Double standards. People inherently know they are wrong. If one person in my classroom gets a break on a grade, then all the people in the class get the same break. You don’t have double standards.
The police should not have double standards either. If someone performs some act that for one person is illegal, then it should be illegal for all people that perform that same act. In a constitutional sense, it is equal protection under the law. Bill Clinton should not be above serving time if that is what people have happen if they lie under oath. If someone breaks into a house and starts shooting, they should be held accountable for it. Evidently that is not the case for police that presume to be “doing their job” and “following procedure”. I tend to support the police, at least when they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. They of all people should know the law and what is and is not appropriate use of force. They of all people should know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The individual officers involved in this should be held personally liable–not the department, the officers.
The present situation has come about because of immunity from prosecution for government officials doing things “in the line of duty.” The bad that the immunity was designed to prevent has become less of a problem than the bad it has generated. We (the people) initiated the policy of not prosecuting officers because we rightly felt that the police would be hesitant and at a disadvantage when they are in an explosive situation. The problem is that the police have gone to the opposite extreme.
If this was the only example, it would not be such a bad thing–especially if it had been a single offending officer and not a group of officers (not even one of the officers tried to stop his fellow officers?) But this is not the only incident where police have held a total disregard (or total ignorance) of the law. I do not think it is just me, but these things are happening more often. Some of it I can attribute to “brothers in arms” psychology that exists among police. These guys are “out there” and a lot of the people they meet are “the bad guys.” The problem is that they also need to understand that nobody is perfect, including themselves, and they need to hold themselves to the same standard they hold anyone else. That double standard thing.
I’ve been told (by someone I respect greatly) that nobody is going to follow the moral compass I hold. That is true. Even I do not completely pass muster on my own moral compass. But that does not mean the compass is wrong–it means we do not measure up. You don’t change the definition of 2+2 in order to make it so more people pass 1st grade. You keep the definition the same and you train the children that they must know the definition in order to pass. The standard stays, and those that do not pass the standard are judged by it.
Eliminate double standards.
Brian Withnell
P.S. While I think the protections the law affords for government officials ought to be removed, I do not believe more than a handful of police out of the thousands we encounter would find they would be subject to prosecution (even the prosecutors should be held responsible for their actions!) The vast majority of police are good people, but you don’t put in place protection for the rotten apples because the majority are good (which is the same about laws against murder–the vast majority of people do not commit murder).
Double standards? We have the perfect example of such a thing here in Loudoun County where Mark Tate gets prosecuted for campaign filing mistakes while other more egregious campaign finance shenanigans go completely ignored. There’s a certain group of folks in this county (which are the same who benefit the most from the illegal alien labor pool I might add) who apparently can do no wrong in the eyes of the “law”. Double standards indeed.
The Tate prosecution appeared to be done to help Vogel. The Loudon Co. Developer mafia also backed Simpson and threw Ahlemann under the bus. This bunch are corrupt and they think rules do not apply to them.
If titles were not given to jobs or careers how would we know achievement? Then again, it’s always been the person in the position who holds such title that gives it a good or bad name.
Double standards are everywhere and running rampant. Society’s moral and ethical code is eroding and our younger generation is seeing this as the norm. Examples are taught at home, lets hope there are many homes who teach their children right from wrong with no shades of grey and double standards are not the norm.
Jacob, the thing is the rules DON’T apply to them. The Sheriff and the CA are totally in their pocket. Why do you think I’ve been agitating for a state-level special prosecutor?
Loudon Insider,
Sir, you are preaching the choir. I agree with you %100 and only a state level inquiry will begin to scratch the surface. Simpson sank a lot of money into that house, and frankly spent that year at the work site not the office. The turn around on 287g etc. all point to the fact that he and others are in the pockets of the developer mafia.
Even though I supported Ahlemann, his campaign was a disaster. This three way race was the only way Simpson was staying in office. Mike George supposedly offered Ahlemann a good job – he should have taken the offer and waited to get more experience in my opinion.
