# Kindergartner arested



## BrandiJo (Apr 16, 2007)

http://www.slate.com/id/2164004/fr/flyout

I dont know if i should laugh or cry?


----------



## Carol (Apr 16, 2007)

Good lord.  One felony and two misdemeanors because of a tantrum? 

Then again, they probably would have charged the teacher with felony child abuse had she tried to defend herself against the child...sheesh...


----------



## Steel Tiger (Apr 16, 2007)

I am gob-smacked!  What the hell is going on in Avon Park?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 16, 2007)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL righty then.

 :idunno:


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 16, 2007)

Now, do the cops on this board understand why people hate cops?

That goddamn Police Chief needs to lose his ****ing job. Regardfless of what age?  Mother****er.  Since when do we hold... TODDLERS... to the standards of adult conduct? Now, do the cops on this board understand why people hate cops?  It's because of *******s like that!​


----------



## Tames D (Apr 16, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Now, do the cops on this board understand why people hate cops?​
> 
> That goddamn Police Chief needs to lose his ****ing job. Regardfless of what age? Mother****er. Since when do we hold... TODDLERS... to the standards of adult conduct? Now, do the cops on this board understand why people hate cops? It's because of *******s like that!​


Don't sugarcoat it. Tell us how you really feel
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 16, 2007)

This is, sadly, not the first time such an incident has occurred, by far.  Here's another version of the story with a few more details, such as:



> "When 6-year-old Desre'e Watson threw a tantrum in her kindergarten class a couple of weeks ago she could not have known that the full force of the law would be brought down on her and that she would be carted off by the police as a felon," Herbert writes. "But that's what happened in this small, backward city in central Florida. According to the authorities, there were no other options."
> Avon Park police chief Frank Mercurio tells Krugman, "The student became violent. She was yelling, screaming -- just being uncontrollable. Defiant."
> But after Herbert responded, "But she was 6," Mercurio's "reply came faster than a speeding bullet: 'Do you think this is the first 6-year-old we've arrested?'"
> Mercurio adds, "Believe me when I tell you, a 6-year-old can inflict injury to you just as much as any other person."
> ...



Nowhere does this article, or any of the others I looked at, say why the parent was not called - or if she was called, why she did not respond - and that is my first question about this issue.


However, I do not blame the police for responding to a call; they had no way to know what was truly occurring until  they arrived.  Nor do I blame the school, as such.  This is a societal issue that goes well beyond this particular instance.  In the truly commendable effort to eliminate child abuse, it has become politically incorrect - not to mention illegal - to physically discipline a child.  Even restraint of an out-of-control child requires special training (I know - I've been through it) and extensive documentation.  

Schools are unable to discipline students with anything more egregious than detention (which many parents object to, as it disrupts their schedule), and yet many parents expect the schools to raise their children; not a week goes by at the middle school where I work but that 5-10 parents call every Monday, telling an administrator that "over the weekend, child X called/texted/said/etc. this nasty thing to my child - and since child X goes to your school along with my child, I want to know what the school is going to do about it".  Calling the police may be extreme - as is arresting a 6 year-old who is having a tanturm - but it is, as I said, part of a much larger issue in which many parents expect the schools to raise their children, but the schools have little, if any, authority and/or ability to actually enforce appropriate behavior.  

In such an instance, I, as a teacher, would, if necessary, remove the other students from the class, and leave an adult (myself or someone else) to watch the child until she calmed down - but such is not always possible.  If the child had been striking out as part of the tantrum, the safety of the other students becomes an issue (thus, their removal) - and the school may have felt that, in the interests of safety, no other course was possible.

Do I think the child should have been arrested?  No, I don't - I don't believe that a child that age is capable of the control necessary to avoid such a situation, especially once the police arrive and scare the **** out of her - but not having been there, I cannot say one way or the other what really happened.


----------



## tellner (Apr 16, 2007)

I don't know about hating cops. There are very few people I actively hate. But every group has its virtues and sins. And unfortunately police officers' tend to be writ large on both counts.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 16, 2007)

Absolutely assinine. The principal is an idiot for calling the cops in the first place and the police chief is an idiot for trying to justify what one of his officers did. Unbelievable.

The really sad thing about our society is that there are plenty of people out there that feel this was the right thing to do.


----------



## tellner (Apr 16, 2007)

I especially like the part about handcuffing a six year old and charging her with a felony.

