Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (13880)	5/21/2001 12:17:55 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The majority obviously did not want to limit warrantless arrests for misdemeanors under the Fourth Amendment. It's a balancing act. Personally, I don't think a lot of harm came to Atwater for this arrest. She should have buckled the kids up. What the hell is wrong with her.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (13880)	5/21/2001 4:12:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

This decision points up a very interesting phenomenon. That is, unlike most orgainzations, discretion on a police force increases the farther away from the top of the chain of command one gets. The "beat cop" has much more discretion in the performance of his duties than a supervisor does. I happen to agree that this decision gives me some pause. But, I also am not sure I want to start "handcuffing" (bad pun) the beat cop as he goes about his duties. And DWA should be a crime. These guys are only, in the vast majority of cases, going about their duties unappreciated and for lousy pay. JLA