What kind of job did Mike George offer Ahlemann?
I seem to recall the WashPo getting heavily involved in the LoCo Sheriff’s race last year, they did their part in sinking the Ahlemann campaign. He is a novice politician but an earnest man.
Ahlemann took a huge hit with the ticket fixing story. I definitely believe he is an earnest ehtical guy, but that made him look quite hypocritical. Supposedly (this is second hand) George offered Ahlemann a good position in the Dept. if George won.
I’m sorry, I would have liked to seen Ahlemann as Sheriff but he was a little young and made some novice political errors. He was not going to win, especially after Simpson bolted the LCRC (with the backing of DPM of course), some of his father’s actions, and the ticket fixing fiasco. Does anyone doubt George would be better than the Simpson regime? It was time for change and we now have another full term for a guy who hasn’t received more than 30 or so percentage points in the last two elections.
I’m glad Ahlemann didn’t accept George’s offer (if there was one), it would have PO’ed every rank and file Deputy. He would have been branded a sellout and had absolutely no credibility within the Dept.
Further, I’m not so sure about George being better than Simpson. It is could be argued that if George had won the citizens of LoCo might have been stuck with him for 8 plus years, and who knows what imprint he would have made. Perhaps this is an example of sticking with the Devil you know.
George said the Herndon Day Labor center should have been kept open. That did not go over too well in my neighborhood since we have to put up with the boarding houses, not him.
It appears that law enforcement rides a roller-coaster. Since we have polygraphs, it seems that they are back in the phase of self-glorification. I’m sorry but very minor infractions were still a good learning tool and could be used in moderation to teach lessons. Just like receiving a “warning”; that’s a by on an infraction. Now the police want to go “overboard” to, as it appears, get TV time. Where has the decency and service to the public gone? That’s why we have guns. It also helps to know the law.
“Ahlemann took a huge hit with the ticket fixing story. I definitely believe he is an earnest ehtical guy, but that made him look quite hypocritical.”
Ummm, honest and ethical with the exception of ticket fixing? Isn’t this post about double standards?
Laura,
You’re a joke.
You spend all your time telling us how wonderful and honest all those illegal aliens are who come here and commit fraud, identity theft, and about a half dozen other felonies and this guy suddenly gets you interested in the letter and intent of the law, AND the fact that breaking the law has moral and ethical dimensions?
Your selective use of this yardstick only highlights your blatant dishonesty, hypocrisy and and that you are just a shill. Greg had a lapse, and there is no excuse. The illegal aliens you so ardently defend are breaking the law at every turn, every day. That you are brazen enough to say something like that in light of you years of defending the law breakers also is proof of you are a sad joke.
Double standard? You obviously would not know one if it bit you.
I forgot about Mike George and his opinion on the Day Labor site in Herndon.
Act, Can you explain the self-glorification of law enforcement?
Hey, I am simply pointing out a little irony and I am sure I am not the only one of your astute and esteemed readers who caught that. Forget I am the one that made the comment; the irony still exits, so I will ignore your tongue lashing.
I don’t know any illegal aliens that are running for Sheriff, or that are even officers sworn to uphold the law. I know I am never going to run for any office. I am comfortable with my moral compass, I am capable of discerning right from wrong, and I believe that there are degrees of errors and that we all slip up here and there. I agree with Brian in that we don’t adjust the bar, we conintue to strive to reach it and we do that within ourselves, our communities, our governments, our laws, etc. Since you took this back to illegal aliens, I will just say (hopefully without making this thread about “that” issue) that there are a lot of them and they have varying intentions, motivations, and consequences of their actions. The common factor is that all of them at one point have committed a crime (not necessarily a felony). If there is such a thing as a judgment day I am completely confident(and everything that I have ever been taught about God, the teachings of Jesus, and about Christianity supports this) that those many thousands are not all going to be denied salvation based on that one single unifying factor, nor will I based on any of teh work that I have been enaged in thus far. You are a complete nincompoop if you think that I “spend all your time telling us how wonderful and honest all those illegal aliens are”, and that is the totality of my views on the subject.
