Gov officials that violate citizens rights be guilty of an additional crime?

[csbrown28]

So we've all seen a lot in the news about police, and politicians who exploit and abuse their positions of power and authority.

I posted this in another forum that shows a cop snatching a camera form a woman for what appears to be no other reason than he just doesn't want her taking pictures. For those who don't want to open a new thread, it appears something is going on off camera that he is taking pics/ video of. A cop carrying an AR15 approaches her out of her frame and runs up on her, snatches the camera and smashes it to the ground and, far as I know the cop turns and leaves.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-gets-caught-video-anyway.html#post1064549315

The topic up for debate is, do we need a law that makes violation of the public trust punishable beyond an action taken.

In other words the actions of a public official abusing their power and authority can in some cases go beyond the actual law they will be charged with.

For example. In the video in the other thread I just posted, a woman is taking pictures of something. An officer out of her field of view takes exception to it and charges her and snatches the camera (or phone not sure) and smashes it on the ground presumably destroying it. Does he simply owe her a new camera? Should his punishment simply be left to his department to suspend him with pay, make him publicly apologize ect? Is there something greater going on here?

I submit that when an officer approaches a citizen and knowingly and brazenly violates their rights (as in the video I linked above) they should be guilty of the crime of violation of the public trust. I say this because if a regular shmoe tried to take my property as the officer does in the video I would be justified in defending myself and my property and I could use force if necessary. When an officer does it, if I defend myself, especially if it's not caught on video 99.9% of the time I would be charged and convicted of a crime.

For those who argue that we don't need more laws, I respectfully disagree. There are laws against stealing, but if you use a weapon, that is an additional violation of the law, if you use a weapon in a bank, yet another charge for the same crime. If the bank is next to a school, yet another charge...ect, ect....

So if a cop violates the public trust against a citizen, they should be charged with their crime, in the case of the video I linked, assult and destruction of property (or whatever the charge is), but given his place of authority (he was carrying an AR-15 for christs sake), he should be charged with an additional crime of abuse of his authority.

 

[Renae]

So we've all seen a lot in the news about police, and politicians who exploit and abuse their positions of power and authority.

I posted this in another forum that shows a cop snatching a camera form a woman for what appears to be no other reason than he just doesn't want her taking pictures. For those who don't want to open a new thread, it appears something is going on off camera that he is taking pics/ video of. A cop carrying an AR15 approaches her out of her frame and runs up on her, snatches the camera and smashes it to the ground and, far as I know the cop turns and leaves.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-gets-caught-video-anyway.html#post1064549315

The topic up for debate is, do we need a law that makes violation of the public trust punishable beyond an action taken.

In other words the actions of a public official abusing their power and authority can in some cases go beyond the actual law they will be charged with.

For example. In the video in the other thread I just posted, a woman is taking pictures of something. An officer out of her field of view takes exception to it and charges her and snatches the camera (or phone not sure) and smashes it on the ground presumably destroying it. Does he simply owe her a new camera? Should his punishment simply be left to his department to suspend him with pay, make him publicly apologize ect? Is there something greater going on here?

I submit that when an officer approaches a citizen and knowingly and brazenly violates their rights (as in the video I linked above) they should be guilty of the crime of violation of the public trust. I say this because if a regular shmoe tried to take my property as the officer does in the video I would be justified in defending myself and my property and I could use force if necessary. When an officer does it, if I defend myself, especially if it's not caught on video 99.9% of the time I would be charged and convicted of a crime.

For those who argue that we don't need more laws, I respectfully disagree. There are laws against stealing, but if you use a weapon, that is an additional violation of the law, if you use a weapon in a bank, yet another charge for the same crime. If the bank is next to a school, yet another charge...ect, ect....

So if a cop violates the public trust against a citizen, they should be charged with their crime, in the case of the video I linked, assult and destruction of property (or whatever the charge is), but given his place of authority (he was carrying an AR-15 for christs sake), he should be charged with an additional crime of abuse of his authority.

We should just banish the police and let people figure out the laws themselves.

 

[LagerHead]

We don't need additional laws. What we need is to remove this presumption that everything that a public official or public servant does is performed in good faith. Assault is assault. Abuse is abuse. If we would simply demand that government officials be held accountable for their actions, that would be enough.

 

[radcen]

I am generally a person who believes we don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have, and enforce them equally, but... the idea of "violating the public trust" intrigues me. Not sure just yet. I'll have to think about it.

As far as politicians go, isn't that sort of the same thing when they swear an oath to uphold the laws/Constitution?

 

[joG]

So we've all seen a lot in the news about police, and politicians who exploit and abuse their positions of power and authority.

