What did this man do wrong?

§outh§tar

is feeling caustic
Registered Senior Member
NEW YORK (AP) -- An officer on trial for refusing to arrest a homeless man took the stand Thursday, saying he was punished for trying to help needy people instead of locking them up.

Officer Eduardo Delacruz could be kicked off the police force if an administrative judge finds him guilty of failing to obey a lawful order. He refused to arrest a homeless man who had been sleeping in a Manhattan parking garage in 2002.

"I'm not going to do it," Delacruz recalled telling a sergeant who had handcuffed the man and told the officer to make the arrest. "I'm not going to lock up a homeless man."

http://www.channelone.com/news/2004/08/06/ap_policeman/

How is this man going to be fired on any reasonable grounds for something like this??? Does it even make sense? He is going to be fired for "failing to obey a lawful order" to do something unreasonable?

What happened to interpreting the law? The homeless man was not even reported as having commited any crime!

Delacruz claimed his superiors sought to impose a one-arrest-per-week quota. They warned that if he didn't "collar up"-- slang for making arrests-- he could be transferred to a distant command, or worse.
 
Being homeless isn't technically a crime, but do keep in mind the number of soldiers we have sent to their deaths because we believe in capitalism, and capitalism for *everyone* damnit. It’s almost a wonder that in America being poor isn't a crime. Homeless people keep low profiles, they live off the grid they are hard to track or account for and administrators and authorities hate that kind of thing. ... Of course he could have just been trespassing or something, I'm not sure. There are laws that allow these sorts of round ups. He could be charged with disorderly conduct or some other infraction designed to harass the indigent but non-criminal.
 
I assume that the crime was sleeping in the parking garage, after all who wants a bunch of stinky bums seeking shelter somewhere where you might actually have to look at them?

You're right about this, South Star, the fact that this officer could be fired for his stance on this issue is ridiculous. The fact that the bum was under arrest for sleeping in a parking garage is kind of frightening as well. He's homeless, where the heck do they want him to sleep? He's gotta' get creative.

"We had been trying to help and protect these people," Delacruz said. "Now we were going after them."

Well I'm not sure what I can say to this change in policy except to shake my head, sigh and mutter something about Republican administration. It's really a damn shame.
 
Delacruz is a good man, but he may've been in the wrong line of work.
It's nice to think that one can stand up for one's ethics and all that jazz, but the tax payer's dollar shouldn't necessarily be sustenance for it.

Does anyone here think the qualms of every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be substantial grounds for the disregard and direct disobedience of social, legal, and professional authority?


This may come on as belligerent or superfluous, but there has to be a line drawn in the sand.
I daren't claim Delacruz was ethically incorrect; he was over the line, though.
 
Rappaccini said:
This may come on as belligerent or superfluous

So may this....

Does anyone here think the qualms of every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be substantial grounds for the disregard and direct disobedience of social, legal, and professional authority?

...Not that my opinion matters or is of any consiquence but if so much tax money is spent funding a judicial system which incarcerates gangsters, petty thieves, local hoodlums for a night or two and releases them overnight or a few days later then I do not mind paying for a non-sensical trial in which a honest and ballsy man is questioned.

If so much tax money is wasted feeding the monkeys we elect then I do not mind contributing to his trial through my tax dollars because he stood his ground for what he believed in and as cheesy as that sounds such individuality is looked down in a bureaucracy. If so much tax money can be wasted in pointless arrests then I do not find his qualms to be too little to be looked over. Only thing I can do is look at him as an example because I have would have arrested that homeless man knowing all along that much more worthwhile arrests (that just sounds weird...worthwhile arrests) could be made.

Ofcourse one man's machismo and sense of ethics and another man's personal opinion do not account for the actual money wasted on this...however petty that amount maybe. I say his qualms ring louder than his sense of professional authority and they should......being police officer is his duty, not his life. If one's own job ethics override his intrinsic morals than that is a cause of worry no? Especially when every cop knows that mandated codes of a policemen almost never work in the real job enviroment.

But that is my opinion....
 
Do you believe that police should decide which laws they should enforce on which people? I think that the police, military, fire fighters, nurse and any other public servants should not be making up their own laws. If the law is not unconstitutional then the public servants have to obey them or the whole system will start to fail. Laws are made for everyone and you cannot have public workers deciding which laws are ok.
 
