RE: Guy who thought bad laws should be enforced.

[IndyCA]

He did not really mention this but leaving an officer to their discretion to enforce laws can lead to some unintended consequences, this is to the extent that I agree with him.  Here in California where I live possession of under an ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable with a ticket and a criminal record that follows you around for 2 years but no jail time.  The kicker is that the cop has to testify in court so usually the cop just tosses your stash.  Unfortunately minorities are not often given this luxury, at least from those who I have talked to.

When Caucasian youths are caught, the cop acts like they are their friend jokes that they should be getting drunk this fine evening, not messing around with the wacky tobaccy and tosses the weed like they are doing them a favor.  If a police officer finds minorities smoking weed, they will have their persons ransacked and searched, be insulted, patronized, etc. and inevitably charged.  I have heard of minorities being harassed for smoking tobacco cigars, because the cops think that weed might be in them when there is absolutely none.  An acquaintance of mine and his buddies were smoking a single black and mild that they shared.  They were outside, in a predominately white neighborhood and some one called the police.  They arrived, harassed them, searched their cars and persons, found nothing and threatened that they would take the black and mild roach to the lab to be examined for marijuana residue.   I believe they were later let go without any charges.

The point of this post is how amazing it is that I can hear stories about the same law being enforced in the same city and they are night and day depending on who the law is being enforced against.  I think Ian and Mark should keep this in mind when advocating police discretion.   

[Number6]

I see what you mean, and I understand the idea that we want people who have that much power to be restrained and not free to decided how they use the power they have.  

Most of that power comes from the idea that the law itself has some validity and they are there to enforce that.  From that perspective the important thing is to make sure the laws are good and that these individuals shouldn't be allowed to stray from what is good.

That's the approach most people take.  And as I say in many other cases, how's that working out so far?  The example you gave shows that really they are using their own discretion in how they are enforcing laws, in whether or not to pull out the catch all charges like "disturbing the peace".  

In the end these are people, no more no less.  If you choose to use a gun and a tazer to exercise power over free people I think it is appropriate to judge the morality of that.  Using force to enslave another is wrong - a clean uniform and a badge just doesn't shield you from the dictates of morality.  Nor does the fact that some bureaucrat who employs you scribbles on a piece of paper that it's ok to go ahead and initiate aggression against others.  Don't get me wrong, I have a problem with that bureaucrat as well, but their meaningless scribble doesn't mean I (or any other person) somehow is a brave man when he pulls that tazer out and makes you do what he wants when he wants.  

[theunbubba]

I can't remember who said this but it rings true.
"There is no better way to eliminate stupid laws than their strictest enforcement."

[BobRobertson]

"There is no better way to eliminate stupid laws than their strictest enforcement."

One of the reasons that Congress and the government more generally ensures that it (and its members) are specifically exempted from many laws.

So police have full-auto guns in states where class-3 weapons are illegal, etc.