How about zero tolerance for police misconduct?
How about zero tolerance for appointed government servant's lying to Congress?
After all, these individuals should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us if they want to impose their will upon us without our explicit approval.
How about an officer who has to break the law/procedure to expose corruption or save someone's life?
Life is rarely so black-and-white; zero tolerance strips us of our ability to use reason and discretion based on the arrogant assumption that our rules and procedures are perfect and infallible, which is just silly.
If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. But I cannot, for the life of me, think of any such scenario.
As for exposing corruption or being a whistleblower, there are many who want to modify laws to make it easier(Infact, Obama's stance on it during his elections is a prominent example.), but by definition, whistleblowers are fighting against the more powerful and/or the rich which has made it a losing battle.
> If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault.
Yes, this is precisely the point. Zero-tolerance assumes that the law cannot be at fault, when we know full well that it can be. Ergo, until the law is perfect and unerring, zero tolerance is flawed.
No, it just means that there are things that are true but cannot be proven given the axioms of the system if the system is powerful enough to express Peano arithmetic. It has very little to do with laws, as they don't really prove anything (that is for the jury/judge to do).
If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault.
This may be, but it still means that they broke the law, and would still be affected by zero tolerance. Just because the law is an arse doesn't mean the law has no teeth.
As for an example of breaking the law in the course of duty, in a lot of places police are required to have lights and sirens before they break traffic rules - no sirens means no breaking traffic rules. There are times when police serve better by doing just this.
What situation would warrant breaking traffic laws without using light and sirens? It seems almost a tautology that doing so is a danger to everyone else on the road...
It's not remotely a tautology, because you're assuming that any breaking of a traffic rule is dangerous when that just isn't true. Ever seen a 'no u-turns' section in the dead of night with no cars in sight? There's plenty of times and places where traffic rules can be safely broken, and there are times when police have to respond in a timely but not urgent manner.
For example, frequently with theft, they'll take a while to get to the location where it was reported - this is because the one place the criminal is not at is the site of the theft. So they drive around the location for a bit, sirens off so as not to alert the criminal, and see if they find anything suspicious. Then they can come in to do the report after the scout around.
If you honestly cannot think of a situation where police need to respond without using sirens or breaking traffic rules, then I would suggest you're not close enough to understanding what the job entails to be passing comment on their procedures.
Yes I have seen people make u-turns in the dead of night when "no one" was around, and they proceeded to hit me while I was riding my bike.
No one has 100% perfect situational awareness which is why traffic laws exist in the first place. Are you arguing that breaking traffic laws does not increase the likelihood of an accident, because every statistic on the matter disagrees with you there.
And I don't see why an officer has to break traffic laws when patrolling for a burglar. Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens.
The Earth is 12,700 km in diameter. I'm not sure how that statistic disagrees with me.
What statistics did you mean? Quote some relevant statistics, because just making an empty appeal to some vague authority - that you assure me is on your side - is a terrible way to argue.
Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens.
Can you hear someone doing a u-turn like you can with sirens? Can you tell that its the police doing so? The whole point of sirens is to attract attention. They are specifically designed to pull your attention.
There you have it u-turns cause accidents, which I would think is fairly obvious...
Also, that's some amazingly judicious quoting you did there. You'll note I said "every statistic on the matter." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a native english speaker, so for future reference this is how antecedents work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar)
Also, believe or not, criminals (like most humans) are blessed with more senses than just hearing, it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes.
True, you did say "on the matter", and I did overreach, but my point is still strong: You provided none, and just made the assumption that they 'all', 'them' being an implied multitude, agree with you.
As for your prime (and only) example of u-turn accidents, right there in the text it says that u-turn accidents are so rare, they had to add in left-turns in order for it to be analysable.
In addition to that, you've provided a statistic on 'making u-turns', not 'breaking traffic laws', which was your original complaint. The segment you've bookmarked doesn't talk about how legal the turns taken were.
it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes.
Your argument counters itself. On the one hand you say you can't see illegal manoeuvres, so they're always downright dangerous if not deadly, and on the other hand you say that any such manoeuvre is visible and obvious.