I posted this in another forum that shows a cop snatching a camera form a woman for what appears to be no other reason than he just doesn't want her taking pictures. For those who don't want to open a new thread, it appears something is going on off camera that he is taking pics/ video of. A cop carrying an AR15 approaches her out of her frame and runs up on her, snatches the camera and smashes it to the ground and, far as I know the cop turns and leaves.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-gets-caught-video-anyway.html#post1064549315

The topic up for debate is, do we need a law that makes violation of the public trust punishable beyond an action taken.

In other words the actions of a public official abusing their power and authority can in some cases go beyond the actual law they will be charged with.

For example. In the video in the other thread I just posted, a woman is taking pictures of something. An officer out of her field of view takes exception to it and charges her and snatches the camera (or phone not sure) and smashes it on the ground presumably destroying it. Does he simply owe her a new camera? Should his punishment simply be left to his department to suspend him with pay, make him publicly apologize ect? Is there something greater going on here?

I submit that when an officer approaches a citizen and knowingly and brazenly violates their rights (as in the video I linked above) they should be guilty of the crime of violation of the public trust. I say this because if a regular shmoe tried to take my property as the officer does in the video I would be justified in defending myself and my property and I could use force if necessary. When an officer does it, if I defend myself, especially if it's not caught on video 99.9% of the time I would be charged and convicted of a crime.

For those who argue that we don't need more laws, I respectfully disagree. There are laws against stealing, but if you use a weapon, that is an additional violation of the law, if you use a weapon in a bank, yet another charge for the same crime. If the bank is next to a school, yet another charge...ect, ect....

So if a cop violates the public trust against a citizen, they should be charged with their crime, in the case of the video I linked, assult and destruction of property (or whatever the charge is), but given his place of authority (he was carrying an AR-15 for christs sake), he should be charged with an additional crime of abuse of his authority.

Of course they should. Violating a citizen's right is one of the things that you cannot tolerate from a civil servant of any type. In itself it should be a multiplier of any punishment otherwise involved.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I liked the general concept of this thread so much, I created my own version of it on a dozen+ political forums:

U.S. Politics in General

Thread Title: Have Hate-Crimes, but don't we really need Fascist-Crimes Laws?
So we already have "Hate-Crimes" legislation, which is dubious at best, and often just political persecution of the "Politically Incorrect"...

But what we are seeing in the Obama-Era is a huge upsurge in crimes committed by Government Officials abusing the powers of their office to persecute their political enemies.

Why don't we abandon the completely unprovable "Emotional State and Motivation" concept of "Hate-Crimes" and instead adopt a very provable and concretely deterministic "Fascism-Crime" concept.

In other words, if it can be proven that a Government Official used and/or abused their official powers of office in the commission of a crime, there would be considerable increases in mandatory sentencing for the crime.

Also, the time limit for prosecution in the Statute of Limitations for Fascism-Crimes should be doubled.

I know that all of the Progressive-Fascists are going to sneer, scream and have fits of apoplexy at the very idea of "Fascism-Crime" Laws.... but maybe that too would be a good thing.

Nothing like a bit of daylight and fresh aire to reveal and thwart corruption.

Question for Debate: Should we create a special class of crimes with extra penalties, when an Official uses their power of office in the commission of a crime?

-

This is too important an idea to let it fade away!

-

 

[csbrown28]

Of course they should. Violating a citizen's right is one of the things that you cannot tolerate from a civil servant of any type. In itself it should be a multiplier of any punishment otherwise involved.

Do you like the idea of "violation of the public trust"....Has a nice ring to it and I think it really captures the nature of the violation.

 

[csbrown28]

We don't need additional laws. What we need is to remove this presumption that everything that a public official or public servant does is performed in good faith. Assault is assault. Abuse is abuse. If we would simply demand that government officials be held accountable for their actions, that would be enough.

Good faith? wtf does that even mean?

Let's say the camera was put on a table and the cop smashed it. You think that the violation he committed is limited to the destruction of the camera? Do you think if a person stepped in front of a cop, similar to the one in the vidio, that he would have stood down. Do you think if you pushed him in an effort to protect your property that you wouldn't be the one charged with a crime?

No, when police or public officials abuse their authority they are guilty of something greater.

 

[csbrown28]

We should just banish the police and let people figure out the laws themselves.

The fact that you express what I can only read as sarcasm and take your response to an absurd extreme only proves my point.

 

[radcen]

Good faith? wtf does that even mean?

Let's say the camera was put on a table and the cop smashed it. You think that the violation he committed is limited to the destruction of the camera? Do you think if a person stepped in front of a cop, similar to the one in the vidio, that he would have stood down. Do you think if you pushed him in an effort to protect your property that you wouldn't be the one charged with a crime?

