Can Police Use Discretion When Investigating Crimes?

[roswell]

121Traffic wrote:

Just because an officer has discretion at the scene does NOT mean his actions hold any sort of immunity from scrutiny of his supervisors,

Why can’t you just admit that if your supervisor catches you letting a drunk driver go, he can bring you up on administrative charges that could result in you being fined and/or terminated from the police department?

Are you that naive? Officers still have to be able to justify their actions, discretion or not.

Then please tell me how you justify calling yourself a good cop if you are willing to let a drunk driver go after you catch him committing a crime involving public safety. The same public you SWORE to protect. Please provide a straight answer to this question.

You aren't serious are you? You are actually asking LEOs here, nearly all of whom's dedication to the profession you have questioned, to go ON THE RECORD and be representatives of their department and TYPE OUT OFFICIAL POLICY? [ in regard to the dept’s DWI arrest policy ] That's too stupid, even for you. lol

Excuse me Officer, you can call me names all you want. But I really wish you would stop blowing smoke and try providing a direct response to questions that are relevant to this discussion. If you are not capable of engaging in a mature, honest discussion, I might suggest you find a sandbox to play in.

You're right about the reasons about becoming an officer. That is precisely the reason why the situation you described DOES NOT HAPPEN.

If you truly capable of sharing a meaningful, mature discussion, you might want to explain what you meant by this comment. What situation did I describe that does not happen?

sadly, you are going on ignore.

I should point out that most decent, respectable people would view your decision to deride me before announcing you are placing me on ignore, as juvenile and ill mannered. But you are free to present yourself any way you choose…

[roswell]

Dear Constable Oscarmitre,

In a previous post I asked you:

Constable, before closing this post I have one philosophical question.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought citizens became police officers to serve the good of the community and for the personal satisfaction they derive from knowing they are making a positive contribution to the community.

If my assumptions are correct, could you explain to me how police officers are making a positive contribution to the community when they fail to arrest DWI offenders?

Sir, with all due respect, if you care to engage in a discussion with me, I would appreciate it if you would provide a direct response to questions I pose that are relevant to the topic of this thread. Thank you.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss police discretion pertaining to crimes. So far we have established there are no statutes that compel a police officer to make an arrest in non-domestic criminal matters.

We have established that police officers can be held civilly liable if they fail or intentionally choose to perform their duties in a manner that is consistent with their department regs or training.

I understand all this.

What I am confounded by is the fact that there are officers here who think they are protecting the public when they fail to arrest a drunk driver. We hire cops to enforce our laws, especially the ones that affect our personal safety. I really can’t figure out why some officers here have a cavalier attitude toward drunk drivers.

I would bet every officer on this board would jump at the chance to apprehend a person who discharges a firearm, up in the air, at noon, in the middle of town. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the officer apprehending the shooter would view the shooter as a potential risk to people’s safety.

Yet, based on the response from officers on this board, these same officers do not view the drunk driver in the same light as a psycho who discharges a firearm in a populated area.

[roswell]

In his latest post, txinvestigator wrote:

Face it guys, we are all wrong, and Roswell is right. He just wants to argue.

I want to argue?? I thought I was looking for a straight answer. You were doing pretty well in responding to my question about discretion UNTIL you wrote this:

I can give you many scenarios. I stop a vehicle and the driver appears intoxicated. The person's spouse is phoned and agrees to come and pick up the person.

I would be well within my authority to do that.

When I read this comment I said to myself, “how does this txinvestigator guy think he is serving the public and maintaining our safety if he is going to be letting drunk drivers off the hook? How can this man call himself a dedicated LEO when he fails to address public safety issues that are occurring right in front of him?”

I am sorry you feel I am being argumentative. I am sure there are others who can understand my outrage when I read a LEO inform me in a public place that he does not care about the safety of the general public, as you did.

[roswell]

Jynkxxie wrote:

Let's just face the simple fact that if there was NO discretion, our courts and jails would be flooded and then our "rights", like the one to a speedy trial, would be for none.

Hello, Miss Jynkxxie.

Do you believe citizens have the right to expect our police officers protect us from sicko’s who choose to drink and drive? Do you place more importance on a perp’s right to a speedy trial than you do on the right of innocent citizens who every day are victimized by drunk drivers?

Doesn’t it bother you when a police officer makes a brazen statement like, “I don’t have to arrest a drunk driver if I don’t want to?”

[roswell]

Rickjorg wrote:

This thread is going NOwhere, it should be locked!!

Mr. Jorg, when you write the above, are you inferring the people who frequent this board are incapable of making their own decision as to whether they should respond to this thread or not?

Why is it you wish to censor me and others who expressed an interest in this subject when they took the time to respond?

[121Traffic]

Oscar,

This thread is going NOwhere, it should be locked!!

Whew let's! Then we can get back to being "not dedicated", and concentrate on not being brought up on charges by a supervisor, and having no desire to protect the public! Didn't you all know that can happen? :rolleyes:

[richjorg]

Rickjorg wrote:

This thread is going NOwhere, it should be locked!!

Mr. Jorg, when you write the above, are you inferring the people who frequent this board are incapable of making their own decision as to whether they should respond to this thread or not?

Why is it you wish to censor me and others who expressed an interest in this subject when they took the time to respond?

I just don't think this thread is productive and no good will come of it. We are going on 5 pages of the same thing over and over again.

[oscarmitre]

Constable, before closing this post I have one philosophical question.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought citizens became police officers to serve the good of the community and for the personal satisfaction they derive from knowing they are making a positive contribution to the community.

If my assumptions are correct, could you explain to me how police officers are making a positive contribution to the community when they fail to arrest DWI offenders?

If a person is not going to continue the offence then there is probably no reason to arrest them. They will have to front court for either the hearing (trial) or to plead guilty and be sentenced. It is not necessary for a DUI to be arrested on every occasion. If the offence is likely to continue then the person should be arrested and held until they are in a fit condition to drive again. One of the side-benefits of not arresting a DUI offender is that the officer will be able to get back on patrol immediately and not spend several hours with the arrest file back at the station.