Many Police Departments go "by the book." Is the book wrong?

Some of the "officer" don't even know the law. They only go by their own book of experience. Case in point, I was stopped for going 5 miles over the speed limit. Being from California, my license has expired, however, I got a card from the California DMV that stated if I am still Active Duty my license will not expired. This state trooper wanted to impound my car because according to her my license it is expired and for me to be able to drive I would need a "military license", I was like WTF is she talking about as she just revealed that she knows nothing about the law. I told her I'm not letting her impound my car and that since I'm in Active Duty in the military my license will not expire according to California DMV and pointing to the card.

She insisted that I don't know the law and that I am wrong and she had called the tow truck. I told her I am not getting out of my vehicle until I speak to her supervisor. Her supervisor arrived and I spoke to him and show him my military ID with the card from California and he waved the tow truck away and probably told that female trooper she was stupid.

There are laws on the books for a reason but some discresion is appropriate.

Sometimes it's the book and sometimes it's the individual officer. I believe "the book" was written primarily with public safety and the officers safety in mind; not that the book can't be revised but I believe it has the right intent. The poorly trained officer or at worst, ill-intended officer will always be a problem until they get weeded out from within. I believe that should be the first focus of law enforcement earning back the trust of the community in areas where that is needed.

I personally had a run in with a poorly trained law enforcement officer. In NJ in 2002 I was jogging the loop around my apartment complex wearing my AF PT gear. I was wearing head phones and didn't hear the officer from behind yell for me to stop. He chased me down and neck-tackled me from behind. Turned out he was first to respond to a fight at a party in one of the units and because I was running away from that apartment. He cuffed me and sat me in his car. He was too hyped up to listen to me explain I was just jogging by; right or wrong I can partially understand that. As his Sergeant questioned me after things settled I pointed out all of the obvious indicators that I was just a by-stander: reflective military PT gear, reflective belt, jogging not running, jogging the roadway when a perp would have fled into the woods.... I suggested he could have simply came into my field of view and given me the chance to stop or flee before taking me down. The Sergeant was less than sympathetic himself. I spoke with the Chief of police the next day and detailed my piece of the situation knowing it wouldn't be in any report. He assured me he would look into it. The moral, I hope the officer was better trained after that and I'm damn glad he didn't resort to shooting. I most disappointed with the Sergeant supporting the action of the officer and that is the piece that should change.

An excellent article. Violence should be a last, not a first resort.

I agree that there should have been a preliminary investigation. Squatters will still be squatting if the police do a little digging first. On the bright side, no one died.

Police absolutely correct. First job is to secure which they did. Suspect not charged, no harm to suspect except being scared. When police believe a crime is being committed now, there is no expectations that detectives will ask around while crime is occurring. Having been cop and soldier this article to me was off point. Cant compare free state to mitary state. Apologies to whoever may take offense but less that a percent of people actually know what police can do. CNN FOX MSNBC never get law enforcement right.

The trend seems to be the opposite direction as we have more and more active shooter incidents.

First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner .

Tens of thousand of cops respond to tens of thousands of incidents, make tens of thousands of traffic stops, expose themselves to tens of thousands of life-threatening encounters every day without perpetrating a crime themselves. The prevent tens of thousands of crimes and infractions every day just by being present. Then let just one go off the tracks and their are tens of smart phones pointed there way initiating millions of views on the Internet and we ask, "Is the book wrong?" Seriously? However, when cops are misused by those in authority, the ones who want us to conform to their ideology, then just one incident is too many. We need police, not secret police. (If you don't know the difference, it's simply this: Police enforce the law. Secret police enforce ideological compliance.)

Is dragging an unarmed person out of the car and stomping on his head by the book?