You're right I provided none, this stuff is covered in pretty much every drivers manual in every state in the United States, you are right I shouldn't have assumed you were a licensed driver.
But that makes it pretty easy to disprove me, all you have to do is provide one statistic to the contrary. And no, just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't count, it still increases the risk of an accident. So If you'd like to provide a counterexample, you might have an actual argument.
That's not the argument I made, that's a complete strawman. My point was that other drivers on the road are not necessarily going to notice someone breaking traffic laws. A criminal breaking the law and paying attention to any nearby police will.
I don't have to provide a statistic to disprove you, because I wasn't the one rabbitting on about how 'every' statistic 'agrees with me'. If you make the claim, you have to provide the evidence. So far you're presented one statistic, and it doesn't reflect what you've had to say so far. And again you resort to an 'everyone knows' argument ('in all the books!') which again is bad argument style - if it is that easy to source, then source it! Don't deliver it with an underhanded ad hominem, because it's not my responsibility to support your argument.
A criminal breaking the law and paying attention to any nearby police will.
Contrary to popular belief, criminals are humans too, and frequently let their guard down or are just plain stupid. You really are assuming we're dealing with an idealised Hollywood world, where everyone is an over-the-top stereotype. This comes back to the point I made about not commenting on police procedure if you're that unaware of what the work entails.
My statement is unprovable but easily disproved, so I'm not sure what you want me to do here. If you don't want to go through the effort of finding one counterexample I don't know what to tell you...
Also the one statistic I provided absolutely agrees with me, are you arguing a small increase in risk doesn't count as an increase in risk? At what percent increase in risk will you deem it a legitimate increase in risk, since apparently we are going by how you personally feel and not what the numbers actually say.
Stop throwing up strawmen arguments and provide a counterexample, and yes it literally is in all the books, have you red your states drivers's manual?
These are terrible examples. The point of the sirens is to let other people know to be aware when the police find it necessary to break the rules. "timely but not urgent" doesn't make any sense if, because the police decide to drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid traffic so they can get there in a timely fashion, they get into a head-on collision because the other drivers were not expecting it. The sirens are on because the rules are being broken by police, the sirens are not orthogonal to breaking traffic laws.
It's in the best interest of the police and for scoping out the area around where a theft has occurred to not draw attention to themselves, by both NOT turning on sirens on AND by not skirting traffic laws. If they are are intent on not alerting the criminal, then driving normally would help with that. And if they are driving normally, then there is no need for sirens then either.
You want a better example? Suppose the officer is covertly following a suspect of a serious crime to see where he goes. Turning on lights and sirens will obviously give the officer away. The suspect is violating various traffic laws as many people often do (speeding, ignoring "no turn on red" etc.) and the officer has to match the violations or lose the suspect.
The point is, zero tolerance is stupid. We need to have an appropriate balance between clear rules and discretion, so that the law actually means something rather than only being whatever the prosecutor says it is, without being so overly rigid that you have people being prosecuted for doing harmless or beneficial things.
The existing law is very, very far away from being overly rigid. Government officials have far too much discretion and get away with far too much. But it is theoretically possible to go too far the other way -- we just haven't, and never have to worry about doing so in practice, because of the politics of the situation. Politics making zero tolerance for police misconduct unachievable in practice doesn't mean it would be a good idea even if we could manage to implement it.
This is a bad example too, and is pretty much the same example I already refuted. The point here is that there is no such thing as "covertly following" if the police are disobeying traffic laws. They'd have to be close enough to keep track of the suspect, and that means the suspect will see that someone else is "matching their violations". In this case, many police departments will not pursue because a chase endangers too many lives (I don't have a reference handy for this, but I believe I read about here on HN some months back).
Yes, zero tolerance is stupid, and this remains a bad example.
>The point here is that there is no such thing as "covertly following" if the police are disobeying traffic laws.
