sense, it's hard to say whether it "causes" crime or simply makes it far, far more likely that a crime will happen.
That's all very interesting, this primitive bibble-babble, but at the end of the bonfire, one is still left wondering why the maudlin waif primitive hasn't donated to Skins's island.
