The purpose of this blog is to provide the author, Jay Moreno, with an outlet to comment upon items of socio-political and socio-economic import in Camden County, Georgia and to generally satisfy a daily compulsion to write.
HISTORIC WATERFRONT, ST. MARYS, GA.
The objective of police "training" is to provide cover and protect them against charges of being "out of control"--a situation that would make them liable for the adverse consequences of the use of force. All law enforcement agencies carry liability insurance. The carriers, not unlike homeowner insurance underwriters, insist on certain safety provisions (fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, occupancy permits) being met, if they're to pay out for an adverse event. In the case of law enforcers, it's training, certification and supervisory direction that insure that "qualified immunity" pertains. What that means is that, if procedures were followed as directed, then the individuals are considered to be immune from personal prosecution and the agency which employs them will not be liable for mistakes or errors. Unfortunately, when law enforcers are accused of unequal treatment of one population (discrimination on the basis of appearances rather than actions), it's not unusual for them to respond by targeting a more varied population with the same abusive behavior. It's as if they're saying, "see, we don't profile."
In the present instance, there was another component -- i.e. police responding to court rulings against stopping people without probable cause by telling people to "move along" and then charging them with violating a "lawful order," consistent with the belief that "keep 'em moving" is a good crowd-control strategy--one they've been taught at police training seminars. See, if it's not lawful to stop people, then it must be lawful to keep them moving. That the agents of government are not to interfere with people who haven't committed a criminal act is not appealing to people who equate "keeping order" with "giving orders."
66 y/o male, college grad. Bachelor of General Studies with minor in political science, Armstrong Atlantic State University; post-baccalaureate teacher certification program, AASU; Georgia state certified teacher: Middle Grades; Middle Grades Social Studies; Middle Grades Language Arts; Political Science (6-12); and Economics (6-12). Currently pursuing bachelor of Science in Public Administration from College of Coastal Georgia. Navy and Vietnam veteran (Hospital Corpsman, NEC 8404). Former HMC, USNR-R. Various Navy Leadership and Management schools. Disabled, and in a wheelchair since April, 2004, A/C Guillain-Barre syndrome. Eclectic interests.
1 comment:
The objective of police "training" is to provide cover and protect them against charges of being "out of control"--a situation that would make them liable for the adverse consequences of the use of force.
All law enforcement agencies carry liability insurance. The carriers, not unlike homeowner insurance underwriters, insist on certain safety provisions (fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, occupancy permits) being met, if they're to pay out for an adverse event. In the case of law enforcers, it's training, certification and supervisory direction that insure that "qualified immunity" pertains. What that means is that, if procedures were followed as directed, then the individuals are considered to be immune from personal prosecution and the agency which employs them will not be liable for mistakes or errors.
Unfortunately, when law enforcers are accused of unequal treatment of one population (discrimination on the basis of appearances rather than actions), it's not unusual for them to respond by targeting a more varied population with the same abusive behavior. It's as if they're saying, "see, we don't profile."
In the present instance, there was another component -- i.e. police responding to court rulings against stopping people without probable cause by telling people to "move along" and then charging them with violating a "lawful order," consistent with the belief that "keep 'em moving" is a good crowd-control strategy--one they've been taught at police training seminars. See, if it's not lawful to stop people, then it must be lawful to keep them moving. That the agents of government are not to interfere with people who haven't committed a criminal act is not appealing to people who equate "keeping order" with "giving orders."
Post a Comment