Hypocrisy of cops is difficult to compehend

[Proserpina]

Thanks for sharing.

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois
I have a hard time understanding how a person can pinch somebody for dui when they let off a fellow public servant or do it themselves so often. Much proof to this, it doesn't take an Einstein to understand. Of all dui charges in Illinois against cops, it's ~ 44 percent when out of state, for the non-cop it's about 2 percent. Off duty cops kill more then the non-cop percentage wise due to dui. Yet, it's EXTREMELY RARE for an off-duty cop to be arrested due to dui unless they are:
driving out of state, or have killed or seriously injured somebody.

I have a good friend who was a states attorney and he said he got out of about 9 speeding tickets because he showed his id. I've had cop friends tell me the practice of 'professional courtesy' is way worse then I think, and they become the enemy if they give a fellow officer a dui. If you don't want to believe it, you have the right to be ignorant, but just ask a cop what a 'professional courtesy' is.

Statistics I gave above are enough to tell you how rampant the hypocrisy is.
MADD is big buisiness and makes lawyers and politicians happy. I'm against drunk driving like everybody else, but I would love for others to call out this unbelievable hypocrisy which is something MADD and others who profit from the dui buisiness are too afraid ever do. That's also why you don't hear lawyers in this forum call them out either, as the cops and dui's make them money. Think for yourselves, most lawyers are incompetent and you are best off educating yourself and staying away from high price lawyers.

Thanks for the lovely rant. Did you have a question, or are you simply looking for a debate here?

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois
I have a hard time understanding how a person can pinch somebody for dui when they let off a fellow public servant or do it themselves so often. Much proof to this, it doesn't take an Einstein to understand. Of all dui charges in Illinois against cops, it's ~ 44 percent when out of state, for the non-cop it's about 2 percent. Off duty cops kill more then the non-cop percentage wise due to dui. Yet, it's EXTREMELY RARE for an off-duty cop to be arrested due to dui unless they are:
driving out of state, or have killed or seriously injured somebody.

I have a good friend who was a states attorney and he said he got out of about 9 speeding tickets because he showed his id. I've had cop friends tell me the practice of 'professional courtesy' is way worse then I think, and they become the enemy if they give a fellow officer a dui. If you don't want to believe it, you have the right to be ignorant, but just ask a cop what a 'professional courtesy' is.

Statistics I gave above are enough to tell you how rampant the hypocrisy is.
MADD is big buisiness and makes lawyers and politicians happy. I'm against drunk driving like everybody else, but I would love for others to call out this unbelievable hypocrisy which is something MADD and others who profit from the dui buisiness are too afraid ever do. That's also why you don't hear lawyers in this forum call them out either, as the cops and dui's make them money. Think for yourselves, most lawyers are incompetent and you are best off educating yourself and staying away from high price lawyers.

Interesting.

In Michigan, there have been several high profile arrests of police officers (and attorneys) in recent years, for driving drunk. I guess I haven't noticed the "professional courtesy" that you speak of, although I suppose it could exist.

Can you provide us with the your source of statistics? Thanks.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Before the Mothers got Mad, the police used to tell the drunks to go straight home. Then came Debbie Irwin, who sued the town and won because they didn't arrest the drunk driver who killed her husband when they had the chance. Now it's a liability for the police if they DON'T arrest a drunk.

It seems to me that the police treat other police like they would like to treat the rest of the public, but can't.

 

[LdiJ]

Before the Mothers got Mad, the police used to tell the drunks to go straight home. Then came Debbie Irwin, who sued the town and won because they didn't arrest the drunk driver who killed her husband when they had the chance. Now it's a liability for the police if they DON'T arrest a drunk.

It seems to me that the police treat other police like they would like to treat the rest of the public, but can't.

Steve...do you really feel telling drunks to just go straight home is fair to the rest of the public who might be killed by those drunks? Now...I do sometimes wonder if the newer levels of determining who is drunk or not are unreasonable? yes, I do. However, whatever the law is, it should apply to everyone. Not only should there be no "professional courtesy", but law enforcement personnel should be held to at least the same standards as the general public, if not to stricter standards.

