The police acted appropriately with the tools they were given. They did not break any rules and were only playing their part. Could they have been doing something better? Perhaps. But maybe not. If it was just so easy for them to confirm this man’s identity, location, & situation – I doubt many resources were expended at all.

Legalizing all drugs is societally suicidal. The one legal drug we are stuck with, alcohol, destroys families and lives—check out how many AA chapters there are. And you want, what, five, ten, 25 more drugs like it? Sorry: government has an obligation to say certain personal conduct is bad for society; your right to be addicted, addled and unproductive stops when you stop living in a cave.

Citizens are presumed to know the laws. If a law is really obscure and ill-publicize, yes, I think it’s wrong to prosecute, as with the grandmother punished from violating an anti-meth statute in Indiana when she bought too much cold medication in a 7 day period. But these guys surely knew they were breaking the law, or should have.

Why yes, I do have a problem with that question. I would have a problem with anything that suggests that someone, not because of his personal situation but because he’s too young, too old, too poor, too handicapped, etc. has less rights than other people. The “children are less experienced” argument seems like common sense. But is it ? Ken has reported here some of his conversations with his children, and these would tend to suggest that children can make a lot of sense. More so than adults, sometimes. I’m not saying that children should be treated in an equal manner in every regard. I’m saying this warrants careful thought, somewhat further than “eh, they’re kids. They need to be educated, it’ll build character” or “OMG chiiiiiildrun ! Protect them, quick !”.

It’s about free will. Your dad says he can’t drive any more. It’s his call, his choice. How would you feel about a government agent coming and taking your dad’s driving license because whatever his reflexes are, he’s too old and now belongs to a demographic that’s “vulnerable” ? How about the day when you are “vulnerable” for some reason and someone extends his oh-so-benevolent “protection” on you ?

And doesn’t being punished for a crime requires one to be willing in the committing of said crime (at least outside of spinozist ethics) ?

I understand your point, but saying something like this makes you sound like a sociopath, in the technical sense.

Side issues, really. Look, I agree that this was a relatively trivial use of police work. That doesn’t mean it was pointless. What is pointless is to have laws and not enforce them. There is no RIGHT to break laws just because you think they are stupid or excessive. (The right way to break laws you think are wrong, as I’m sure you know, is to break them openly and take the penalty in protest. Not break them, stupidly broadcast the fact ,and then whine about how mean the police are to actually go after you.) These guys think underage drinking is OK…the creep next door might think the same about incest, and is posting pictures of his 12 year old fellating him on HIS Facebook page. Would you apply your same principles here? Would police investigation and arrest still be an outrage?

Breaking the law, however minor, is one thing; boasting about it or publicizing it is an amplifying factor that undermines respect for laws generally—the police have a legitimate interest in discouraging it.

Meanwhile, we should have no sympathy for anyone who breaks a law and has to accept the consequences, no matter how badly law enforcement officials may have acted. Those are two different issues: the misconduct of the latter doesn’t make the misconduct of the former any better. We may choose to punish the officials by letting the guilty party off, but that’s no endorsement of the illegal act.

Thanks for giving my comparison more sense, then. The argument that a certain “demographic group” has “cognitive vulnerabilities” has often been used as an argument for “protective” laws, some of which are today more seen as patronizing or even discriminatory. There was a time when Blacks were assumed to have “cognitive vulnerabilities”, too. Note that I’m not shooting for the Godwin there, and I’m not saying you’re some kind of racist. But before you assert that laws that target a specific demographic are justified by “cognitive vulnerabilities”, you should ponder upon the implications of such a statement, and tell us on what basis you say that young people have “cognitive disabilities”.

And yes, I do make an argument that no law should penalize youth, based on the fact that from personal experience (and I hope others can relate to that, too) there are young people that make far more sense than some “grown-ups”, so youth doesn’t entail a certifiable, automatic “cognitive disability”. It may entail a more probable one (and even then, I doubt it does, or at least question from what point of view), but then, should one make laws according to probabilities, instead of according to what individuals do ? Do you arraign or condemn a man because he committed an act, or because he will probably commit it ?

Your choice, at least, seems clear : it’s about efficiency. “There’s no great incursion of fairness here: if the cops discourage some people from breaking the law and there are a few less DUI deaths, great. The big downside is that some 19 and 20 year olds have to pay a ine for wilfully breaking a law? My heart bleeds.” That’s a colourable choice, I suppose. But you should recognise what your own position is, and what it means. Personally, I’d be more inclined to choose principle over efficiency, even if it would mean more deaths. It can totally be criticized, too. But don’t come and say that the principle of efficiency, which you perfectly summarized there, is also a principle of morality and justice. Or if you want to, use better arguments than “the law is the law”.