The law is interpreted.

You won't expect to be given life for shooting someone in self defense, even though "laws are made for everyone"..
 
laughing weasel said:
If the law is not unconstitutional then the public servants have to obey them or the whole system will start to fail.

Where do you think the Patriot Act fits into that? So clearly unconstitutional that several cites have passed specific legislation banning its application within their limits. Would you agree that law enforcement workers should not practice the freedoms they are given by the patriot act?

Hypothetically, under the patriot act, this police officer could have been being asked to round up homeless people who would never be seen again alive, as long as some argument could be made tangentially relating them to terrorism.

I think that with the legal system in the state that it is, some contentious people had better start making moral stands and refusing amoral orders.

I know that’s probably too hyperbolic, but the theme of power being abused to victimize the innocent is one we as Americans have to worry about as well as that bum.
 
The few parks around downtown Los Angeles used to be nothing more than crash pads for the homeless. The city fathers, in their infinite wisdom, bowed to the pressure of the nearby merchants who were losing business, and instituted a dragnet that rather quickly got the message out that sleeping downtown was going to land you in jail, which is much worse than being merely homeless in L.A. with its mild weather and generous citizenry.

The thoughtful community was rather irate about this for a while... until we saw the results. The homeless are no longer concentrated in one spot. You can't plan all your drives to avoid a few blocks in downtown L.A. and be guaranteed of not having to come face to face with a homeless person.

They're everywhere now. Not in such concentration that anybody gets upset enough to petition their own local governments to emulate L.A.'s law. There's one on this corner and one a few blocks down. There are a few scattered about in Pasadena and Glendale and Eagle Rock and Arcadia and Sherman Oaks and just about everywhere where there's a decent place to lie down at night.

And now everybody sees them all the time. Nobody can fool themselves into thinking that homelessness is not a problem -- or worse, into not thinking about it at all.

I think that's a good thing. Now everybody in southern California knows that this vast, opulent city (well it's a little less opulent since the Perestroika Recession but how long did people think they were entitled to get rich by building weapons?) is confronted every day with evidence that they are really lucky. They give more to the homeless and they treasure what they have a little more. They do a better job of putting their children on a path that won't lead to homelessness. They vote for government programs that actually help people instead of merely making the government bigger and more powerful.

I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect of course. But the essence of what I've said is true. The government cannot solve the problem of poverty. It has to be handled at the individual level. The more we have to face it, the more we're likely to think about it, and the more we're likely to help devise a solution -- one homeless person at a time. That's the American way.

The cop broke the rules he swore to uphold and he's going to have to face the consequences. Nothing can change that. As I've often said to you people, some things are neither right nor wrong, they just are. Sometimes following the law to its preposterous and inescapable conclusion is in itself a catalyst for change. That cop is a brave, honorable man who can sleep soundly at night. Plenty of brave, honorable men get the shaft every day. But it doesn't mean they should stop.
 
If the patriot act is unconstitutional and I believe that it is, then it is the job of the Supreme Court to decide that it is not constitutional. If this guy was protesting against something new like the patriot act I would not have a big problem with that. It is when people decide to work for the government and the people forget that they have different standards and codes of conduct that problems occur.
 
So weasel, the slaughtering of civilians is ok, as long a superior gives you the order? What about rape? Or torture? As long as someone who has constitutional authority over you and the oath you swore to that order, you have to do what they say, no matter the moral ramifications?

Your interpretation of constitutional democracy sucks. I suppose, if we all thought like you, there'd never been a constitution, or an Independence. We'd still be sucking King George's cock.

I know of homeless people purposefully getting locked up. Three square meals, warm bed, cable T.V. But hey, NY might not have very nice jails.
 
If my weapon doesn’t jam I can get another dozen before breakfast. Seriously that is obviously unconstitutional. The laws against trespass and loitering have already been heard and decided that it is reasonable to protect the property rights of individuals. There are hundreds of programs designed to insure that anyone who is homeless is homeless because of their own choice. They do not have the right to appropriate others property because they do have choices. “Are there no work houses, no debtor prisons?”
 
Back
Top