About 30 years ago I was involved in an accident that absolutely was not my fault. It was the fault of the other party. Everyone agreed (police, insurance companies etc) that is was the fault of the other party. The other party crossed over the line and hit me head on without any warning...and then tried to run...there was lot of evidence of that. On top of that, I didn't even feel buzzed, I had been out to a big expansive dinner and had drank with each course, but I didn't even feel buzzed. However, legally I was drunk and the hospital treated me like dirt because I was legally drunk...and the other party was simply an upset woman running from an abusive man in the eyes of the hospital.

That was the last time, in my entire life, that I have gotten behind the wheel of a car if I even had one drink within two hours of driving. One, I didn't want to risk the liability, and two, I didn't want to risk other people. You cannot tell me that law enforcement personnel do not understand what they are risking if they drive drunk. They see far more of the damage than any of us do.

 

[Silverplum]

Friday troll feeding time, I see.

 

[witzeroni]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-22/news/ct-met-officer-dui-death-sentencing-0222-20120222_1_trenton-booker-officer-richard-bolling-chicago-cop
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/john-ardelean-charges-dro_n_601064.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-30/news/0905290254_1_chicago-cop-off-duty-breathalyzer
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-04-16/news/0904150882_1_police-supt-chicago-police-officers-names


Last one gives some statistics: 6 / 13 of Chicago cops arrested were out of state dui's.
5 / 13 were accident involved

"Weis earlier this week pointed out the small number of officers who have been accused of driving drunk compared to the department's 13,000 officers. Statistically speaking, about one in 1,000 Chicago officers were arrested for DUI last year. That pales by comparison to a national average of one drunk-driving arrest for every 155 drivers, according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services statistics."
Couldn't be because of 'professional courtesy' could it??

I will try to find more stats.

 

[CdwJava]

It might also be that most officers know better than to drive impaired, hence the lower rate of DUI than the national average.

Does a "professional courtesy" exist? I'm sure it does. But it is hardly universal and I personally know officers and an elected DA in my area that have been arrested for DUI. In fact, I have made such an arrest of another officer (not from my own agency, mind you - if that happened, I'd call the CHP).

What some departments in IL might do is hardly indicative of the nation. And, as a note, I am against officers driving impaired and have no problem with an officer being subject to the same penalties as anyone else. Though, unlike the vast majority of the public, an officer caught diving impaired is at risk of losing his job even if he is never prosecuted for the DUI ... most drivers do not run that risk.

As for making money, we make the same amount of money whether we make the DUI arrest or not. Yes, there is money out there for suppression patrol and education efforts, but these have been proven to work! So, it's money well spent! And, you do not have to make a quota of DUI arrests, so even if there are no DUI arrests, the grants fr enforcement and education can continue. The statistics on DUI bear out the fact that education and enforcement has an effect. If you want to advocate for diminished enforcement or more lenient DUI laws, contact your state legislator.

 

[quincy]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-22/news/ct-met-officer-dui-death-sentencing-0222-20120222_1_trenton-booker-officer-richard-bolling-chicago-cop
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/john-ardelean-charges-dro_n_601064.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-30/news/0905290254_1_chicago-cop-off-duty-breathalyzer
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-04-16/news/0904150882_1_police-supt-chicago-police-officers-names


Last one gives some statistics: 6 / 13 of Chicago cops arrested were out of state dui's.
5 / 13 were accident involved

"Weis earlier this week pointed out the small number of officers who have been accused of driving drunk compared to the department's 13,000 officers. Statistically speaking, about one in 1,000 Chicago officers were arrested for DUI last year. That pales by comparison to a national average of one drunk-driving arrest for every 155 drivers, according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services statistics."
Couldn't be because of 'professional courtesy' could it??

I will try to find more stats.

Thank you for providing the article links, witzeroni.