But again, it still doesn’t change the fact that Greg was an officer sworn to uphold the law and in at least the instances that we are aware of he did have an ethical failing and set a double standard, that being, if you are my friend you get a pass, if you are not you don’t. That doesn’t make him teh worst of the worst, but I am sure that affected many people’s opinions (based on their own senses of morality) about whether or not he was fit to hold that particular office. What ever idiot, immoral, nitwit you think I am, that fact still stands and it is much more relevant to the topic of this thread than your rant about me.
I have to admit, Laura does seem to make a valid point about the ticket fixing within this context of double standards.
If ticket fixing is not a double standard, what is it then ? I myself do not believe the fact that “every Leo does it” makes it any less a double standard.
It is just that fact that she is saying it, Dan. Therein lies the irony.
Cmac,
What irony ? Laura has always advocated for a single standard for immigrants, no differentiation between legal and illegal. While I strongly disagree with her on this argument, within the context of single and double standards, I believe she is being consistent.
But that’s just me, I assume someone will flame me up the wazoo for this statement..
Wrong – I have always advocated for immigration enforcement at the federal level as opposed to the local level, with the exception of a sound 287 G program which allows local law enforcement to apprehend and deport illegal aliens who have committed crimes once they are here. I advocate for a realistic solution to the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who are currently living here (who have committed no other crimes) which would include a financial penalty consistent with the violation of the laws they have broken, as well as much tighter control of our borders to reduce reentry of the deported as well as first time entries, assuming that we have quotas that are flexible and adjustable to meet the demands of our changing labor needs.
An illegal alien who commits a crime once here would be generally be ineligible for an adjustment of status, though they are, as always, entitled to formal deportation proceedings including a hearing in front of a judge who would consider any extenuating circumstances. A law enforcement officer would who is found to be involved in any kind of “ticket fixing” would be seem to be ineligible to serve as the leader of an agency, though if he chooses to run he is entitled to receive a fair election and an ultimate vote. A law enforcement office who took such a strong an unwavering stance against illegal immigrants but was also found to be engaged in an unethical practice that defied the very laws he was sworn to uphold is a hypocrite. Revel in the irony CathyMac, but I wasn’t the one running for office.
Inconsistent. 287 G is immigration enforcement at the local level.
“(g) (1) 1/ Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State line s to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to extent consistent with State and local law.”
A wonderful paradigm Laura, everyone’s first non-violent crime is a gimme..
Which is why I said “with the exception of….”
Oh, ok, so you are NOT for 287g as it is currently legislated without your exceptions.. I shall also assume that if you are not ok with 287g w/o your exceptions, then you are also against other federal immigration enforcements as spelled out in the INA absent these same exceptions.
“Laura has always advocated for a single standard for immigrants, no differentiation between legal and illegal. ”
I stand by this statement. It sounds like you wish to add the qualifier “as long as illegal aliens commit no further crimes once here”.
Laura, cmac is right, this is no different from tearing up speeding tickets is it ?
For anyone that wants to read a very interesting and telling exchange please click on the link below. It will give you insight into LV’s racism charges, and opinions on cultural differences, SP problems, and illegals intergrating. It is an eye opener and shows just what an apologizer LV is for the illegal immigrants that she knows, and those she does not know.
http://www.loudouncommunity.org/9401.html?entryId=0e3a8309d3d253c14ae5c33108d73281#comment
Cathy- my comments on that most exasperating thread were certainly not specifically about illegal immigrants, but rather Central American immigrants in general and in response to the initial comment, “He blames the illegals, who, according to him, are the lowest class of Central America, usually uneducated, illiterate even in Spanish, and completely lacking in an understanding of what it takes to maintain community standards.”
