Comments on: Breaking the Law to Enforce the Law

By: Manny

Manny — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:31:26 +0000

“ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”
-George Orwell (from Animal Farm)

By: Kelly W.

Kelly W. — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:09:08 +0000

Dan, years ago I observed that very thing – - an officer that was obviously and blatantly speeding between red lights. He’d fly past me at around 10 mph above the posted limit, just to stop again at the next light. Since he was stopping at each light, I easily caught back up to him again by NOT breaking the speed limit, and I wrote down his license plate number. The next day I wrote a letter to the editor describing what had happened and the license plate number of the offending officer’s car was published for all to see. The day after publication, the police chief called me up on the phone to get further details from me . The Chief says this particular officer had a history of exercising unrighteous dominion, and my complaint wasn’t the only one. The officer was fired. This shows that Connor’s article about showing proof of an officer’s disgressions are a key way to countering the cops’ unrighteous dominion. I encourage anyone witnessing such acts by corrupt cops to document it and get it into the public eye.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:51:26 +0000

Police and other emergency responders can usually disregard speed and other traffic laws by the utilization of emergency signals stipulated by state statute. However, can they break other laws while in the act of investigating or upholding the law. For instance, can a police or traffic officer park illeagly in order to catch speeders?

By: m

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 00:26:41 +0000

One point about the speeding discussion, why do so many policeman that are speeding, not using their lights when speeding and if the reason being used is to get to an emergency or call of sorts in a hurry then why do they stop at lights and wait until the green to procede and begin speeding again. The best one I know of is witnessing first hand as two off duty officers entered a vehical with open beer and quite a few travellers for the ride, one of these officers being a relative. I can assure you much of this sorte of thing goes on along with the old flashing of the badge to get out of a binde when need be. I completely understand they have a thankless and often nasty job but do not agree with them charging people for breaking the law and then breaking the same laws themself.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:31:22 +0000

Re:: Skie (reasonable) – I’ve been a jurist for two criminal trials, and have some understanding of the history and need of a jury by peers (FIJA, also). In the judge’s instructions to the jury, each one (granted, it’s scripted somewhat) tells us, the jurors, to make our decision based strictly on the law (and other things, but they aren’t the point). The jury doesn’t (in my cases) prescribe the penalty, and in some instances the penalty is automatic for the crime.
So, to avoid the appearance of ‘Gestapo style’ enforcement of the law, a jury of peers is drawn up but forced to draw the line at the letter of the law (which will always be wanting), after which the state prounounces judgement and penalty.
Where legal procedure is designed to protect the law abiding citizen, it is used to free otherwise obviously-guilty parties (technicalities, to the laymen).
Reasonableness is not left to the people. Reasonableness is tightly bound by the letter of the law (excepting legislators, of course).
I don’t disagree with the speeding cop or one who crosses the solid yellow line in the course of enforcing the law, but traffic enforcement is a small example of trampling one’s rights compared to what the jury system was supposed to be (not to mention our Glorious Leaders and the Constitution).

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:57:36 +0000

Poor example. You should have used the fact that most police officers feel they have the right to speed far faster than even the average speeder even without their emergency lights on.

We have all seen it happen, and more than once a year for most drivers. The lights and siren as the warning of this driving by them for them to uphold the law that others break, but to break those laws without an emergency is illegal and inexcusable.

By: gary fortier

gary fortier — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:31:23 +0000

If someone has been stealing something for 13 years and then stops shouldn’t the pollice do something when they find out about? Our local police say “NO”, they’re not doing it anymore and it only cost $6000. Our city administrator concurs of course. Does anyone have a solution?

By: xplore

xplore — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:41:48 +0000

I have a situation along a similar line. In my case the law enforcement agency is in violation of a state statute they are supposed to enforce. Would they be in criminal jeopardy in that instance or is there case law that exempts them?

By: yfz450

yfz450 — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:06:49 +0000

205 southbound keeping pace with a car in front of my car,
we are cruising about 75 mph in a 60, and boom there is a stater in the median leftside mind you. The stater is under the shadow of the bridge. He is parked, like a vehicle with a flat. What does the solid yellow line represent on the leftside of the freeway. I was always told a solid yellow means you can’t cross. So was he breaking the law by parking on the left side of the freeway in the center median, over the yellow line. Let me now.
Thanks.

By: FunAdvice

FunAdvice — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:58:23 +0000

I wonder this every single time a cop passes in front of me, speeding, without using his blinker. Then he will often flash his lights simply to go through the red light ahead.

/sigh.

By: Clumpy

Clumpy — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:04:07 +0000

I’m with Jeff on the distinction between procedural law and universal moral law. Still, if a policeman doesn’t have a demonstrable reason for violating a law then he’s as guilty as a citizen because he did it for personal reasons rather than as part of his protection.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:53:55 +0000

In the case of the speeding police officer or other emergency crews, they have sirens that must be activated in order to exceed the speed limit, allowing other drivers that the emergency vehicles are not driving with the flow of traffic.

My brothers and I have been debating this question lately. One of my brothers recently witnessed an act of violence and actually thought there was a high probability that one of the participants had a firearm. My brother was on his way home from hunting and had ample firepower with him. The question was, if someone pulled out a firearm and threatened another person, is it ethical to stop that individual with the same means?

In Arizona, if you draw a weapon on someone, it is only legal to do so if you feel there is an imminent danger and presumably you would be returning fire in this case (if you fail to do this, it can be concluded that there was no imminent danger to do so). Secondly, if you shoot somebody because your life was at risk, you may only do so with the intent of using lethal force. Otherwise, it can be concluded that said force with a firearm was excessive because there wasn’t a credible threat to use the firearm.