I am not sure you can conclude from the statistics above that the reason more officers are not arrested for drunk driving is because of "professional courtesy." Officers could just be smarter about not driving after drinking. But I will read your sources to see if I can see why you are drawing the conclusions you are.

 

[witzeroni]

Even in this case, fellow officers tried to protect their fellow officer, this is a good example how far they go to protect their own:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/chicago-police-found-guilty-covering-bartender-beating/story?id=17716840#.Uc731PmsiS

If professional courtesy is so rare please explain why percentage of dui's out of state for off duty officers so much higher than the hoi polloi, in Illinois at least. Also,
do a search on how many off-duty officers killed others through their dui's in Illinois, compare that to how many times an off-duty cop was killed by a non-cop. Statistically, these numbers should be the same if cops and non-cops drink and drive at the same rate.

I have seen too much personally and have heard stories from those I know wouldn't lie (a friend cop with many stories, and a brother who is a good friend of a firefighter who was with him when he was driving to the White Sox game). The firefighter was about to get pinched when he showed cop his id. The cops attitute totally changed and he just made somebody else drive. My wife is very good friends with a state trooper in a NE state. She openly admits about the professional courtesy, with the excuse that they suffer tougher sentences when busted.

I can't remember the officer who responded to my post, but he seemed like an honest sort. I will ask you a couple of questions, and hope you answer honestly. Have you ever given a fellow officer or fellow public servant a free pass when it comes to dui? Do you know of fellow officers who have been given a free pass? How rampant is this practice? We're you ever given a pass by a fellow officer? Please answer honestly or do not answer. Thank you.

 

[CdwJava]

Even in this case, fellow officers tried to protect their fellow officer, this is a good example how far they go to protect their own:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/chicago-police-found-guilty-covering-bartender-beating/story?id=17716840#.Uc731PmsiS

If professional courtesy is so rare please explain why percentage of dui's out of state for off duty officers so much higher than the hoi polloi, in Illinois at least.

Maybe more IL officers know not to let their hair down too much. There is no way to objectively answer this question, so you are left to assume what you will.

Also,
do a search on how many off-duty officers killed others through their dui's in Illinois, compare that to how many times an off-duty cop was killed by a non-cop. Statistically, these numbers should be the same if cops and non-cops drink and drive at the same rate.

It could be that officers drink and drive at a rate less than the general public. Again, there is no objective answer - you can't prove a negative.

I have seen too much personally and have heard stories from those I know wouldn't lie (a friend cop with many stories, and a brother who is a good friend of a firefighter who was with him when he was driving to the White Sox game). The firefighter was about to get pinched when he showed cop his id. The cops attitute totally changed and he just made somebody else drive. My wife is very good friends with a state trooper in a NE state. She openly admits about the professional courtesy, with the excuse that they suffer tougher sentences when busted.

There's no way to argue with anecdotal data. I can provide contrary anecdotal data and from firsthand experiences ... but, that doesn't account for regional actions, the actions of some departments that may be more insular, or that will penetrate any anti-police bias that might exist.

Have you ever given a fellow officer or fellow public servant a free pass when it comes to dui?

No.

Do you know of fellow officers who have been given a free pass?

Yes. Of course, that also depends on what you mean by a "free pass." I know officers who weren't arrested, and some not prosecuted for DUI, but have lost their jobs all the same.

How rampant is this practice?

Not very. But, I cannot provide objective data to back that up.

We're you ever given a pass by a fellow officer?

Nope. But, I don't drink and I have not had a drink for 22 years, 350 days.

Please answer honestly or do not answer.

I always answer honestly. Though, you have no way to know that so why ask such a question?