I was very careful to point out that most Central American immigrants, legal or not “came from this same so called “lowest class of Central America”, and that indeed throughout our American history most immigrants were of the “lowest classes” of their respective countries. After some careful reading you will conclude that there is absolutely no charge of racism (a charge that could not easily be made in absence of any specific race) but I think I did feel that there was some classism. There was actually very little discussion on my part about the efffects and implications of illegal immigration and integration of illegal immigrants. And based on the logic that concludes that thread, how many people are actually qualified to comment on Sterling Park? Does that mean we have no right to opine on issues beyond our own narrow geographical confines? Granted, only concurring opinions seem to be welcome there.
On the 287g – let me repeat I am against almost all of what was proposed for Loudoun County (involving various departmental enforcement efforts not related to law enforcement) with the exception of the 287 G program, which I have always supported. There were some versions that I did not support, and which were ultimately not adopted, that involved questions about probable cause and who, how and when immigration status could be established. Does that make sense to you?
Laura,
‘with the exception of …’ That is quaint little phrase. That is the phrase used by libs to allow abortions to occur to the tune of 5000 per day. Your ‘with the exception of’ given Cathymacs link along with you other comments here on this blog appear to gut the 287g legislation as thoroughly as the phrase removes any hindrance to abortion on demand. In short, ‘with the exception of’ means in your case ‘I am against it’. Therefore your being ‘for it’ is as big a farce as any I have seen.
As for immigrants being poor, that is the norm. So what? Breaking the law is still illegal even when you are poor. I sympathize, but it is not the point. The corruption and destruction of the society to which these immigrant flock is the point. Hypocrites, such as you, who justify the breaking of the law in one case and tsk tsk it in another are what kills me.
You are quick to hold those who oppose your open borders agenda to the letter of the law, and infer the immorality of their breaking the law. But when this very approach is applied to those for whom you are an advocate then there is a separate set of nuances.
Your risible ‘I am against local but not federal law enforcement’ in one such false nuance. If breaking the law is to be opposed then the local ordinances that are being violated, in housing, identity, zoning etc should also be upheld and the law breakers made to pay the penalty. That you are hiding behind this false nuance as a means of trying to legitimize your ethically bankrupt position is obvious, but it is a hypocrites position, and broken logic to boot.
Only here could my positions be connected to 5000 abortions committed a day.
How much clearer can I be? I think that local law enforcement should be allowed to initiate deportation of illegal immigrants found to have committed crimes (which is a sharp distinction from most if not all liberal immigrant rights activists who are 100% opposed to this program in any form). I don’t think they should seek out “suspected” illegal immigrants on that basis alone and I think that probable cause should be well defined for the benefit of both civil rights AND the arresting officers, which are two of many details that are the subjects of careful analysis of every agency and locality considering the program. So my use of the phrase with “the exception of” somehow links me to abortions and liberals. Wow!
Just for fun, I challenge you find a single example of anything I have written or said that would suggest an open borders agenda. In fact, I have been consistently opposed to anything but stricter border control and enforcement and (like the GOP Presidential candidate) feel that it is step 1 in any kind of immigration reform. But that is neither here nor there is it?
Only here could a thread about double standards for law enforcement be diverted from a pretty good example (who happened to be the golden boy of the past HSL efforts) and now focused on whatever I do or do not believe (which frankly I don’t think anyone gives a rat’s ass about)however falsely and idiotically misrepresented. Make up all the BS about me you want, or tell the truth as you see it. It doesn’t change the fact that Greg – “This is my first endeavor into politics and I have been “let down” by many people in the political arena. However, I continue to honor my word. I do not believe as the chief law enforcement officer in the county, you can throw aside your oath when things don’t go your way.” – Ahlemann had an ethical lapse, on multiple occasions and while on duty, lapses that have continuously been overlooked by his friends and supporters. Again, I wasn’t a police officer, he was. I wasn’t running for Sheriff, he was. This thread isn’t about me, it is about ethics and double standards for law enforcement officers.