Finally, I do not usually call cops “pigs”, unless I am angry and therefore a bit foolish. I don’t think cops have “cognitive vulnerabilities” either. I think there are no more, no less idiots among policemen than among other people. But an idiot with a gun and the strong arm of the law is more dangerous than an idiot without, and should be watched more closely. But ultimately, it’s the institution I would question, and the spirit in which it operates, more than the role of individual “good cops” or “bad cops”.

SG’s argument is desperate. You want to have a lower dinking age? Fine, get it lowered.one can debate where the line should be..the fact is that teenagers kill themselves in cars with liquor involved more than I’m comfy with, and they kill other people too. So maybe 18’s too young, but we elect legislatures to male that call, and the law needs to be followed. There’s no great incursion of fairness here: if the cops discourage some people from breaking the law and there are a few less DUI deaths, great. The big downside is that some 19 and 20 year olds have to pay a ine for wilfully breaking a law? My heart bleeds.

The comparison of stats you cite is beneath you. We’re taliing about voluntary behavior of a demographic group that has certain cognitive vulnerabilities. Unless you are really making an argument that no law should penalize youth, which is bizzarre.

Honestly, I though such irrational contempt for police doing their jobs (that is, reminding people to obey the laws until they change them) went out in the 60’s. Do you call them “pigs” too?

“If the people are led by laws, and conformity among them is sought by punishments, they will try to escape punishment and have no sense of shame. If they are led by virtue, and conformity sought among them through the practice of propriety, they will possess a sense of shame and moreover will become Good.”
– Confucius, Analects 2:3

Seeking control through punishments only teaches, as several commenters have said, to avoid the police and treat them as the opposition.

Perhaps. But only if the law commands respect, and thus gives pride to those who follow it. Punishing each and everyone for anything they do is not the way to give dignity to the law. Nor is doing “legitimate police work”, ie digging around for any piece of sufficiently stinky meat to swallow like some carrion eater. Although I suppose it has some symbolic logic, since bald eagles apparently do “rely largely on carrion, especially in winter” (according to Wikipedia). There’s a well-chosen emblem for government and law-enforcement.

Plus, if the tax-paying argument is lame (and it surely can be), then the “Have you seen the stats on kids and alcohol-related deaths?” is, too. What about the stats on adults and alcohol-related deaths ? People in this case are 19 and 20. Do you suddenly turn responsible about alcohol when you’re 21 ? Also, whose stats ? And how are they made ? What’s a “kid” in the stats you quote ? But if you have your head that deep in the stats, don’t waste your time on teenage alcohol-related deaths. Don’t stats tend to show that some minorities, especially coloured ones, tend to commit more crimes ? Let’s be proactive and arrest all these statistical criminals !

As Madrocketscientist pointed out, the lesson teached here is not “respect a bunch of cops who like to hassle you for anything”. It’s not “respect the law”. It’s “appear to be a law-abiding citizen”. “Evade the law”. Post only photos of you doing the Pledge of Allegiance on FB, and do your binge-drinking away from any cops’ eyes. Let’s all thank the Law for proclaiming “I’m a cheap, STD-infested whore, learn to stay away from me !”.

But that lesson is indeed worth teaching.

Good case to raise qestions about, though.

This is revenue generation, pure & simple. Underage Drinking in WI is a misdemeanor crime and if IIRC, if this went in front of a judge, it would get tossed for lack of evidence. These kids just don’t know enough to say “Not Guilty” & “Prove it”. It’s getting cold in WI this time of year, much easier to trick some dumb kids into making the trip into the station then it is to go find them.

If I was a parent, I’d be writing letters asking elected officials and newspapers hard questions, like “Is the local crime rate so low that officers can afford to spend time surfing the web for misdemeanors? If that is the case, maybe we should be saving money by laying off a few officers instead of having them surf the web looking for kids to charge a “Stupid Tax” to?”

I think what really disturbs is not the actions of the police, but rather the fact that kids these days (God I sound old) don’t have the presence of mind to think that the police are not their friends. I remember spending lots of effort in my youth doing bad things and actively taking steps to avoid the attention of Johnny Law as well as getting rid of incriminating evidence (I grew up in rural WI, drinking and breaking laws was how one passed the time).