As the late Molly Ivens (ztl) said:

"Sheesh, what an *******."


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 17, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Now, do the cops on this board understand why people hate cops?​


​ 
No, they never will.  These bozos taser 6 year olds, and when we complain, it's just a few bad apples and we're just being liberal crybabies.  For just a few bad apples, these incidents keep happening over, and over, and over again.

Don't believe me about the taser incident?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/15/taser_kids_zapped/

In my own place of work, UCLA, campus cops repeatedly tasered an unarmed and non-physical kid in the library, and threatened passersby with the same when they objected.
http://dailybruin.com/news/2006/nov/16/community-responds-to-taser-us/

They wonder why we get annoyed.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 17, 2007)

I hope to GOD that's not a True story.
That man should NOT be a cop!!

holy cow.....

Your Brother
John


----------



## tellner (Apr 17, 2007)

One of the fundamental problems, and if you get a couple drinks or similar into most cops they'll confirm it, is that the profession relies on loyalty. That means that they back each other up, and they always give each other the benefit of the doubt. The "boy scouts" and the ones who are past their probationary period but just aren't with the program end up in unpopular jobs like Internal Affairs. And while they may come down on bad ones internally they'll present a united front to the outside world. That means you have to be a complete cockup, molesting underage children (and even then I know of two cases where officers got a pass) or actually doing hits for the Mob to be thrown from the sleigh.

Don't believe me? Consider the plunger case in the NYPD. Consider that everyone in the precinct knew. Nobody said ****. It was only when the victim decided he had nothing to lose and talked from his hospital bed - after he and the doctors had been threatened with murder if they talked - that something happened. And even then they sacrificed a couple cops, and the rest skated. Sexual assault. Assault with intent to kill. Threatening witnesses. Obstruction of justice. Lying under oath. And they walked. Didn't even get fired except for the two who actually raped that poor guy with a piece of wood.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 17, 2007)

tellner said:


> One of the fundamental problems, and if you get a couple drinks or similar into most cops they'll confirm it, is that the profession relies on loyalty. That means that they back each other up, and they always give each other the benefit of the doubt. The "boy scouts" and the ones who are past their probationary period but just aren't with the program end up in unpopular jobs like Internal Affairs. And while they may come down on bad ones internally they'll present a united front to the outside world. That means you have to be a complete cockup, molesting underage children (and even then I know of two cases where officers got a pass) or actually doing hits for the Mob to be thrown from the sleigh.
> 
> Don't believe me? Consider the plunger case in the NYPD. Consider that everyone in the precinct knew. Nobody said ****. It was only when the victim decided he had nothing to lose and talked from his hospital bed - after he and the doctors had been threatened with murder if they talked - that something happened. And even then they sacrificed a couple cops, and the rest skated. Sexual assault. Assault with intent to kill. Threatening witnesses. Obstruction of justice. Lying under oath. And they walked. Didn't even get fired except for the two who actually raped that poor guy with a piece of wood.



I understand the loyalty issue. The chief should have taken a neutral stance on this issue and said that it was being looked into. The wholesale support of his officer was a little premature. It's giving that department a bad name.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 17, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> [/left]
> In my own place of work, UCLA, campus cops repeatedly tasered an unarmed and non-physical kid in the library, and threatened passersby with the same when they objected.
> http://dailybruin.com/news/2006/nov/16/community-responds-to-taser-us/
> 
> They wonder why we get annoyed.



Yea, well, I remember when that thread was posted here, and watched the video, and I seem to recall that was more or less an adult, acting in a beligerent manner in a place he wasn't supposed to be to the staff and to the cops and the taseing was a result.  Considering the circumstances, I think that had a better result than if the cops shot him, beat him with thier nightsticks, (or a toilet plunger) or peppersprayed the whole library... Really, how DO you remove an unwilling adult subject quickly from a building full of hostiles once the "owners" have ordered him removed without injuring him? (Typically Tasers will HURT you, they wont INJURE you)   I don't want to sidetrack the whole thread here getting back into that discussion, but being an _adult_ and breaking the law and then throwing a temper tantrum and having nonlethal force used to make you comply for the saftey of the cops and others a little more excusable in my mind than terrorizing, handcuffing, arresting and charging a six year old child for an outburst.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 17, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> [/left]
> 
> No, they never will.  These bozos taser 6 year olds, and when we complain, it's just a few bad apples and we're just being liberal crybabies.  For just a few bad apples, these incidents keep happening over, and over, and over again.
> 
> ...



