> This makes my blood boil. It's obvious that Killingly cops are just bored assholes on complete power trips.
Without talking to them, I'm not sure that's a fair conclusion.
Regardless, IMHO the real culprit is vagueness / ambiguity in the applicable laws. Which means the legislators are at fault. And in a democracy, ultimately the voters.
Bullshit. Police in america are able to exercise discretion, which means they could (and should) have laughed at the order to arrest these parents and not carried it out, or at least just went and talked to them instead. They decided to arrest them instead, in all likelihood because it makes them feel powerful.
How can you seriously think this is anyone’s fault but the cops? Blaming politicians is one thing and they absolutely are to blame for a lot of our policing problems, but blaming “voters” for cops being assholes is just ridiculous.
It's not an either or bud, it's both. IF you are allowing laws in place that these police officers are able to use as justification then your government is just as at fault as the officers. It's pure idiocy not to blame both. Where do you think the officers get their power from? It's like you're failing to reach the logical conclusion and blunting your own thought process because you hate cops.
Cops AND the government giving them the power to do stuff like this are both to blame.
The laws don't actually have to exist. Cops can arrest you if they just say they thought it was the law and that the believed they had the right to enforce it. They can totally make it up. So while you may not be convicted of violating a made up law you still have to deal with all the consequences of the arrest. No ramifications for the cops at all. They have virtually unlimited power.
They don't hold up in court if that's the case and they get sued out of existence or imprisoned in many cases. This is just a flat out false assumption especially in today's climate.
The city government can remove powers from these officers as well. The legislative branch is responsible for writing laws in a way that don't allow the executive branch (leo's) that much leeway. They are just as at fault for letting this exist. YOU are electing the wrong people to your local government office if officer's are able to function that far outside of the law with no repercussions.
I think you'd have a pretty hard case arguing that police officer's are just getting away with acting outside the law over the past couple years.
The supreme court actually decided this. Cops just have to think they are enforcing the law. Cops for the most part cannot be personally sued due to qualified immunity. Tax payers just cover any litigation losses. Vast majority of times cops break the law there are no repercussions. The latest high profile cases are an exception. Even when committing an egregious act and charged, cops are often found not guilty.
So your fix is to do nothing and complain? Sounds like a great plan.
Maybe stop living in places that are run this way?
Who let the supposed powerful police unions get that way? The police are an arm of the government. You will change nothing by targeting the result of government overreach instead of the cause.
Lol, I have no idea why you are so angry at me. I have no plans at all to address the issue. I'm not going to pack up my kids and move out of America. How do you think I am personally going to change the government? I very much think you are confusing me, a regular guy with someone who has much much more power.
Congratulations though on personally solving all government problems wherever you live.
You don't care that police are just going rogue with the law and killing people with no recourse?
Why are you even commenting on this thread at all then?
If I really thought that I would get the fuck out instantly or do my best to fix it. A place like that isn't somewhere I'd willingly live, and I certainly wouldn't want my children growing up in that environment. Are you saying you're ok with your kids potentially getting killed by these rogue cops?
Personally, I think either you weren't serious with your comments, or you're now realizing that what you said doesn't hold water.
lol, amigo if you live in the United States then you are living in it to.
You are so angry at me for not doing anything to stop something that affects the entire country.
Or are you angry because i say its an issue and you have chosen to ignore it as one?
Of course I care about it, I never said I didn't. I said there is nothing I can do about it and that I am not going to try.
Oh ok, that upset you but yelling bullshit in your comments with no objective data to back your statements up is fine? You need to chill. Maybe use your anger vote in someone who doesn't allow your police officers to act this way?
Sorry, but no. Common sense is enough to realize that this is a ridiculous situation, no matter what the law says. You can't lay the acts of specific police officers at the door of legislators and voters. And if their concerns were real rather than just a pretext for a powertrip they'd keep an eye out instead of making it impossible for children to lead a normal life.
> You can't lay the acts of specific police officers at the door of legislators and voters.
I'm not. In this situation, there were (at least) two necessary conditions for the arrest to happen:
(1) The law was written in a way that led the police to believe a crime had occurred.
(2) The police chose to perform the arrest.
If either of those conditions weren't true, then I don't think this incident would have happened.
