Enforcement

[zotmeister]

I keep a mental list of "Places Never To Go Because The Law Enforcement Is Retarded". Looks like Brooklyn, Ohio is now on that list. Whether Michael Righi was "asking for it" or not is beside the point; you don't fail to read someone's rights when you arrest them and then drag them to the police station while trying to figure out what to charge them with. That's evil dictatorship right out of a sci-fi flick.

One of my great fears is being injustly punished. When people in positions of authority are doing something wrong, far too few are willing to stand up and say it, especially when they most need to: when innocents are suffering because of it. In fact, many of them will even show resentment towards those that DO uphold their civic duty. This holds true at all levels of the spectrum, from when a teacher is corrected by a student up to when a president sends troops to battle without a congressional declaration of war.

I am sincerely scared of one day being abducted by law enforcement, charged for something I had absolutely nothing to do with nor knowledge of, and thought of as a criminal by the general populace, even if I'm not found guilty. That manner of completely unfair and unfounded stigmata arbitrarily assigned to me worries me deeply, and the thought of it being able to happen anywhere deeply troubles me.

Being honest and open - knowing the truth and telling the truth - is useless when everyone else involved thinks you're lying, and when they do finally accept the truth, it's much too late for you. I can't help but feel that one day this "you" will be me, and the "too late" effect will be permanent. It's like I'm fighting against my destiny.

There are possible segues I could make from that, entering the domains of civil liberties, racism, religion, and the fatally flawed Golden Rule, but I have too much work to do right now to get into any of that (not to mention they could warrant their own entries).

I am SO glad that I live in Rhode Island now. I figure that of all the states in the Union, the one founded on the principle of individual freedom is the safest to be in; it's probably the closest to a civil-liberties bastion as any government that currently exists, and the citizens don't put up with any shit to the contrary. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it could be far, far worse.

Tomorrow: One segue I will follow shortly is into a discussion - and a dream - about Bioshock, a Zotmeister Seal of Approval winner that presents a very clever perspective on civil liberties. - ZM

Comments

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

My reaction: enh. When it's policy not to read someone his rights and drag them to the station while deciding what to charge them with, you have evil dictatorship. When an individual officer happens to do that, it's an individual slip-up.

(Also, I think I was pretty much with him right up until he recommended that if you disagree, you should read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand.)

[zotmeister]

When that individual has reported back to the station, and no one else there does anything about it, then it's as good as policy. Then it's no longer one guilty individual. - ZM

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Still: enh. People panic, people make bad decisions. If you really think that the law enforcement system in Brooklyn, Ohio is utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt because of this one action, then, as they say in the carol, G-d bless you. And do let me know where it is you will go, because I just can't imagine you finding any city, state, or country with law enforcement that hasn't done far, far worse things than that.

[zotmeister]

I will do no such thing - I fear it would be when the complacent discover the place that it will no longer hold that status.

I like intelligent, challenging discussions; I have no patience for - or tolerance of - making them personal. This one is over. - ZM

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Whoa, hey, I wasn't trying to make it personal. Bad phrasing on my part: let me try again, paraphrasing the last post.

Still: enh. People panic, people make bad decisions. I'm not convinced that the law enforcement system in Brooklyn, Ohio is utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt.

What I wonder, though, is this: if you won't go places where the law enforcement is "retarded" (your word, not mine), can you give an example of the kind of place you would go--i.e., where is it that law enforcement doesn't ever make that kind of bad decision? I myself can't think of anywhere (city, state, or country) where law enforcement hasn't done things far worse than what they did to Righi; so if the actions of the police in the Righi case would keep you out of that city, I'm genuinely curious to know of an example of a place that no such abuse has ever occurred.

As your posted started with mention of your mental list of places you wouldn't go, I hope you agree that you've opened the door for me to ask where you would go without it being personal.

Again, since you mention your own state as a bastion of civil liberties, I can't help looking around for evidence of that. For instance, there's this record of a Tiverton detective being arrested for corruption (http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/newsrel/boston112806.html); and rather famously there's the Providence mayor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Cianci) who pled "no contest" to a felony assault charge, got back into office, and was then convicted on 26 of 27 charges of "racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, witness tampering, and mail fraud."

Do you consider this kind of corruption less severe than the actions in the Righi case?

[lordrolo.livejournal.com]

well, its all well and good to make fun of overzealous and amateurish law enforcement. But, sometimes craven criminals are asking for it by refusing to drive drunk.

wait, what?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=48c7ae7a-0ff7-4cb4-b1de-50515c336f13

[zotmeister]

That's just weird. To be sure, Michigan owes the man his cash and whatnot (and punitive damages for the embarassment if warranted), but beyond that I don't see anything wrong with what happened, apart from why it apparently took him two weeks to become sober. Why he wasn't released the next day is what concerns me. - ZM

[unknownforce.livejournal.com]

Ah crap, I had a good response written for you, but the cursed thing got deleted when I accidently clicked the link to paste a line from it. I suppose it is not to be, because even though it took me but a few minutes to write, I do not have the patience to write it a second time.

However, I will say briefly (and on a different note than my prior post) that you have little to worry about from a statistical standpoint. Cases like this are a rarity, especially when you add to the equation the fact that certain places or actions are more likely to send a red flag to an officer (red flags that I assume do not exist in your case). Logically speaking, you should not let it concern your own wellbeing, although I do certainly feel that our society as a whole should take stronger actions to-

Opps, I almost got back into my original post. How redundant of me...

[dioderm.livejournal.com]

I have to say this is one of the things that bothers me too.

However, I don't think this problem is unique to Brooklyn, Ohio. With police everywhere covering their backs, the RIAA using flimsy evidence to sue people's pants off, and with the attitude that "we can say you're a terrorist or that it pertains to national security" and lock'em away with no recourse, it's rather spooky.

I'd go on a rant but I haven't got the time to look up all the cases I want to cite. Let's just say there is quite a bit of bothersome stuff in the newspapers these days.

Also, as one who does a bit of international travel, border crossings always bother me. I start to suspect the rules are purposely unclear as to what I can bring with me, what rights I need to expect, or in extreme cases whether I am a citizen or not. I'm not bringing suitcases of drugs with me, and all items are for personal use, so what more do they want?

In response to unknownforce, yes these cases may be a rarity, but if they happen at all they should be responded to. By assuming it won't happen to you, that elevates the feeling that it is okay to abuse people's rights when convenient.

[unknownforce.livejournal.com]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, because I certainly agree that such instances are an injustice that should not exist (I was getting to that before I intentionally cut myself off in a failed attempt to be amusing and because I did not want to rewrite what I had already written).

Yes, such cases should be responded to. Sorry for not being more clear, but I just wanted to clarify this for you so that you realize we are in agreement.

[jezendar.livejournal.com]

According to his posts, this guy has racked up 7500 dollars worth of legal funds, before the trial has even started, because he refused to show the security guard his receipt, and then refused to show the police his driver's license. There are many significant problems with civil rights in this country, like those mentioned by Dioderm above. Security requesting to see your receipt is not one of these problems; it is a trivial issue, and I'm disheartened by the fact that our already over-taxed legal system must now spend its limited time dealing with this. The only thing Micheal Righi has shown is that any ideal can be brought low by fanaticism, even the defense of civil liberties.

On a more upbeat note, I'll be looking forward to your post about Bioshock, and about the dream you evidently had involving it. If the post is anything like the Bioshock acrostic you wrote, it should be quite interesting indeed.