Please be careful with how you phrase your comments. There are a number of respected LEOs on this board that are not what you appear to think is the typical cop. 

There are a lot of police officers in this country. To base your opinion on a few highly publicized cases and the actions of campus cops is a little short sighted. 

I've known a lot of cops over the years and yeah, some of them are turds. Then again, I've known a lot of firefighters, paramedics,  doctors, nurses etc., over the years and some of them are turds too. It's part of human nature.

Maybe if more people treated cops with respect, instead of as the enemy, there wouldn't be as many cops with the type of attitude your illustrating.


----------



## KeeblerElf (Apr 17, 2007)

I don't understand this at all. I work in daycare. I've been bit, hit, punched, had toys thrown at me, kicked and everything inbetween, all the while they were yelling and screaming. We didn't call the cops. We called mom and dad to say this would be there last day, they were no longer welcome at the center, but this was like the third time this happened and the parents refused to call anyone to talk to their child about the obvious behavior issues. That situation was completly handled inappropriately, if you can't handle a six year old, don't go into teaching.


----------



## Shaderon (Apr 17, 2007)

BrandiJo said:


> http://www.slate.com/id/2164004/fr/flyout
> 
> I dont know if i should laugh or cry?


 

That's disgusting.  I don't agree with calling the cops on a 6 year old under ANY circumstances!   I have seen how the social services in the UK quizzing a parent can upset a child which will have long lasting psychological damage, but actually getting arrested must do much more damage to the child, I can't even imagine what nightmares that kid must have.   Ok the schools have their hands tied with what they can do, but to call the police is worse than a few scratches and kicks.   I know how powerful a 6 year olds kicks can be, my girl (who is 5) has kicked me a few times while we were training and I hopped for a minute, but it's NOT worth calling a cop over!    

The children at risk should have been removed from the scene, TWO adults should have stayed with the child (in case there's a medical emergency e.g. the kid is actually going to have a fit, the kid is diabetic and no one realised, or they cut themselves and someone needs to go for an ambulance, and the parent should be the first port of call.   The ONLY way I would want police to get involved with a 6 year old is to find the parent on call and DRAG them round to the school and force them to take control.

No way should that child have been arrested, they could be traumatised beyond belief.  Many adults would have trauma problems after that, never mind a 6 year old kid.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 17, 2007)

In this lawsuit happy country that we live in it is much safer for the teaching staff to call on the law to settle an unruly kid down than to even raise their voice to one.  "Johnny! Sit down and be quiet!" can soon turn into tons of legal fees.  Were these PARTICULAR cops out of their minds?  Oh, yeah.  What gets me though, is that I've not seen anyone commenting on WHY the teacher didn't grab hold of this kid, sling 'em over a sholder and march 'em to the office.  Come on! We can sit and ***** about the police and the teaching staff all day long if we want but it doesn't get to the core issue here.  Why did a 6 year old kid feel that it was ok to behave like that in the first place.  I wouldn't have at that age.  I knew that there would be severe consequences.  The fear of consequences any worse than a "time out" have been taken out of society and, IMO, have had a hugely negative impact upon us.


----------



## BrandiJo (Apr 17, 2007)

If i ever acted that way my parents would have spanked me and i wouldnt have sat down for a week. Should the teacher have handed it better yes, but what can a teacher do now a days? From my limited teaching experence, we are taught not to touch the student unless it is to break up an already exisiting fight, to prevent other students from being harmed. But if hte child is "mearly" throwing a tantrum we are told to send the child to the hall, the office, the library, somehwere out of the class room and out of harms way where the child can be supervised. 
this being said, one school i have been at has a "time out" room where the child is  locked in and kept untill they calm down, i have seen children carried in there and some go willingly, i am not sure that is the best solution either. I certainly do not think the police should have been involved, a parent most deffantly... but i dont feel the teacher herself was at fault. The principal maybe, the cops deffantly, and child yes she should have known better. ​


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 17, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Maybe if more people treated cops with respect, instead of as the enemy, there wouldn't be as many cops with the type of attitude your illustrating.



