|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 14, 2011 16:15:38 GMT -5
Again, that doesn't justify destroying somebody's life by fabricating charges, nor does a corrupt system remove all burden of morality from the individual.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 14, 2011 16:16:55 GMT -5
Again, you're talking about idealism, & behaving in an idealistic fashion just gets you fired & replaced with someone who has even LESS scruples.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 14, 2011 16:22:41 GMT -5
Which is why it should be treated as mitigating -- but not expunging.
And holding people accountable for their actions is hardly idealism.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 16:31:13 GMT -5
Policing is hard. They should be able to do whatever they want!
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 14, 2011 16:31:36 GMT -5
It is when you're talking about "morality" as opposed to "legality." And if you ask me, punishing them for being backed into a corner is just stupid. The only message it sends is, "Don't even try to be a cop, you WILL get fucked over."
If eliminating the rule keeps this person from doing this action again (if, mind you), then what is the POINT of doing anything more to them? You've already solved the problem, now you're just being vindictive.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 16:37:29 GMT -5
It is when you're talking about "morality" as opposed to "legality." And if you ask me, punishing them for being backed into a corner is just stupid. The only message it sends is, "Don't even try to be a cop, you WILL get fucked over." The message is "don't break the law or you will be punished, regardless of who you are".
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 14, 2011 16:43:06 GMT -5
Unless the rule held a gun to their heads and told them to plant evidence, they still willfully chose to ruin people's lives in order to meet a damn quota. I'm not saying that they should be drawn and quartered, but its ludicrous to suggest that these guys are beyond any criticism whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 14, 2011 17:04:03 GMT -5
Ask me to explain my position. Get upset when I do.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 14, 2011 17:23:54 GMT -5
Get disagreed with. Assume other side is upset, and not just disagreeing with you.
It's called "debate". If you don't want to take part, just say so.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 14, 2011 17:38:30 GMT -5
Your sudden shift in tone highly suggests irritation. But, really, I don't care. I just decided to do my own thing because you (& for some reason ltfred) don't seem all that interested in my actual, stated reasons.
Edit: Damn, catanon nuked himself.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Oct 14, 2011 17:40:45 GMT -5
Folks, LHM's first post says -- and I quote -- le sigh. How this rates a petulant shitstorm is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 14, 2011 17:47:20 GMT -5
Because this is his second post.
Besides, as someone who's been in a lot of Flame Wars, you can generally tell when someone's being passive-aggressive, & what they REALLY mean.
Plus, between him, AA coming back, & other members we've had in the past, this was an obvious trigger hair issue.
I neither condone nor condemn what went on in this thread, but I think that explains what happened.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 14, 2011 18:07:15 GMT -5
^^ Particularly when there are a lot of good cops out there who manage to handle quotas without fabricating charges. But at what cost? The WPC Bloggs blog has pointed out that some officers can be called to lots of incidents in one shift: At the same time, one officer can be tied down with one incident. Anyone looking at quotas will assume that the officer called to the most incidents is good at keeping their quotas up, whereas the other one is slacking off, without seeing that it's highly possible that both are doing their jobs equally well.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 14, 2011 18:11:56 GMT -5
^^ I wasn't arguing in favour of quotas, merely pointing out that their existence is not justification/exoneration for dishonest police work. Your sudden shift in tone highly suggests irritation. Shift in tone? Sorry if it's coming across that way, but I wasn't irritated -- just emphasizing certain points. This, on the other hand, I do find rather irritating. When have I ignored your points? Since when does disagreeing with a person's "stated reasons" imply that they're not arguing in good faith?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 14, 2011 18:47:21 GMT -5
Basically, I've been asserting that "holding them responsible" establishes a Catch-22 & serves no practical purpose if--and this is a big contingency--the quota system were to be removed.
As long as it's in place, by all means, reprimand them. Something needs to be done, even if it's the less effective option. But, if it were to be gotten rid of, then I see it as redundant. Why bother? "Because they should be?" Why? What reason "should" they be, beyond a sense of vindication?
In general, I think that the best solution to any problem is the path of least resistance. I guess you could say they broke the law, but that's an interesting argument, considering they broke the law following a law that was implicitly trying to get someone, anyone to break the law.
|
|