So, do you use a firearm to kill somebody that is about to kill somebody else? This would be breaking the law to prevent someone from breaking the law.

By: vontrapp

vontrapp — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:25:14 +0000

Re #3,
That article, while a little alarming, I don’t think says anything about the current discussion, nor about any line to be drawn. That man clearly wasn’t acting out of any authority as a police officer. Maybe he used a police issued gun and maybe there are rules about that. But as a pro gun rights, I would have to say, barring other evidence, that this has nothing to do with misbehaving police and everything to do with self defense. Sure, he could have shot out the tires instead, but he probably felt genuinely threatened. After all, this crazy drunken lady is following him around and actually causing physical damage to his property and potentially to himself and his wife. Whether he exceeded his authority to protect himself remains to be determined in court, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he is a police officer.

As for enforcement officials breaking the law to enforce it, of course there’s a line to be drawn. That line is at the law itself. I don’t place any police officer above the law, and I don’t think anyone should, themselves or anyone else. It would be interesting if there in fact was no provision codified to allow officers to speed in order to pull over a speeder. One could potentially bring suit against the officer to the effect that “sure I was speeding but the person that charged me is no more innocent than I, so to be fair…” Kind of a counter suit thing. Personally I believe that such exception are in fact codified and are part of the law, hence no law is being broken, but rather followed. I could indeed be wrong, as I really am clueless in this area. I’m simply operating off of common, possibly propagandized knowledge.

Finally, all that said, I think it’s of utmost importance, as other comments have pointed out, that such codified exceptions to the law are very carefully constructed. We do not want a too vague provision to be grossly abused, or to have an entity codify itself into immunity. If there is trouble drawing a line, I would err on the side of the law that’s being enforced rather than on the loose exception side.

By: Brian Duffin

Brian Duffin — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:13:24 +0000

As someone who volunteers with law enforcement, I see first-hand the need for officers to have a certain amount of latitude. For instance, speed limits.

How quickly do you want officers responding to a fight or shots fired call? If someone is breaking into your house, do you want the officer to drive the speed limit and stop at every light? Or do you want him to activate his lights and sirens and expedite his arrival by exceeding the posted speed limit?

In Arizona, by statute, officers are allowed to exceed the posted speed limit within certain guidelines. They are not, however, exempted from using due care and caution in how they drive and are not shielded from the consequences if they fail to exercise due dare and caution. Police officers go through specialized driver training that gives them the skills necessary to drive in emergency situations.

Anyhow, I will get off my soap box. I see a lot of other replies that address this issue.

By: Jeremy Ashton

Jeremy Ashton — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:20 +0000

All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree – James Madison.

I am more distrusting of policemen that speed and violate man-made legislation than I am of other individuals who do so.

By: Danika

Danika — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:17:25 +0000

Good comments so far and I agree with them. I’ll just add a short clarification here. Speaking as a policeman’s wife…they have plenty of laws to follow. In Salt Lake they are only allowed to use lights and sirens together in case of life or death emergency. They are not allowed to do high speed chases. Just to name a few.
Sometimes people get mad when they flash their lights and go through red lights because they think they just don’t want to wait but if you ever see that happen please know that they’re on their way to an emergency.
The city council usually directs the police department on what to focus on and the police force does have laws specific to it’s agency.
I can also say that at least 1/4 of the policemen that are on the Salt Lake force are pro-gun rights, pro-Constitution, and their eyes “have been opened” to future events.
They are controlled by city council and therein lies most of their problems.

By: Kelly W.

Kelly W. — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:44:13 +0000

Cops speed because they can get away with it. Cops speed because other cops and corrupt judges cover for them. They don’t speed because they are chasing someone. That “someone” is speeding because a cop is speeding.

I have learned by sad experience that when any cop gets a little authority, he will immediately begin to excercise unrighteous dominion.

By: Reach Upward

Reach Upward — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:03:19 +0000

JHP is correct. The ability of police to do things like exceed the speed limit is codified by many governmental entities. Often there is a reasonableness clause, as Skye noted. While this does provide some incentive for abuse, the public is not left without recourse, since remedies can be pursued under criminal or civil statute (or both in some cases).

There is a problem in situations where governments try to exempt themselves from any liability, offering no recourse to the public. The areas of law where those issues exist must be fixed to prevent unchecked abuse.

By: Jeff T.

Jeff T. — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:44:27 +0000

Connor, this is a question right at the heart of legal positivism vs. natural law. For example, you said:

I think that with these malum prohibitum cases, as long as they don’t negatively affect anybody else and there is an emergency involved, then we should be justified in breaking them (since, by their very nature, these actions are only against the law because the government says so—not because they are moral evils).

Because traffic laws are designed by people for practical and pragmatic purposes, it seems reasonable to assume that people can revise and even disregard those laws for prudential purposes (such as in the protection of human life, or otherwise). They are simply enforced convention. Legal positivism claims that all civil laws are like traffic laws: human inventions, designed to meet human goals.

However, other laws, such as the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, don’t seem like a human invention. It seems to be based in a higher morality that humans didn’t invent. It would seem wrong to violate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (perhaps torture) for prudential purposes.

You question is one that legal philosophers have asked for a long time: where do we draw the line? How do we know which is which?

By: JHP

JHP — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:39:07 +0000

Isn’t the line drawn in law or in the official law enforcement code of conduct or something like that? In other words, maybe the law says that a policeman can speed in order to enforce the law. I don’t know though. Maybe the people have given them that authority. I’d also guess that other exceptions are built into the law. Sorry, I don’t have time to look this stuff up.

I understand your argument and question, but it sounds a little unrealistic to be able to draw a specific line. We have to separate theory and idealism from reality. There are cases when it is justified to break the law, but you can’t define each and every one in the law.