If the suspect is flagrantly running red lights or driving 140 in a 55, someone else doing the same thing is going to be conspicuous. If the suspect is ignoring "no turn on red" signs or driving 65 in a 55, they're doing the same thing as 80+% of other motorists and someone else doing the same thing is not going to stand out.
> In this case, many police departments will not pursue because a chase endangers too many lives (I don't have a reference handy for this, but I believe I read about here on HN some months back).
You're referring to situations where the suspect is aware of the pursuit.
Are you aware that there are often long stretches of road which, if you follow the traffic rules completely, take you quite a ways out of your way before you can double back? Similarly, using sirens late at night in urban areas for non-emergency events is not pleasant for residents.
Are you suggesting convenience is more important than the safety of everyone else on the road?
Please don't forget the fact that you have the privilege of being encased in a few tons of steel with multiple safety systems. When doing your moral calculus and weighing how many lives are worth risking to save time, please remember there are other people on the road who don't have that privilege. Cyclists have to be constantly aware of cars breaking traffic laws if they want to stay alive, and they are not as visible as you would like to imagine.
If there is a non-zero chance of causing an accident and harming someone by breaking traffic laws, and the only benefit is saving time or not annoying residents, how do you justify that?
If there is a non-zero chance of causing an accident and harming someone by breaking traffic laws, and the only benefit is saving time or not annoying residents, how do you justify that?
I justify that because I am not an absolutist. If you're really going for the 'what price a life' argument, unless you're giving your entire income and free time (excluding enough to keep yourself alive) to a relevant charity (say, clearing minefields), you also don't believe in 'any-percentage-over-zero-is-too-high'.
Absolutely. I've also seen a police car slowly enter a no-entry T-intersaction in the dead of night, the road behind being two-way. No other cars moving, and they were going slowly enough that even someone with a walking stick could have escaped their movement. Nevertheless, they still broke the law, something that would not be allowed under 'zero tolerance'.
The problem with zero tolerance is that large systems are about balance, so when you're designing a process to govern a large system, rules quickly become untenable when measured in absolutes, and become about managing probabilities. When designing the rules for a legal system, for example, we can never have 100% correct outcome, so we have to decide whether we're ok with 100 innocent people going to prison for every guilty person, or 1 innocent person, or 100 guilty people going free for every innocent person going to prison, etc.
Sociological systems are governed by laws of nature, and we can't just ignore them any more than we can ignore the laws of physics. Zero tolerance is a copout. It sounds good, but real systems simply don't work that way. It might be manageable for congressmen or senators because the system is small enough, but is completely untenable for a system as large as a police force.
Even for a police officers, zero tolerance is a foolish standard. But in this case, even under the most lenient of systems, this cop should have been gone from the force a long time ago.
I have known a lot of cops over the years, and I can honestly say that there are a lot of awesome guys doing that job. But it also attracts these power hungry assholes, who could care less about law and order, and only care about pushing people around and compensating for what I can only presume their manhood inadequacies.
For instance, I knew a guy who was a very successful civil litigation attorney, very shitty attorney, but very successful. He worked part time as a patrol cop. Why? He did not need the money, he did not care about the law for a bit, and he could give two shits about helping people. But he loves the power. In his own words, he was bullied as a kid, and now it's his turn. That man is still a cop to this day, and he absolutely should not be one.
Unless you have the ability of perfect distinction of guilty versus innocent, then any policy that demands action against 100% of the guilty is going to catch a lot of innocent as well. So no, I don't have a zero tolerance for police misconduct. I have a low tolerance for it, and would prefer that it be treated more severely, but if a few cases slip by, that is OK, because the alternative would inevitably be dysfunctional.
Supposed a battered wife is in hiding and a police officer knows where she is and the husband makes some frivolous lawsuit so he can see her - would it be so bad if the police officer claimed he didn't know where she was?
As for lying in Congress I would expect it if it was to protect the identity of a whistle blower or something like that.
The key in all parts are context, but Zero Justice explicitly denies context; it would be the same as giving the driver of a car what hits and kills a pedestrian because it gets bumped by another car the same punishment you would give for first degree murder.