 

[Joe10]

There’s little doubt among the general public that Professional Courtesy exists. It’s a debate that’s on going. As the poster replied “I always answer honestly. Though, you have no way to know that”. It’s like the NSA saying that we never “sweep” the Internet and monitor all those phone calls and emails. Then you ask for evidence and they say they can’t do that because it’s a secret program. When you can’t verify then it’s hard to trust. Pres. Ronald Regan once said, “trust but verify”. Even our most elite law enforcement, the secret service, have gotten caught in questionable activity.
We simply don’t know and probably will never know the extent of professional courtesy. We actually should be much more interested in police abuse.
If you do read of an instance in the news there’s probably 10 that don’t get reported. Around here speeding tickets are almost universally forgiven extending even to family members, sometimes firemen too. Most private vehicles owned by law enforcement have some form of identification on them so when they get stopped it’s readily apparent to the offer that makes the stop.
I am sure that some states and jurisdictions are worse then others. You simply can’t make a blanket statement about the whole profession. I do wish however that there were a better way for law enforcement departments and individual officers to be rated by the public. Most honest officers don’t want bad officers in their ranks any more then the public does.

 

[HighwayMan]

Most private vehicles owned by law enforcement have some form of identification on them so when they get stopped it’s readily apparent to the offer that makes the stop.

Oh really? Most?

I'd like to know what identification you are talking about. I've never seen nor heard of such a thing.

 

[betachains]

Since DUI's these days are practically treated as crimes of moral turpitude, I doubt many cops would out on a limb to be lenient to fellow cops they don't know personally.

Traffic infractions, though, are another matter. Fellow public-safety workers, doctors, nurses all get a break if they don't trumpet their occupation when stopped. My impression - hard to do a study on it.

The flip side is that the latter invokes their preferential status to weasel out of a traffic ticket: the retired fire captain who "accidentally" flashes his badge in his wallet, the speeding nurse late for her scheduled shift ("I am on my way to the hospital"). This actually infuriates me: highly-paid professionals who can much more readily pay traffic tickets than the real working stiffs shouldn't stoop to such chintzy maneuvers.

 

[CdwJava]

There’s little doubt among the general public that Professional Courtesy exists.

No one denies that the police (and people in most any profession) give preferencial treatment when they can to their peers, family or friends. It's not simply the police.

If you do read of an instance in the news there’s probably 10 that don’t get reported.

And there are many instances of officers being disciplined and fired for actions that never make the news. Why? Because most internal complaints and discipline are initiated as a result of agency (peer or supervisor) action, not a complaint from the public. So, keep that in mind as well.

Around here speeding tickets are almost universally forgiven extending even to family members, sometimes firemen too.

Not sure where "round here" might be, but I suppose the same might be true here as well. But, most officers will cut a break to friends as well. As a note, I have issued cites to friends, to kids of friends, and even towed the car and arrested a reckless driver who happened to be the son of a fire captain and jail supervisor. So, this is not a universal occurrence that occurs in all instances.

Most private vehicles owned by law enforcement have some form of identification on them so when they get stopped it’s readily apparent to the offer that makes the stop.

Maybe where you are. Out here, the CHP tend to get those license plates that indicate the CHP radio frequency, but other than that few officers put obvious signs of their employment on their cars or their family's cars. Why? because it tends to make them targets by certain people. In one agency I worked for we were told NOT to put DSA stickers on the car or make any indication of our employment on personal vehicles ... the reason was painfully obvious after some officers had their cars vandalized, and one had his house shot up when some turds followed him home.

But, yes, some officers register their vehicles as "confidential" so that anyone who might run the reg. will receive a hit that comes back to the employing agency. Oh, and many agencies (The CHP being the worst) do not run registration on their stops, so this is not always the best way to try and sneak out of a ticket in CA. (As a note, none of my cars are registered that way ... personal choice so as to avoid the perception of bias should it occur.)

I do wish however that there were a better way for law enforcement departments and individual officers to be rated by the public. Most honest officers don’t want bad officers in their ranks any more then the public does.

You're right, we don't. But, since most interactions the public has with the police involve NEGATIVE interactions, it would be - on its face - unfair to have the public rate officers.

The public always has a say in the operation of their local police department. Their elected officials set the tone and choose the chief. They can even set the enforcement priorities for the department if they so choose ... though, micromanaging of law enforcement by nonprofessionals is a baaaad idea. If locals have a problem with their police, they can act to make changes.