No, when police or public officials abuse their authority they are guilty of something greater.

Historically, a "good faith effort" was you at least trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. It has evolved into being a euphemism for plausible deniability.

 

[joG]

Do you like the idea of "violation of the public trust"....Has a nice ring to it and I think it really captures the nature of the violation.

And public servants should record every minute of their time for later use in court.

 

[csbrown28]

I am generally a person who believes we don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have, and enforce them equally, but... the idea of "violating the public trust" intrigues me. Not sure just yet. I'll have to think about it.

As far as politicians go, isn't that sort of the same thing when they swear an oath to uphold the laws/Constitution?

Look, I understand the whole "we don't need more laws" thing. Generally I agree. But after watching the video above and others like it, this officer deserves to be charged with more than destruction of property. While he did, technically assault her, the physical injury she sustained is going to be non-existent, mental injury, meh. It occurs to me there is another dynamic in play here. He thought he could take her property and destroy it with impunity and did it while acting in the capacity of a person given extra authority. Normal law abiding citizens don't think that way. If I take my neighbors camera (or something of value) and destroy it he will call the police and I expect to have to face consequences. But the officer and other like him think they are above the law and get away with their crimes because of who they are.

But this woman had her property taken by the very people meant to police. This wasn't in a dark ally it was in broad daylight with other police nearby. If police can't live up to the standards they expect from citizens then shouldn't there be some recognition and punishment when the not only violate the LAW, but the TRUST given to them behind the oaths that they take (as I'm pretty sure police swear oaths as well).

Here is probably the most egregious example I can think of when considering what I'm proposing in the OP.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/woman-waits-two-hours-doesnt-get-testify-family-court-marshal-case

If this video doesn't warrant the law I'm proposing nothing does. The woman feels powerless to help herself. She pleaded with a JUDGE (Actually I believe she was a domestic violence commissioner) for christs sake and the judge ignores her as her rights are violated. The laws broken in this case don't go nearly far enough to punish these officials for what they did. The woman got 200K, but the marshall also got cash after being fired!

If I did something that violated the right of the employees at my job I would get fired and I would be charged with a crime. Cops to often are suspended with pay, or fired. Often they just join other departments and continue work.

 

[csbrown28]

I liked the general concept of this thread so much, I created my own version of it on a dozen+ political forums:

U.S. Politics in General




This is too important an idea to let it fade away!

-

I don't care what your lean, no one should be allowed to violate the public trust.

I used to be on the Board of Directors for a 400 home community. It's really a microcosm for what's wrong in this country, I swear. People divide up into 2-3 groups, they get behind the people that support their ideas and then let them do whatever they want as long as it benefits them. Virtually everyone does it.

With the exception of yours truly. When the President of our association decided not to hire a landscaper and cut the 2 acres of "public area" himself and pay himself using the associations money with a check he writes to himself, that was bad. when he held a vote in a meeting with a quorum of 300 when only 10 people showed up...Wow

When I opposed the idea, not because of the money, frankly I didn't think he was being paid enough, I was attacked by people in the community because I wanted to hire a real company or force a meeting with a full quorum to make the decision.

Now the argument is that he did it for less than the company that the association would have hired. Assuming that he did as good a job, and that he had no insurance (as landscapers do) and that he didn't skim anything extra for himself.....My argument was, if you can do a good thing, the wrong way, you pave the road for someone else to do the wrong thing the wrong way....

The point of this to-long-story is to many people are interested only in what affects them directly without seeing the bigger picture!

 

[Kurmugeon]

Lying to commit health insurance fraud by a private individual, or even a health care office worker, is a problem.

Lying to commit Health Insurance Fraud by Jonathan Gruber, on a national scale, affecting 100s of Millions of Americans, is another scale of problem altogether.

The Punishment should fit the scale of the crime.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I don't care what your lean, no one should be allowed to violate the public trust.

I used to be on the Board of Directors for a 400 home community. It's really a microcosm for what's wrong in this country, I swear. People divide up into 2-3 groups, they get behind the people that support their ideas and then let them do whatever they want as long as it benefits them. Virtually everyone does it.

With the exception of yours truly. When the President of our association decided not to hire a landscaper and cut the 2 acres of "public area" himself and pay himself using the associations money with a check he writes to himself, that was bad. when he held a vote in a meeting with a quorum of 300 when only 10 people showed up...Wow

When I opposed the idea, not because of the money, frankly I didn't think he was being paid enough, I was attacked by people in the community because I wanted to hire a real company or force a meeting with a full quorum to make the decision.

