Please, someone, explain to me why a representative of the "people's" government is able to detain someone against their will simply for using an arrangement of syllables which some people happen to find offensive?

Well, if they've just been in a violent confrontation, getting them to stop swearing is in fact, getting them to calm the hell down and do as they are told. Certainly, if I stopped a fight and one of the bastards kept on being aggressive, I'd be on edge.

Policemen cannot see through doors. They have no idea why he's behind the door, or if he is armed.

To accuse officers of 'stealing' the product of an illegal narcotics factory when they are in fact they are disposing of it is childish and silly.

What you've in fact done there is armchair police from the safety of your own home. Which is what Cops wants you to do, it's brain rot TV.

If I recall correctly, Cops is a fox show, with a right wing agenda of 'yes, they will fuck you up if you stray, OBEY!'. Perhaps talking to some coppers would be a better way of looking at things.

1: He was pretty calm indeed, and was merely swearing in a casual manner. The fight had ended some time ago, and there were a few people just standing around looking a bit drunk. I can understand police being wary of people who are excited or aggressive, but this guy simply wasn't. Either way, does the fact that the officer is "on edge" mean that he is justified in violating someone's rights? Perhaps it's okay for officers to start punching people if they're having a bad day? And why should anyone "calm down and do what they're told"? Are the police allowed to dictate private citizens' actions now?

2: The man was in the process of trying to unlock the door, and they gave no warning that they were about to start battering. He was probably behind the door because the police had just spent the last minute or so trying to break it down (they took over 20 blows), and was no doubt worried by the shouting men trying to destroy his property and enter his house. It was an anonymous tipoff for a cannabis grow-op in Britain, so hardly a huge risk of him pulling a gun.

3: No, I don't think it's childish at all. It may be illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that they took, using force, a private individual's property. Oh, so they disposed of it instead of selling it or using it themselves? Big deal. If I break into your house, tie you up, and then take your property, does what I do with that property afterwards change the fact that I committed theft? Give me a solid reason as to why that man deserved to have his property stolen, and I'll take it back, but if you're going to call me childish, please give some kind of justification. "It's illegal" isn't a justification.

4: It wasn't Cops itself, hence my saying "Cops style". I believe the incidents I mentioned were on "street wars". I'm not basing my entire opinion simply on a TV show, I was just using a few incidents I remembered to illustrate my point. I've had plenty of interaction with police, and by in large they're reasonable people but, as I made quite clear in the original post, they're just normal people. I have nothing against police per se, and it's a very hard job- I definitely couldn't do it- but from what I've seen, the standard operating procedures of the police force are unacceptable.

1. Not having seen this, being a mostly-non-telly person, I don't know the exact circumstances of the man's arrest for swearing. See my response below about the public order thing - it's easier to prove someone is guilty of public order offences than drunk and disorderly or affray, which the copper might suspect him of if he was refusing to leave the site of a recent scrap. Any which way, being done for public order is just silly. It's easily avoidable by just shutting up if you're warned. Nod, smile, think "w*nker" really really loudly to yourself, whatever, they won't get you arrested.
2. Someone blocking a door while pretending to slowly open it is a classic delaying tactic to let someone dispose of evidence or evade arrest. Shouts of "police" would indicate that you're either being invaded by a smarter breed of thugs than is usual, or that indeed the police would like to see what the inside of your house looks like. Either it was a very weak policeman or the front-door was reinforced for it to take 20 blows to open it - if the former then the man would have had plenty of time to get out of the way, if the latter, again it's a classic delaying tactic which would make the police even more determined to get in there quickly.
If the shouting wasn't including the word "police" then the man behind the door was probably being very stupid opening it - shouty people and door-breaking noises would not invoke a response from me involving that door opening.
3. See my response below about legal against illegal posession. Sometimes illegal posession can be for the good of an individual, sometimes for the good of people around an individual, sometimes just for the good of the government's coffers (eg the first firearms license in the UK was apparently a revenue-raising exercise in the 1900s, nothing immediately to do with public safety). Any which way, having something which you are not legally permitted to does not mean that you get to keep it if you're found out. I'm not the one calling you childish for your views on narcotics, quite frankly I believe it's your right to put whatever substances wherever in your body in whatever manner you see fit *within the law* - if you don't agree with the law, lobby parliament, shout at your MP, get that law changed, but don't just ignore the fact that it's the law of the land you live in. That's being as childish as someone who gets caught doing 120mph down a dual-carriageway and then tells the police they should be out catching criminals, not innocent motorists.