It's entirely possible that the police exercised lousy judgment in this case. I'm simply reserving judgment until I hear their side of the story.
I brought up (2) for several reasons. First, I think it's BS to create politically sticky situations for police, and then skapegoat them things turn out badly. (Imagine the news coverage if they didn't arrest the parents in a situation like this, and then the kids were abducted.)
Second, I don't see how, in a democratic form of government, citizens can avoid responsibility for the state of their laws. If the laws are outside their control, it's not a democracy.
Again. No. Police officers have their own brains and make their own decisions on a case-by-case basis, not every weird interpretation of a law needs to lead to an arrest.
'Imagine' is a nice pre-amble to a strawman: that didn't happen.
What did happen is ridiculous, and regardless of the citizens having a very indirect say in the laws that get made to make them first cause rather than the police officers (and their immediate superiors) is - frankly - ridiculous.
I really wonder why you would bend over backwards to find excuses for something like this, it doesn't pass the beginnings of a common sense test. Having your parents arrested because you're walking on the streets as a child makes zero sense, no matter what the law says and no police officer with half a brain should make that arrest. Arrests are for criminals, worst case if they really wanted to test the law they could have simply cited the parents and then they'd have their day in court, this is simply a power play of the very worst kind.
> (1) The law was written in a way that led the police to believe a crime had occurred.
The fact that charges were never brought means that the law very likely wasn't written in a way that a reasonable person would believe a crime had occurred. Certainly the DA's office did not believe a crime worth indicting had occurred.
The police (executive branch) are the ones who decide what and how to enforce as evidence by the fact they dropped the charges. We live in a very vague world and have to use our own judgement on things as laws cannot contain the full context necessary to make those judgements. Do you truly expect an elected official from a city across the state or across the country to understand the relationship between you and your neighbors or the structure of your town? If there is truly so much crime that it is unsafe for children to walk to a store unsupervised than that points more at a failing of the police but we know that police do not prevent crime[1].
> The police (executive branch) are the ones who decide what and how to enforce as evidence by the fact they dropped the charges. We live in a very vague world and have to use our own judgement on things as laws cannot contain the full context necessary to make those judgements.
I have two counterpoints.
1) We haven't heard the police officer's side of things. All we're going on is one news story, which didn't even interview them. So we simply have no idea what additional factors they may have considered. I think it's irresponsible to pass judgment on them until getting more info.
2) I agree that laws need to be written with some discretion left to the judiciary. However, there's been enough media coverage on this general topic over the years, that Connecticut voters have had a chance to refine the laws. E.g., to modify the laws to clarify that kids are permitted to roam free in public places. But they didn't.
You’re getting downvoted but what you’re saying is kinda true. What typically spurned these laws was an actual tragedy: a parent had their child run to the store to buy something, child was abducted, family was devastated, and then worked to pass some law that makes it illegal for children under a certain age to be unaccompanied by an adult. Well-meaning but ultimately way too restrictive: what happened to their child was a freak tragedy, not a common occurrence.
Personally, as a parent, I hate these laws. I want my son to be able to explore the neighborhood, have fun, do outside chores etc without myself or my wife monitoring him. Imo forcing parents to be glued to their kids 24/7 makes life more stressful for everyone.
Bad laws notwithstanding, I think GP getting downvoted for giving police the benefit of the doubt. In today's America, I think it's fair to be a skeptic first when it comes to the cops.
Skeptic yes, but OP passed hard judgement. If OP would have speculated or suggested a possible cause, that would be healthy skepticism. OP is dripping with bias and preconceived notion.
There is no going back though. No politician is going to risk repealing this type of law and then have their career destroyed when a single crime happens against a kid that this law would have "prevented".
People bashing the cops for this is bullshit too. The cops are the bad guys either way. They enforce the law and they are the bad guys. Something happens to a kid with this law in place and then they are also the bad guy for not doing their job.
The solution to all this is simply to not have children. It is just another of the near daily reminders of how great it is to be child free.
Without talking to them, I'm not sure that's a fair conclusion.
Regardless, IMHO the real culprit is vagueness / ambiguity in the applicable laws. Which means the legislators are at fault. And in a democracy, ultimately the voters.