You have got to be ******** me.  Cops have severe institutional problems, such as the Abner Louima case tellner recalled for us.  In response, we are supposed to extend respect.  WTF?  Maybe they should clean up their institutional problems before we are supposed to love them again.  As it is, your advice reads like telling a battered wife she should love her husband more and avoid making him angry so he won't beat her any more.

I am sure that many, and even most, LEO's on this board or elsewhere are basically decent people.  The problem is that cops are extended an enormous amount of power, and they use that power as well as the goodwill of the privileged in our society to shield themselves from the consequences of when they abuse or go beyond their power.  Power without accountability is a huge problem even for a "good" individual.  No cop, especially the "good" ones you remind us of, should object to accountability - yet most do, if not in word, then in practice.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 17, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Really, how DO you remove an unwilling adult subject quickly from a building full of hostiles once the "owners" have ordered him removed without injuring him?



You can stop with one blast of the taser, and restrain the thus neutralized person.  You can also refrain from tasering again when the subject won't stand up as ordered after you have hit him with a debilitating weapon.  You can also avoid threatening passersby with the same treatment when they non-threateningly ask you to stop.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 17, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> You have got to be ******** me.  Cops have severe institutional problems, such as the Abner Louima case tellner recalled for us.  In response, we are supposed to extend respect.  WTF?  Maybe they should clean up their institutional problems before we are supposed to love them again.  As it is, your advice reads like telling a battered wife she should love her husband more and avoid making him angry so he won't beat her any more.
> 
> I am sure that many, and even most, LEO's on this board or elsewhere are basically decent people.  The problem is that cops are extended an enormous amount of power, and they use that power as well as the goodwill of the privileged in our society to shield themselves from the consequences of when they abuse or go beyond their power.  Power without accountability is a huge problem even for a "good" individual.  No cop, especially the "good" ones you remind us of, should object to accountability - yet most do, if not in word, then in practice.



No, actually I'm not ******** you. One of the main reasons that some cops are the way they are is because they deal with turds day in and day out who treat them with the same attitude that you're illustrating in this post. These people lay their lives on the line for complete strangers and what they get in return is being **** on by the very people they're there to help.

As for covering their asses, given the extreme willingness of people in this country to look at a 5 second clip of an altercation, with absolutely nothing else to put it into context and pass judgement that the officers involved used excessive force, I don't blame them. Quite frankly, the eagerness with which people are willing to lynch an authority figure with a minimal amount of facts, that are quite often wrong, makes me sick. 

Accountability is important and I don't know many who wouldn't want to be held accountable. The problem is that many who appoint themselves judge and jury never take the time to get the full story. They consider soundbites and headlines to be valid evidence to pass judgement. Or, as you seem to, they take isolated cases and cry out that there's a systemic problem, when that is far from the case. I've worked alongside a lot of cops over the last 25 years and, quite frankly, I find them to be better trained, educated and more ethical now than ever.

If there's a bad cop who uses excessive force, I want him gone. If I catch one of my fellow firefighters stealing, I want him gone. If I catch a paramedic using the morphine from his drug box, I want him gone. That's the way it needs to be to maintain the public trust. But with the microscopic attention that's placed on everything we do, it's gotten to the point that it's almost impossible to do the job without somebody taking offense, whether their point of view is justified, or not.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 17, 2007)

jdinca said:


> One of the main reasons that some cops are the way they are is because they deal with turds day in and day out who treat them with the same attitude that you're illustrating in this post.



Then rape them with a broom handle?  Sorry, these guys are the ones with guns and the authority to use them, if they can't handle someone's bad attitude, then they should find another line of work.  This argument is a dangerous shifting of responsibility from the cops who perform bad acts to the ones they perform them on.



jdinca said:


> These people lay their lives on the line for complete strangers and what they get in return is being **** on by the very people they're there to help.



While I appreciate the willingness of some cops who do so, no one forced them to become cops.  They could have chosen a less dangerous line of work (although being a cop is nowhere near as dangerous as a commercial crab fisherman).  Thus, I find this excuse for bad behavior less than convincing.



jdinca said:


> As for covering their asses, given the extreme willingness of people in this country to look at a 5 second clip of an altercation, with absolutely nothing else to put it into context and pass judgement that the officers involved used excessive force, I don't blame them. Quite frankly, the eagerness with which people are willing to lynch an authority figure with a minimal amount of facts, that are quite often wrong, makes me sick.