4. *shrug* I tend not to watch such things as I can get a bit shouty at the telly. My interaction with the police has been mostly positive, and I don't envy them their job. If you treat them as you would want to be treated and have some common sense about your interactions with them you will generally not have a problem. Arrests = paperwork, and most coppers I know and have met don't like paperwork. Unless it's something they *have* to arrest you for, they will give you every opportunity not to be arrested.

evilstevie

Interesting post. I've met a few cops that are genuinely decent - including one that pulled us over the other day and had the right to fine us and confiscate my car, but instead let us go with a warning. (I like to think it's because we were polite, the situation was a genuine accident, but it could have been that he was near the end of his shift and didn't want to deal with the paperwork.)

Anyway, I spent two years in a practical course with people that intended to be police officers. I split off and went to law school after that, but I got to know a few hundred aspiring police officers. And, well, most of them were extremely unintelligent. Mostly good people, but not all that bright.

I think, in addition to the power issue, you need to consider the "herd mentality." I'll bet a lot of cops do stuff they wouldn't do otherwise, mostly because they see that their peers are doing it. Put them in a regimented, militaristic and stressful environment, consider that the majority are of average IQ, and think about how hard it would be to try to buck the standards of accepted behavior.

Also, never underestimate the power of a television camera. It'll cause people to act in ways they wouldn't otherwise. And the power of editing - they aren't going to show the boring stuff. I live in the inner city, and see police activity on a daily basis. Honestly, it's rare to see the police acting anything but respectful. Not to say that I haven't come across my fair share of assholes, but overall the cops don't seem to want to get into it any more than you or I do.

It doesn't sound as if you've watched the Inspector Lynley series. Some of the cops are such wimps in that program. An unarmed cop can approach a dangerous armed individual and beg him to put down his weapon.

Perhaps you should stop watching things that you know piss you off! I think you'd be a much happier person! Then again, you do seem like you could be one of those who need to be discontent with *something* to be happy ;)

Stanford prison experiment <3

Have you ever seen The Wire? I'm fairly certain you'd like it, as it's about the War on Drugs and it accurately portrays how the police tackle drug dealers in Baltimore.

Okay, hypothetical-time:
You have, in your house/room, an object which it is illegal to own in your country of residence.
For some reason a legally-authorised person enters your house/room, spots said object, and confiscates it, according to the current legal requirements of his job.
Whether that object is a DVD of kiddy-pr0n, an abused animal, a loaded missile-launcher, or drugs, the point holds.
Is the object something you could complain to a court of law over its removal from your possession? If not, I'm afraid the "theft" comment does not hold here.
If the legally-authorised person took the item and kept it for their own personal use rather than put it in a marked evidence-bag and chucked it into the station evidence room I'd be making a huge complaint about that person, and querying his legally-authorised status as high up the food-chain as I could get.
The rest of it, I'd point out that anyone who wants to appear in front of the TV cameras usually has something to prove to themselves.
The stopping someone swearing thing is (from anecdotal conversations with mates who do the job) more of a handy way to legally make an arrest of someone - I think it goes something like "two verbal warnings to moderate language in front of a constable/officer, then a warning of probable arrest if they continue, then on with the handcuffs under a public order law" which can take under a couple of minutes if you've really upset the nice man in uniform. Realistically, if you haven't done anything dodgy and you aren't upsetting the copper, it's not going to happen. Conversely, it can also be a way the copper gets you out of a dodgy situation with the minimum of fuss. A mate has arrested someone in that manner, cuffed him, and walked him round two corners away from the (large group of) men he was in a fight with, then released him with a caution and the advice to keep walking away from the pub please. Solo copper can't deal with a large fight until the backup gets there, so gets the individuals out of there if possible.

evilstevie

I'm glad that making you disagree is something that warrants a "blimey!"

