Mandatory Arrest: "Itinerant Vendors"

[srqrebel]

Summons in lieu of arrest doesn't imply a lesser penalty. Whether arrested and arraigned, or just issued a summons, the court appearance is the same (assuming the charge is the same).

True. Sometimes I don't say exactly what I mean, despite my best efforts

Indeed, a court summons does not imply a lesser penalty. What I really meant to say was that there are usually alternatives to an on-the-spot arrest.

What Ian was saying made it sound as if law enforcement was not required to enforce the law, unless there is a law that specifically instructs them to do so. (That is not necessarily what he meant, though; I just wanted to get a better understanding of what he was driving at.)

My point was simply that just because an on-the-spot arrest is not mandated by law, does not mean that the law promotes, or even allows for, selective enforcement.

[FTL_Ian]

Ian was saying made it sound as if law enforcement was not required to enforce the law, unless there is a law that specifically instructs them to do so.

That is my understanding, yes.

[srqrebel]

The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.

How many times a day does a cop drive by someone going 5mph over and not do anything? They have selective enforcement, and that is why they can see 3 speeders going the same speed, and only pull over one.

I do not at deny the fact that selective enforcement takes place routinely. The reason this happens, is not because the law sanctions it (I could be wrong about that), but AFAIK it is because law enforcement is the bottleneck: If police do not take action when they observe the law being broken, how can the sanctioning process be initiated? If their superiors do not take corrective action when their lackeys turn a blind eye, who will? Of course, the police are to some extent accountable to the public, otherwise they lose their legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

Hence, in cases where it is clear that an officer is "not doing his job", he is naturally accountable to his superiors. For example, when an officer calls in the ID info of someone with an outstanding warrant, yet does not take the person into custody, he would presumably have to answer for that. Likewise, if an officer responds to a citizen complaint, yet he does not charge anyone with a crime, he'd better be prepared to explain. That may not be the case with isolated instances; but I'm sure that if a specific officer develops a provable track record of turning a blind eye, he would be told to shape up or ship out. This not because his superiors follow the letter of the law, but because he is eroding the legitimacy of law enforcement.

This is really no different from what takes place in nearly every workplace: There are specific rules in place, even clearly posted and emphatically worded; yet workers routinely ignore those rules whenever they feel like it. The main exception to this is instances where they are being potentially monitored by their superiors, hence can be held accountable.

An officer sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun can ignore four out of five speeders, and no one will know the difference. But, if he ignores someone doing 85 in a 55 zone, someone is likely to complain to the department: "Your officer is not doing his job". And if he ignores all the speeders, he will have to explain to his superiors why he didn't write any tickets this month.

The bottom line is, why concern ourselves with what actions call for a mandatory arrest? I am not interested in goading the police into making an arrest. That is being conninving, and is not what I am about. I just want to be left alone to live my life as I see fit, as long as I do not bring actual harm to others.

If the police ignore our activities, that is a win. At the same time, we also need to be fully prepared to capitalize on any arrests that are made. When we are fully prepared, we actually gain ground faster when they arrest us for just minding our own business; but it also comes at a greater personal cost to us.

Our poker game at KFF got ignored by the police. That is a win for us. Now that the precedent has been set, they will likely continue to ignore penny poker at Freedom Fest, if nothing else just to save face. That is a definite win. Now, I participated in that game not because I wanted to goad them into arresting me; I did it because I like to play poker every chance I get (which is actually pretty rare). I was doing exactly what I would have been doing if there were no laws at all.

I think the whole reason Ian is exploring the "mandatory arrest" thing, is because he is looking to kick it up a notch, and take our civ dis to the next level. No problem there, I just think he is barking up the wrong tree by seeking out mandatory arrests. There are two reasons for that: 1) Mandatory arrests are a moot point -- police will turn a blind eye to lawbreaking if it seems in their best interest to do so, and take action against it (leading ultimately to an arrest for non-cooperation) whenever it seems in their best interest -- it really does not matter what is written in the statutes, and 2) I do not see the point in aiming for an arrest, as long as we continue to make slow and steady progress without arrests.

If the point is to step things up a bit, here is my suggestion: Instead of playing poker with pennies, which will almost certainly continue to be ignored, and does nothing by way of gaining further ground, why not use dollars instead? If public poker were legal, that is exactly what I would do. If they ignore us when we play for dollars, we will have gained some major ground at no loss to us. If they instead arrest us, we will turn it into an even bigger win, by making a public spectacle of their hostile attitude toward voluntary and peaceful interactions.

OTOH, if they ignore dollar poker, we can make it a unique and popular tradition at KFF.

[FTL_Ian]

I do not see the point in aiming for an arrest, as long as we continue to make slow and steady progress without arrests.

Agreed.  I don't want anyone to get arrested.  The point would be that if they don't arrest the itinerant vendor (and it is my intention that they do not arrest anyone), then that is more evidence that they don't follow their own rules.

If the point is to step things up a bit, here is my suggestion: Instead of playing poker with pennies, which will almost certainly continue to be ignored, and does nothing by way of gaining further ground, why not use dollars instead? If public poker were legal, that is exactly what I would do. If they ignore us when we play for dollars, we will have gained some major ground at no loss to us. If they instead arrest us, we will turn it into an even bigger win, by making a public spectacle of their hostile attitude toward voluntary and peaceful interactions.

