[ummbikes]

**This post was originally from this thread here

Some good people are police, some bad people are police and really despite the fact some don't like the laws if we were lawless it would suck too.

Rochester police officers and fans, I'm sorry if it bothers you that some people have had bad experiences with law enforcement and like to discuss them. It's the nature of the forum, nobody tells a good story about anything online. I'm sure you are swell people in real life.


Okay, so our local WalMart just did a great big re-model. As a gift to the community they purchaced a Ford F-250 for the police department.

I see the truck yesterday and it has a (I am not making this up) Wal Mart decal on the rear quarter panel of the bed. I also notice this truck sporting some new rims and the decals of the shop that donated them. This is not a Dare vehicle, it is painted the same as the marked patrol vehicles and sports the full graphic scheme as them too. With the exception of the advertising.

Now don't get me wrong I'm glad Wal-Mart kicked down a truck to the police.

I think it's fine when the local business guys get together and build some cool 4X4 with a wild paint job and all the cool after market stuff for Dare. They of course make sure somewhere on thevehicle is painted a donated by X section.

It struck me a little funny that there are ads on a standard poilce vehicle. Could be interesting to make up for budget cuts by selling ad space.

 

[Tenchiro]

No because it will eventually lead to police/local government overlooking the misdeeds of their biggest sponsors.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
No because it will eventually lead to police/local government overlooking the misdeeds of their biggest sponsors.

I concurr. It would be no different than a bike magazine praising Rock Shox for quality just because RS puts 250,000 worth of ads in the mag every year.

Actually NORML and High TImes could start to advertise and get the cops on their side... Hey it COULD have its upsides

 

[DH Diva]

Seems like this could cause some problems. Just one example, my friend recently got hit by a pepsi delivery truck. His restored T-Bird was totalled. It was the Pepsi trucks fault. My friend was sitting at a red light and the delivery truck didn't stop and rear ended him. Now even though the accident wasn't his fault, the cop was very rude to him, I'm guessing because he is a young kid. Now just imagine how my friend would have felt if the cop car that rolls up to resolve the issue was plastered with Pepsi logos?? And on top of that was rude to him?? See what I'm getting at?

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
No because it will eventually lead to police/local government overlooking the misdeeds of their biggest sponsors.

That is a possibility, but I would have to give my local law enforcement the benefit of the doubt.

More importantly, how would you feel as a taxpayer about ads on police cars for companies whom you don't favor for moral /ethical reasons?

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Tweek
That is a possibility, but I would have to give my local law enforcement the benefit of the doubt.

I would too, but the issue is MUCH broader than that. The LAW cannot offer services in return for money. It's called bribery.

If companies want to donate money to cops, I'm all for it, but they cannot explicitly expect a service (such as advertising) in return. Yes, some donaters get favors... it's the nature of some people, but once it's explicit and accepted it opens the floodgate for some EXTREMELY questionable actions.

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by ohio
I would too, but the issue is MUCH broader than that. The LAW cannot offer services in return for money. It's called bribery.

If companies want to donate money to cops, I'm all for it, but they cannot explicitly expect a service (such as advertising) in return. Yes, some donaters get favors... it's the nature of some people, but once it's explicit and accepted it opens the floodgate for some EXTREMELY questionable actions.

That's what I was getting at, Ohio. I would have to give them the benefit for not giving special treatment to their sponsors.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Tweek
That's what I was getting at, Ohio. I would have to give them the benefit for not giving special treatment to their sponsors.

"Special treatment" would include putting sponsor names on the sides of the cars. THAT is a service rendered in return for money. by definition, a law enforcement agency ceases to be impartial when they do that. I'm not talking corruption of single officers. I'm talking corruption of the entire institution.

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by ohio
"Special treatment" would include putting sponsor names on the sides of the cars. THAT is a service rendered in return for money. by definition, a law enforcement agency ceases to be impartial when they do that. I'm not talking corruption of single officers. I'm talking corruption of the entire institution.

I look at it the same way as political campaign contributions. Candidates who get funding from special interest groups aren't legally obliged to give preference to certain legislation in their favor. Though not the norm, there are polititians who don't cowtow to the SIGs that put them in office.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Tweek
I look at it the same way as political campaign contributions. Candidates who get funding from special interest groups aren't legally obliged to give preference to certain legislation in their favor. Though not the norm, there are polititians who don't cowtow to the SIGs that put them in office.

It's a little bit different though, in the same way that while you can donate money to George Bush, you can't to William Rehnquist.

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by Silver
It's a little bit different though, in the same way that while you can donate money to George Bush, you can't to William Rehnquist.

That's because Supreme Court Justices don't run for office.
With the system of checks and balances, it sounds the same to me. Don't you think that by contributing money to Bush, you can anticipate that he'll appoint SC Justices as he sees fit?

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Tweek
I look at it the same way as political campaign contributions. Candidates who get funding from special interest groups aren't legally obliged to give preference to certain legislation in their favor. Though not the norm, there are polititians who don't cowtow to the SIGs that put them in office.

These are seperate issues. A contribution is a donation. There is no obligation on the part of the recipient to provide a service. Some do, but that's at their discretion and if it were explicit would probably be enough to get them removed.

Purchasing advertising is payment (not a donation or contribution) for a service. I cannot repeat this enough. It doesn't matter if the service (advertising) affects the enforcement of the law (which is debateable in this case) it is still a service.

Also, silver, we can't contribute to rehnquist because he is not an elected official.

edit: one more thing. we as taxpayers are SUPPOSED to have influence over those who create and interpret the laws. We are NOT supposed to have influence over those that are required to uniformly enforce the laws as they are written and have been interpretted by other branches.

 

[Silver]

Bad analogy, my fault. We don't elect police chiefs, but I forgot about sherrifs

It's more like a judge coming into the courtroom wearing a Walmart logo on his robe. I don't think that is what people have in mind when hoping for justice to be blind.

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by ohio

edit: one more thing. we as taxpayers are SUPPOSED to have influence over those who create and interpret the laws. We are NOT supposed to have influence over those that are required to uniformly enforce the laws as they are written and have been interpretted by other branches.

I'll try to remember that the next time my government makes another big step toward the use of alternative fuel and a decreased dependancy on oil.

I agree that 'we the people' should influence our lawmakers, but not at the expense of profit before people.

 

[streetweapon_dh]

the greater denver metro fire dept's are considering sellin adverts on fire rigs. I understand commerce, but for some reason, government vehicles (ie. police, fire, etc...) with adverts don't sit quite right with me. I won't assume private subsidization will lower my taxes either.

 

[mpd510]

bump