They're the ones in authority, they'll manage.  And as tellner indicates, they usually walk.  Which is a poor excuse anyways.  Doctors, for instance, don't get to lie and cover for each other's malfeasance because people like to sue them.  You also can't blame people who get upset when they see a "5 second" video of police repeatedly beating an already restrained man, for instance.  You also can't blame, say, the black community for being suspicious - cops were the ones setting the dogs on them not long ago.



jdinca said:


> The problem is that many who appoint themselves judge and jury never take the time to get the full story. They consider soundbites and headlines to be valid evidence to pass judgement.



That would be fine and all, but it looks like the actual judges and juries are in on the game too.  



jdinca said:


> Or, as you seem to, they take isolated cases and cry out that there's a systemic problem, when that is far from the case. I've worked alongside a lot of cops over the last 25 years and, quite frankly, I find them to be better trained, educated and more ethical now than ever.



Not every, or even a majority of cops have to be problems for the problems to be systemic.  The blue line, the egregious cases that walk, the routine abuses of power that never make it to court - all of these are systemic problems, even if only a few "bad apples" are creating all the trouble.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 17, 2007)

In an addendum to my last message, to prove it isn't just me ranting against cops, here is a link to an oped by the retired police chief of San Jose:
http://mapinc.org/newsleap/v99/n1033/a04.html

Some choice quotes:
"The lure of fortunes to be made in illegal drugs has led to thousands of police felonies: armed robbery, kidnapping, stealing drugs, selling drugs, perjury, framing people and even some murders.  These police crimes were committed on duty, often while the cop gangsters were wearing their uniforms, the symbol of safety to the people they were supposed to be protecting."

"Sadly, however, these predatory criminals are protected by a code of silence.  Otherwise honest officers who knew or suspected what was going on did not report the crooks, and at times even lied rather than testify against other cops."

"State and local police made approximately 1.4 million drug possession arrests last year.  Very few took place with search warrants, although the 4th Amendment, with few exceptions, requires the police to obtain a judicial warrant to search people or their homes.  It is so common for police to lie about how they obtained drug evidence that the term "testilying" has replaced "testifying" in police jargon."

"Mayors and police chiefs usually assure their citizens that there are only a few rotten apples when these scandals are publicized.  Yet the number and similarity of police gangster crimes nationally indicate a crisis in American policing."


----------



## tellner (Apr 17, 2007)

They have power combined with immunity from consequences. They also tend to be extroverted, aggressive and not terribly prone to reflection. That's part of the job selection process. I remember an FOP-sponsored study some years ago that indicated police officers were twice as likely as the general population to fit the profile of domestic abusers. Add clanishness and, more often than you'd care for, a disdain for the "civilians", a belief that they do not just enforce but _are_ the law, a high rate of alcoholism and marital instability. There are going to be problems. Not for all police, but for the profession as a whole. 

Doctors don't cover for other doctors' screw ups. And when physicians are disciplined it's done in the open. Everything is a matter of public record. Cops aren't subject to the same sort of scrutiny. When a doctor or lawyer gets sued it's her own money, reputation and insurance rates that suffer. A police officer has the benefits of Sovereign Immunity, the deep pockets of the department's insurance policy and so on. The fact that police everywhere have apoplexy at the thought of civilian review boards with any authority should give one pause. Roaches fear the light. Good people don't. 

You certainly know a lot of good police officers, jdinca. So do I. And their job is somewhat dangerous. Less than a construction worker, firefighter, logger or cabbie (according to the CDC's morbidity and mortality figures), but more than an engineer's or nurse's. That doesn't alter the facts, and it doesn't solve the very real problems. Recognizing them does not make a person "anti-cop". It simply means that there are problems that need to be acknowledged and measures taken to fix them. Let's start with "testilying", "carrying on the badge" although that is now a matter of law rather than a little perk of the job, showing the badge when you're caught speeding and the universal delusion that whatever city hits the papers has a particularly bad force while *my* department isn't at all like that.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 17, 2007)

tellner said:


> They have power combined with immunity from consequences. They also tend to be extroverted, aggressive and not terribly prone to reflection. That's part of the job selection process. I remember an FOP-sponsored study some years ago that indicated police officers were twice as likely as the general population to fit the profile of domestic abusers. Add clanishness and, more often than you'd care for, a disdain for the "civilians", a belief that they do not just enforce but _are_ the law, a high rate of alcoholism and marital instability. There are going to be problems. Not for all police, but for the profession as a whole.
> 
> Doctors don't cover for other doctors' screw ups. And when physicians are disciplined it's done in the open. Everything is a matter of public record. Cops aren't subject to the same sort of scrutiny. When a doctor or lawyer gets sued it's her own money, reputation and insurance rates that suffer. A police officer has the benefits of Sovereign Immunity, the deep pockets of the department's insurance policy and so on. The fact that police everywhere have apoplexy at the thought of civilian review boards with any authority should give one pause. Roaches fear the light. Good people don't.
> 
> You certainly know a lot of good police officers, jdinca. So do I. And their job is somewhat dangerous. Less than a construction worker, firefighter, logger or cabbie (according to the CDC's morbidity and mortality figures), but more than an engineer's or nurse's. That doesn't alter the facts, and it doesn't solve the very real problems. Recognizing them does not make a person "anti-cop". It simply means that there are problems that need to be acknowledged and measures taken to fix them. Let's start with "testilying", "carrying on the badge" although that is now a matter of law rather than a little perk of the job, showing the badge when you're caught speeding and the universal delusion that whatever city hits the papers has a particularly bad force while *my* department isn't at all like that.



I hate to tell you this, but a large number of physician screwups are swept under the carpet. I've witnessed many of them. The ones you hear about are the egregious ones that can't be covered up.

I'm certainly not trying to say that there aren't problems within the police community. I've known a lot of good cops but I certainly wouldn't want to spend a lot of off duty time with them. The position does require a certain personality type that, quite frankly, hasn't changed for a very long time and the nature of the job can take a heavy toll on their psyche. I could never be a cop. That said, I strongly believe the bad cop is the exception to the rule and not the norm. My whole purpose is to provide a different perspective to the one being presented by Empty Hands.

Nail the bad ones, let the good ones do their job without micromanaging and analyzing their every move. The only thing that results from that is cops taking a hands off attitude and the criminals having much more freedom to do their thing. I live in the Bay Area next to Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco, where this scenario is a reality. There aren't a lot of people lining up to be cops in those cities and the bad guys are thrilled.


----------



## jdinca (Apr 17, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> In an addendum to my last message, to prove it isn't just me ranting against cops, here is a link to an oped by the retired police chief of San Jose:
> http://mapinc.org/newsleap/v99/n1033/a04.html
> 
> Some choice quotes:
> ...



A couple of other choice quotes:

"Of course, only a small percentage of American police officers are recidivist felons."

"A code of silence is not unique to police.  It exists in the White House, among students, doctors, lawyers, business executives and other groups.  Indeed, even as children, our parents and peers admonish us not to tattle.  Basic human characteristics of loyalty, trust and security are involved.  These motivations are even more intense in police work.  If cops make an error of judgment, they or someone else may be killed, or they can be sent to jail for using too much force.  And even the most ethical officers fear being falsely accused of brutality or other crimes and of being railroaded to prison because their chiefs or mayors will not support them in politically volatile cases."

"It is not surprising that many cops feel that the only one they can really trust is another cop."

"Official corruption will be a major problem as long as we cling to the present drug policies.  The code of silence cannot be totally eliminated.  But the harm to good cops and to society can be reduced if politicians abandon their demagogic calls for a police war against drugs.  Police officers who are true partners with the community in reducing crime will be far more likely to report thugs on the force than cops who think they're part of a warring occupation army."

If you're going to quote an article, I think it's appropriate to quote the entire paragraph, not just the sentences that skew the intent and give a one sided view.

The title of this article was Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. It was written to support changes in the "War on Drugs" policy and was published in 1999.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 18, 2007)

jdinca said:


> If you're going to quote an article, I think it's appropriate to quote the entire paragraph, not just the sentences that skew the intent and give a one sided view.



That's why I provided the link so anyone could read for themselves.  The quotes you excerpt do not excuse the behavior, and I do not think the author intended it that way.


----------



## BrandiJo (Apr 18, 2007)

wow, i didnt mean this thread to turn into a debate over weither or not police officers are over all good or over all evil ​


----------



## jdinca (Apr 19, 2007)

BrandiJo said:


> wow, i didnt mean this thread to turn into a debate over weither or not police officers are over all good or over all evil ​


 
That's known as thread drift. Don't worry about it, none of it's personal.


----------