Now the argument is that he did it for less than the company that the association would have hired. Assuming that he did as good a job, and that he had no insurance (as landscapers do) and that he didn't skim anything extra for himself.....My argument was, if you can do a good thing, the wrong way, you pave the road for someone else to do the wrong thing the wrong way....

The point of this to-long-story is to many people are interested only in what affects them directly without seeing the bigger picture!

I am a long term registered Democrat and slightly right of center Libertarian, fiscally conservative, scientific minded, with very liberal social views.

I am aghast at the turn toward Fascism of the Democratic Party under the control of the Obama-Wing Radicals.

I will NEVER support Fascism, and sadly, that is what the Democratic Party has morphed into...

-

 

[radcen]

Look, I understand the whole "we don't need more laws" thing. Generally I agree. But after watching the video above and others like it, this officer deserves to be charged with more than destruction of property. While he did, technically assault her, the physical injury she sustained is going to be non-existent, mental injury, meh. It occurs to me there is another dynamic in play here. He thought he could take her property and destroy it with impunity and did it while acting in the capacity of a person given extra authority. Normal law abiding citizens don't think that way. If I take my neighbors camera (or something of value) and destroy it he will call the police and I expect to have to face consequences. But the officer and other like him think they are above the law and get away with their crimes because of who they are.

But this woman had her property taken by the very people meant to police. This wasn't in a dark ally it was in broad daylight with other police nearby. If police can't live up to the standards they expect from citizens then shouldn't there be some recognition and punishment when the not only violate the LAW, but the TRUST given to them behind the oaths that they take (as I'm pretty sure police swear oaths as well).

Here is probably the most egregious example I can think of when considering what I'm proposing in the OP.

Woman waits two hours, doesn't get to testify in Family Court marshal case | Las Vegas Review-Journal

If this video doesn't warrant the law I'm proposing nothing does. The woman feels powerless to help herself. She pleaded with a JUDGE (Actually I believe she was a domestic violence commissioner) for christs sake and the judge ignores her as her rights are violated. The laws broken in this case don't go nearly far enough to punish these officials for what they did. The woman got 200K, but the marshall also got cash after being fired!

If I did something that violated the right of the employees at my job I would get fired and I would be charged with a crime. Cops to often are suspended with pay, or fired. Often they just join other departments and continue work.

You're making an excellent case. I have argued similar things regarding why police should be held accountable... violation of public trust specifically... but you're taking it a step further and doing a good job of it. Kudos.

 

[csbrown28]

I am a long term registered Democrat and slightly right of center Libertarian with very liberal social views.

I am aghast at the turn toward Fascism of the Democratic Party under the control of the Obama-Wing Radicals.

I will NEVER support Fascism, and sadly, that is what the Democratic Party has morphed into...

-

I am also more liberal in my lean and do not support many of the actions that are being taken in Washington by liberal politicians.

I find Conservatives just as guilty and even farther from my political views.....

Along with the OP, I also support the idea of voting for "None of the Above" as a way to send a message to our politicians that they don't represent the interest of the majority of the people.

I also support changing the way voting is held because we both know elections aren't about who we like most but he we dislike the least. If you're not familiar check out the "alternative vote". The guy that created this vid also has a solution to Gerrymandering.

 

[Renae]

The fact that you express what I can only read as sarcasm and take your response to an absurd extreme only proves my point.

Not really. I was merely giving voice to what you are really saying here.

 

[LagerHead]

Good faith? wtf does that even mean?

It's a legal definition. It means that if, for example, a cop pulls you over for x infraction, even though it technically is not an infraction, he is covered because at the time it's reasonable to believe that he may have thought it was against the law. In other words, his actions weren't malicious; they were taken in "good faith."

Let's say the camera was put on a table and the cop smashed it. You think that the violation he committed is limited to the destruction of the camera? Do you think if a person stepped in front of a cop, similar to the one in the vidio, that he would have stood down. Do you think if you pushed him in an effort to protect your property that you wouldn't be the one charged with a crime?

I'd find it hard to believe that anyone would classify that as an action taken in good faith.

No, when police or public officials abuse their authority they are guilty of something greater.

Are there not already laws against doing that?

 

[csbrown28]

Not really. I was merely giving voice to what you are really saying here.

Nice strawman.

 

[csbrown28]

It's a legal definition. It means that if, for example, a cop pulls you over for x infraction, even though it technically is not an infraction, he is covered because at the time it's reasonable to believe that he may have thought it was against the law. In other words, his actions weren't malicious; they were taken in "good faith."



I'd find it hard to believe that anyone would classify that as an action taken in good faith.



Are there not already laws against doing that?

The case in question, the cop smashes a womans camera. Now giving her the benefit of the doubt, beyond the destruction of property (not including a possible assault charge), is there another crime