Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthes
I do really believe this to be the case. I rationalize it as a necessary thing to do in some cases as a law enforcement tool. The best example I can think of is a police sting operation. This a legal technique that the police use to enforce certain laws. It is a practical solution.
|
Since they're trained in pursuit driving, I thought it was a given that we exclude what an officer is allowed or required to do in order to function on the job. That would include speeding and defending lives by any means necessary.
I'm referring to the moment that privilege is abused. Police sting, sure. But entrapment or evidence planting? This is the OP question. Law enforcement may feel confident they have the criminal, but would these actions cross the line and be justified? Or shouldn't that be left to our judicial system?
I don't believe, in these cases, the end justifies the means. Breaking the law is not an option for a police officer. I'm not thrilled with the concept of collateral damage although I can accept it to a very limited and fucked up extent. Sometimes the cost is just way too high and negates the idea that any progress has been made. If one has to take three steps back to move one forward, he's still moving backwards.