OTOH, if they ignore dollar poker, we can make it a unique and popular tradition at KFF.

I totally agree with stepping up the gambling.

[Kat Kanning]

Why do you need more evidence that they don't follow their own rules?

BTW, you can be the antichrist for a while now, Ian.

[FTL_Ian]

Why do you need more evidence that they don't follow their own rules?

I don't.  It seemed certain people were interested in provoking arrests for their CD, so I posted an idea where they are supposed to be guaranteed an arrest.  I was not interested in performing the itinerant vendor CD, just passing on information.

For the record, I prefer Menno's approach of living free and not throwing it in their face.

[FTL_Ian]

BTW, you can be the antichrist for a while now, Ian.

[srqrebel]

BTW, you can be the antichrist for a while now, Ian.

Ian really is the Antichrist... he has the photo to prove it!

[J’raxis 270145]

The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.

How many times a day does a cop drive by someone going 5mph over and not do anything? They have selective enforcement, and that is why they can see 3 speeders going the same speed, and only pull over one.

...

An officer sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun can ignore four out of five speeders, and no one will know the difference. But, if he ignores someone doing 85 in a 55 zone, someone is likely to complain to the department: "Your officer is not doing his job". And if he ignores all the speeders, he will have to explain to his superiors why he didn't write any tickets this month.

Situations like this are in most cases just an issue of manpower: They can't cite every single person going 75 mi/h on the freeway, because that's most everyone. This is also why the State loves things like traffic light cameras nowadays: With things like those, they can literally catch every single violator.

If the police ignore our activities, that is a win. At the same time, we also need to be fully prepared to capitalize on any arrests that are made. When we are fully prepared, we actually gain ground faster when they arrest us for just minding our own business; but it also comes at a greater personal cost to us.

But don't let the fact that they're ignoring you think they will continue doing so, especially if anyone tries to push it up to the next level, e.g., gambling larger amounts in public, or violating another slightly more serious law. I worry that stuff like this is just designed to make us overconfident, and slip up in the future, breaking a more serious law, or one that's easier for them to prosecute, has a stiffer sentence, or somesuch.

[FTL_Ian]

No need to worry.  It's a waste of your time.  All is well and only getting better.

[karenijohnson]

VENDORS arrested if *OVER* 500$ sales *and* transient >> Get fingerprints

as to this "statute"... the vendor has to *have* sold more than 500$ *and* be temporary/transient...

in police jargon, the concept is called "bookable offense" which includes photograph and fingerprints. you end up in the "book" of arrests..

if they are CERTAIN who you are and believe you will come to court, *and* have a place to contact/arrest you if you don't--then a SUMMONS is just fine...

karenijohnson
p.s. please help wearechange.org folks if anyone can...

[mackler]

The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.

A first on you?  Really?  Name one instance you know of where a police officer was punished for not enforcing a law.

If police were required to enforce every law, then what would be the purpose of a statute mandating enforcement of a particular law?

[srqrebel]

The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.

A first on you?  Really?  Name one instance you know of where a police officer was punished for not enforcing a law.

If police were required to enforce every law, then what would be the purpose of a statute mandating enforcement of a particular law?

I am not aware of police officers being prosecuted for not enforcing the law, though they could certainly lose their job. It seems prosecutors and the courts are disposed to letting cops off easy, no matter what.

My understanding is that it is the job of the police to enforce the law. I am not aware of any law relieving them of that job requirement.

As far as a statute "mandating enforcement" of a particular law, can you name one? I am aware that there are statutes that specify the manner of enforcement, but none that say anything to the effect of "the police must enforce this law".

It is a built-in presumption of any statute that it will be enforced... whether or not that is how it plays out in reality.

[Roycerson]

My understanding is that it is the job of the police to enforce the law. I am not aware of any law relieving them of that job requirement.

Yes, police are allowed to use discretion in a broad range of circumstances.  Surely you're familiar with instances of police issuing a warning when they could have chosen to write a ticket instead.  I'm more than a little surprised this conversation is still going on.

http://www.google.com/search?q=police+discretion

[srqrebel]

My understanding is that it is the job of the police to enforce the law. I am not aware of any law relieving them of that job requirement.

Yes, police are allowed to use discretion in a broad range of circumstances.  Surely you're familiar with instances of police issuing a warning when they could have chosen to write a ticket instead.  I'm more than a little surprised this conversation is still going on.

http://www.google.com/search?q=police+discretion

Police can issue traffic warnings because the statutes specifically provide for written warnings as a lesser enforcement option. Written warnings do not constitute turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.

I am aware of statutes restricting enforcement, and/or providing a range of enforcement options. That only reinforces my observation that the standard expectation of any statute is that the police will enforce it.

Seriously, are there any statutes that specify "mandatory enforcement"? I did a quick search online, and turned up nothing to that effect.

This conversation is getting rather tedious... but I tend to take a challenge as an opportunity to uncover the facts, and refine my knowledge base. As I see it, either my observations prove correct, or I stand to learn from those who challenge me. That is why I keep on responding