SanAndreasX said:
JWeinCom said:
I don't think anyone disputed that.
Suppose you are a parent of a high school student. Your child comes home one day and reports that one of his classmates punched him. How outraged are you on a scale from 1-10?
Now suppose you are the parent of a high school student. Your child comes home one day and reports that one of his teachers punched him. How outraged are you on a scale from 1-10?
|
Dulfite said:
Most schooling takes place before high school, so I don't know why we are focusing on that here? Elementary and middle schoolers punch each other a lot as well. If the example specified high school I would have said something different, but it didn't.
And by the way, it varies from states to states what the years are, but in my state (I believe) an 18 year old can sleep with a 17 year old (if consensual) but not 16 or younger (that's illegal). But yeah if both are minors it isn't illegal.
|
Yep, high school was specifically said. Read the bolded.
Ultimately, the ages aren't the point. The authority is the point. Miscreants do exist in society, but it's a far bigger problem for society when the people who are entrusted with authority are the miscreants. One bad apple in a position of authority can do far more damage than an ordinary citizen if left unchecked, and often there is no recourse against those who abuse their authority because the system protects them. Cops (and other government officials) have "qualified immunity," which means that unless a citizen can prove their constitutional rights were violated, they're untouchable, and the courts set an extremely high bar for a plaintiff to prove violation of their rights. The current standard for qualified immunity is Harlow v. Fitzgerald (457 U.S. 800 (1982)).
Nobody should ever be above the law, whether it's a police officer, a city alderman, a Congressman, or the President of the United States himself.
|
I totally missed that, my bad.
Unto your main point. If cops don't have a higher qualifier to go to court when accused, don't you think the amount of accusations will skyrocket (some of which will be true and some of which will be completely made up to make a suspect look like a victim)?
Obviously the ones telling the truth should be able to point out the wrongs that a bad cop did. That's great!
But what about the good cops who get accused (now in increased quantity and rate)? Do you suspend them until the court date happens? If so, I believe we will have police shortages nation wide because of two reasons:
1) Many more cops will be suspended until court proves them right or wrong.
2) A lot of people will no longer want to sign up to be a cop or remain one knowing how stressful their career could be bygby accused of things all the time by people potentially just wanting to deflect attention from their own crimes.
I was (until last year) a special education teacher. I left because of the insane expectations, pressures, and stress from that job due to all the legalities. There are millions of teacher shortages all over, many of which are sped. I didn't know one sped teacher in my building who didn't feel overwhelmed by it all. When you overburden a profession will legal threats, people walk away to less stressful professions. And we absolutely need teachers and need police officers.
I'm sympathetic to people that get brutalized by police officers doing their job terribly, but I'm also sympathetic to the many more police officers doing their jobs correctly. I don't know what the solution is.