Cathymac,
I have come across officers that feel what they do is a great service of the people when in actuality there is a distinct air of superiority. There are officers that belittle the people they are confronting and call this action “just doing their job”. Minor infractions are made to look like catastrophic occurances. Although this is the smaller percentage, it grows when left unchecked-and becomes the “norm”.
Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan! Enough said. Consider yourself flamed!
Laurie,
Still carrying the banner for the aliens I see. Be better than the other putses here and don’t fall prey to their ploys.
Laura,
Still gunning for the alien. When are you going to wake up!
Aliens are helping with the downfall of our nation, the economy, the education system, strain on law enforcement and medical care.
What is going to open your eyes to this? Perhaps when you loose your job and your home? Cannot go on welfare or Medicaid because you do not qualify? But the alien is able to. How will you feel then?
You see, I know about this first hand. I was turned down for unemployment: however the little old lady from Asia was not. While I was waiting to speak to someone I was able to hear all her benefits. Hers, as well as all six of her family. Each one received a load of money, food stamps, housing and medical. Please do not tag me about where they were from: an alien is an alien despite where they come from.
All for stepping on American soil!
So much for taking care of our own first: What kind of standard is this?
Btw: is this double standard topic only applied to law enforcement or just a discussion on standards?
Majorie, let me just say in parting, the woman who recieved those benifits must have been a US citizen, immigrant or not. LEGAL immigrants are ineligible from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years after entering the country and barred from SSI and food stamps until they have achieved CITIZENSHIP. According to what you state she is recieving we must conclude that she is “our own” now as determined by US law. If that dipleases you perhaps you should consider supporting FAIR, an organization that opposes almost all new immigration, including legal. I would love to stick around and serve as the punching bag but this thread has gone pretty far off track already.
Technical correction: a legal permanent resident is eligible for food stamps if they have met the following criteria: A qualified alien who does not belong to one of the groups above can get food stamps if he/she is otherwise eligible, and is:
” A qualified alien in one of the following groups who has been in qualified status for 5 years:
–
An LPR who has earned, or can be credited with no less than 40 quarters of work.
–
Paroled for at least one year under section 212(d)(5) of INA .
–
Granted conditional entry under 203(a)(7) of INA in effect prior to 4/1/80.
–
Battered spouse, battered child or parent or child of a battered person with a petition pending under 204(a)(1)(A) or (B) or 244(a)(3) of INA.”
Regardless, a legal permanent resident is just that and is therefore eligible for benefits. No laws have been broken, no ethical lapses, not relevant on this thread.
Hmmm…
Back to double standards. If there were evidence that tickets get fixed by deputies at the direction of Mr. Simpson, and he does not admit to such action, and people hold Ahlemann to a standard that is not held by others, then that would be a double standard. Admitting that one does not keep perfectly what one is supposed to do when one is not perfect is less of a problem than not being perfect and lying about it.
I see little difference if we allow discretion on the part of police. If discretion is not equal (and formal) is it fair? Part of the problem might be that a police officer knows he is going to act as prosecutor for traffic violations. If he knows there is no way he will be able to get a conviction for moderate speeding by a couple on the way to the hospital with the woman in labor, then he might as well save himself and the court the time and expense of righting the ticket. Is it fair? Probably not.
Mercy is never fair though. Mercy is by definition not getting what you deserve. If it were fair, it would no longer be mercy, but justice.
Brian, LEO’s aren’t prosecutors, they are enforcers of the law. If someone gets a ticket for speeding, they have recourse in the courtroom to present their case. Good point on the Simpson ticket fixing, I recall that accusation and when you don’t answer a charge, I guess it just goes away?