If you want to define "theft" as the taking of an object which is not prohibited by the current, arbitrary and illogical laws, then the officer didn't steal the plant. This is immaterial as to whether or not the officer acted morally and, when I talked about theft, I was referring to the taking, through force or coercion, of another person's property without ethical justification. Under that definition, the officer did thieve the plants.

Also, why does the fact that a group of people sitting in parliament decades ago decided to ban a certain plant mean that anyone, anywhere, has right to damage and "confiscate" others' property and "detain" them simply because they decided to cultivate that plant?

It may be handy for officers to have these powers, but that doesn't mean they should. It'd probably make doctors' jobs easier if they didn't have to deal with that whole "informed consent" thing, but that's no reason to remove it. It may be unlikely that a police officer decides to arrest you without (at least to his mind) good reason, but they still can, and as long as they have the current range of powers and lack of oversight, one can't realistically do much in the instance that the cops do decide to arrest one arbitrarily. In addition, nobody deserves the right to use force (i.e arrest) on another person simply because that person swore. Even in the instance of a person screaming "cock off you fucking cunt-mongering shit-licker" (or similar) in an police officer's face does not justify their arrest.

Theft is defined by dictionary.com as:
" the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another."
note here - "the wrongful taking" indicating that there are circumstances in which the act of taking property away from another is not wrongful and hence would be considered not theft.
The UK parliament have decided what it is permissable to have and what is not permissable. It's up to you to decide if you want to live with that or not. The government's approach to drugs may be stupid but they are the elected representatives of the people and are technically doing what we (through voting) direct them to do.
If you vote for a drugs-liberal candidate, make clear to them why you are voting that way and if enough people do so then the makeup of the government will be more drug-tolerant and hence more likely to legalise cannabis/heroin/whatever.
For your person screaming abuse in an officer's face- would you consider that a reasonable action in public? Legally speaking, the "normal" thing such a person would be arrested under is the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5:
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
This offence has the following statutory defences:
(1) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed of distressed by his action.
(2) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(3) The conduct was reasonable."
The person being caused "harassment, alarm or distress" would be the copper. The warnings before arrest removes the statutory defences as the person being arrested has been told repeatedly that their language is upsetting the poor policeman.
An arrest does not have to be using force.
Unless the arrest is for something potentially violent, or the copper is feeling threatened, there is normally no requirement for handcuffs to be applied.
There's plenty of oversight on police activities, some of which you should be aware of (Police Complaints Comission) and some you may not know about (there's a civilian panel which has oversight of an area's police force, for example). A police constable is required to keep a notebook of their activities in the line of their duty, and this is admissable in a court of law as evidence both in support of and to prove the actions of a copper. The pages of the notebooks are sequentially numbered, and a sergeant or officer has to sign off the back of the book when it's full to say that no pages are missing. If a copper "decides to arrest you without good reason" then he's got to think of a damned good excuse for arresting you to put in his little book. If you put a complaint in about that copper (keep your arrest paperwork, note down the collar-number, etc) to the PCC, they WILL check what he put in his book and act on it if it doesn't tally with the paperwork you got given. If there's no record in his notebook of arresting you, it's questionable that he did so in the line of duty and that would be false imprisonment - kidnapping. Knowing about the law you're being arrested under will make them tread carefully - they know they have to get it correct. This is why it pays attention to things like the public order act - if you are warned not to use such language, you shut up and just eyeball the copper instead, two feet away from him, your hands behind your back and your feet planted firmly on the ground. Such a stance is completely non-threatening, you have complied with their request to moderate your language, and you have removed any reason for arrest that they were going to use. Waving arms, stamping feet, getting close enough to possibly head-butt = threatening behaviour = arrestable.
It's not rocket-science, and frankly should be common courtesy in public. You wouldn't scream abuse in a barmaid's face and then expect to get served a pint would you?
evilstevie