"Either you buy these, or I take your car"

[BehindBlueI's]

Chastise?

If someone does not have all the information and decides to form an opinion based on not having enough information, possibly because a preconceived opinion of the context of the events, that is still their choice.

Or should everything be spelled out for everyone on every topic, ever?

You very seldom have all the information in life, yet you make decisions based on that incomplete and imperfect information all the time. If someone has info that exonerates the guy, present it. If not, people are going to form their opinion based on available info. I have no idea if his department pushed him to do it or he did it on his own, but either way its not the right way to conduct business.

[Gray222]

You very seldom have all the information in life, yet you make decisions based on that incomplete and imperfect information all the time. If someone has info that exonerates the guy, present it. If not, people are going to form their opinion based on available info. I have no idea if his department pushed him to do it or he did it on his own, but either way its not the right way to conduct business.

Not saying its right, not condoning it.

Pointing out the obvious fact, that you confirmed, no one has all the info. So why assume the negative right away? The facts won't come out, as they won't be taken kindly to by the public.

Welcome to police departments of the modern times.

[BehindBlueI's]

Not saying its right, not condoning it.

Pointing out the obvious fact, that you confirmed, no one has all the info. So why assume the negative right away? The facts won't come out, as they won't be taken kindly to by the public.

Welcome to police departments of the modern times.

Well, to quote myself from earlier in the thread:

Selling things on duty to the public should be against policy, period. I say to the public because if you want to sell to your fellow cops at roll call or run a snack fund in the detective's office, that's fine.

You want to hock tickets, do it on your own time. There's simply too much potential for both corruption and the appearance of corruption. Even if he didn't extort them, a traffic stop is not the place to be shilling a product, and having someone detained longer than legally required so you can do your sales pitch is problematic as well.

In the end, to an outsider's perspective, it doesn't matter much if this copper decided to do it on his own or the brass pushed him to do it. The fact it's systematic, as seems to be what is being hinted at but not confirmed, does not make it better. I'm glad to say that it's not how business is done here. We still have merit protection and are still union, and I'd say all hell would break loose if someone pushed the beat cops to do anything like that here.

[Gray222]

Well, to quote myself from earlier in the thread:

In the end, to an outsider's perspective, it doesn't matter much if this copper decided to do it on his own or the brass pushed him to do it. The fact it's systematic, as seems to be what is being hinted at but not confirmed, does not make it better. I'm glad to say that it's not how business is done here. We still have merit protection and are still union, and I'd say all hell would break loose if someone pushed the beat cops to do anything like that here.

Again, this is not a conversation regarding if what he did was okay in any way, it was not and he will be punished for his behavior and actions.

I was referring to other points outside the context in response to posts.

As for it being systematic. Hell yeah it is. How to change it is the question.

[ssb]

Not saying its right, not condoning it.

Pointing out the obvious fact, that you confirmed, no one has all the info. So why assume the negative right away? The facts won't come out, as they won't be taken kindly to by the public.

Welcome to police departments of the modern times.

Probably because the video presented plainly shows unprofessional conduct as well as conduct that almost certainly violates 18 Pa. Code § 3923(a)(4). There's not really a positive spin or assumption to make, regardless of the alleged benevolence of his extortion.

Are there specific facts that you are aware of that will exonerate the officer or mitigate his actions? If yes: why, specifically, is it that you believe that that information will not be released?

[Gray222]

Probably because the video presented plainly shows unprofessional conduct as well as conduct that almost certainly violates 18 Pa. Code § 3923(a)(4). There's not really a positive spin or assumption to make, regardless of the alleged benevolence of his extortion.

Are there specific facts that you are aware of that will exonerate the officer or mitigate his actions? If yes: why, specifically, is it that you believe that that information will not be released?

Again. I am not condoning his behavior or his actions.

Any such information or facts, are outside my purview.

[Alpha Sierra]

The facts won't come out, as they won't be taken kindly to by the public.

And thus continue to build mistrust of the police from the people they are sworn to serve

[ssb]

Again. I am not condoning his behavior or his actions.

Any such information or facts, are outside my purview.

I never said you condoned it. My comment was specific to your question of: "why assume the negative?" I answered accordingly.

As far as other information, you/others seemed to imply otherwise. Perhaps I misread.

[Paul]

Well, the big difference would be that dumping it out would be officer discretion and no different than transporting it to the property room for disposal except for paperwork, but possessing it for use later would be a crime such as "possession of (insert type of dope here)". I think the fact the second option is a crime that can get you not only fired but charged criminally pretty well addresses that. That said, it fails to be relevant to the topic at hand. The intent in this case is the same. Take $20 to look the other way. Officer discretion allows you flexibility in not enforcing the law in every instance when the needs of justice are best served by not doing so, not when you can buy your way out of it.

Would you document dumping dope in a police report or do it while you knew you were being filmed?

Is taking $20 to the look the other way is so much worse than destroying evidence of crime so you can look the other way? If we're playing the morality card and saying that $20 is $20 regardless of intent, then where do we draw the line on destroying evidence? If $20 is $20, then destroying evidence is destroying evidence. Depriving someone of their property, whether it can be legally possessed or not, and not disposing of it in accordance with department policy and applicable laws is denying someone their right to due process.

[BehindBlueI's]

Would you document dumping dope in a police report or do it while you knew you were being filmed?

Is taking $20 to the look the other way is so much worse than destroying evidence of crime so you can look the other way? If we're playing the morality card and saying that $20 is $20 regardless of intent, then where do we draw the line on destroying evidence? If $20 is $20, then destroying evidence is destroying evidence. Depriving someone of their property, whether it can be legally possessed or not, and not disposing of it in accordance with department policy and applicable laws is denying someone their right to due process.

Well, let's just cut to the chase. Do you think it's ok to tell a motorist that if they buy your tickets you'll let them go?