LEO discretion is always misunderstood by the general public, and to ACT’s point, most of the time the “air of superiority” is IMHO an “air of authority.” I may be opening a can of worms, but the municipality or state give LEO’s the authority to perform functions that, for the most part, are not going to win them points with the general public. Approaching a vehicle on a traffic stop takes some major cajones, officer safety is tantamount, and if someone gets their nose out of joint because there was some gruff talk, well, grow up. Who likes to get a ticket, raise your hand. Anyone?
ACT, I’m sure you are talking about scenarios other than traffic stops, and that can be discussed, but that was just an example.
I won’t ever claim that LEO’s are perfect in their jobs, no one is, but it is almost a sport to bash them. There are cases of misconduct in all areas of Law Enforcement, they are human with flaws.
I will dismount off my soap box now, with a triple flip.
LV, You seem to enjoy mentioning certain poster’s “reputations” quite a bit in your retorts, so your rant about this being a post about double standards and not you is indeed ironic. You hold a reputation of double standards on one issue, and it will continue to be your achilles heel in future discussions if appropriate, which it is here.
“And based on the logic that concludes that thread, how many people are actually qualified to comment on Sterling Park?”
My guess is those posters there who we happen to know live there, and have lived there for a decade of more.
3 and 1/2 decades for me and it is almost time for me to jump ship. I’m going to the land where the sheriff gets child molesters on the internet to come to Va. for arrest. Then we get to have a big barbeque after they’re convicted and shot them. No double standard cause we do the same for murderers, rapists, old people muggers and social security check stealers. We may not be “civilized” but we have laws AND enforce them! Yippy-ky-yah pard.
Laura,
Have you considered moving to San Francisco? It is a sanctuary city. I am sure they would love to have you join the population out there. They support the alien no matter what. Rapist, murderers, child molesters and just your run of the mill illegal. This way you have more support in your belief that illegal’s should be here no matter how they arrive, followed by the high taxes YOU will pay to support your fellow alien.
CathyMac
In most jurisdictions, the officer that gives you the ticket is the one to bring the case against you at traffic court. I’m not sure about Loudoun — I don’t think I’ve ever had a ticket here. I can tell you it is true in at least two jurisdictions in Maryland (my first ticket was in Anne Arundel County *many* years ago) where I got a ticket and I was surprised to see the “prosecutor” was the officer that had given me the ticket. It was a lesson in the deck is stacked against you in court. I remember the second … the same thing (a parking ticket that I still feel was unfair, the sign was ambiguous, and I actually thought I was parked legally).
Someone else would have to speak for Loudoun County courts — I have not gotten a ticket here. I’m sure if the charge is a greater offense then you will see a separate prosecutor, but if it is just speeding? Do you see someone other than the officer?
Brian, I had a long winded explanation that got eaten, but a ticketing or arresting officer is presenting evidence, not making legal arguements, that is the job of a Prosecutor. If you want to fight a ticket and bring a lawyer, most of the time a Prosecutor will step in to make the legal arguement, sometimes it is just the Judge. It all depends on the seriousness of the crime.
It is a fine line, but a serious one, because the implication is that if a LEO is a prosecutor the deck is stacked. You have greivance outlets and the ability to fight a ticket or charge, all the LEO can (legally) do is present his side of the case citing the violation.
There are instances where a very busy traffic court on a routine traffic violation will not appoint a Prosecutor even if a lawyer is representing a citizen, therefore it is the testimony of the LEO that stands and the judge makes the legal detemination.
Whew! Long winded but hopefully readable.
If the judge acts as prosecutor, that is even worse. The deck is stacked … if the LEO says one thing, you say another, is it really beyond reasonable doubt? Could the officer be mistaken or the citizen be mistaken — or both? Giving more weight to one person’s testimony than to another is a stacked deck as well.
There have been cases where a LEO was found to have lied in court about traffic tickets, and yet the court did not go back and order every ticket that officer’s testimony caused a conviction within to be reversed.