[ SECRET POST #2176 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2176 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Sorry for late, busy day.

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #311.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Ethical Question

[ill_omened]

Not anon.

Interesting.

In practical terms you sorta do, at least in the UK.

That's a big part of why they're 'officers'. A constable isn't going to be expected to stop every single person without a seatbelt for example. Hell turning a possible reported crime into a civil dispute is an art form in some cases. The lack of targets which is imposed for obvious reasons, also makes it difficult to deal with all but the most egregious laziness, or lack of action.

Yeah if some officer is walking past a serious assault or something, and doesn't do anything they'll be in a world of shit, but simply going up to a prostitute soliciting, or a guy with a spliff - and telling them to knock that shit off whilst taking no further action? Nah.

Perhaps things are widely different in the US. I would be surprised though.

Re: Ethical Question

[saku]

i never said officers don't give warnings and nothing else. but that's part of enforcing the law. they're not always obligated by their badge to give out tickets or arrest people who are breaking petty laws. most officers here give warnings unless you piss them off.

but if you have an actual moral problem with a law then i doubt you'd be the type to give out warnings too, hence my comment. there's a difference between an officer having bigger fish to fry at the moment and an officer consciously opting out of warning or ticketing a person for an offense solely because the officer doesn't ~like that law.

Re: Ethical Question

[ill_omened]

Not really, or rather I don't think the difference is as great as you're suggesting, and that in real terms it happens all the time anyway.

Re: Ethical Question

[saku]

are you in law enforcement/law/lawmaking, or have you had experience in any of these things, or are you just assuming? because i am speaking from experience, and in principle there is actually a noticeable difference between those two things. it's all about the whys.

Re: Ethical Question

[ill_omened]

The former.

Can't really expand for obvious reasons unfortunately.

(less something that would affect me, more colleagues tho)

Re: Ethical Question

[saku]

then surely we can agree that it's about the whys, and that, officer depending, there is a noticeable difference between turning the other cheek when you have more important things to do and turning the other cheek because you never intend to enforce a law you vowed to enforce when you went into law enforcement.