Well, I ran into this topic and felt like I need to comment. Wardog, I agree with you. I see what many others are saying and I understand their point. But, it is not our job as tax payers to develop and train a police force. Our tax dollars pay for a working police force. It is the responsibility of senior law enforcement officials in said department to make sure their officers are up to date on all laws they are expected to enforce. If we take it upon ourselves to educate LE on this topic, where does it end? The expectation of citizens to train officers on car seats, traffic stops, etc? I feel this would only make the education and training divisions of police departments more behind the ball than what they already are... If the departments are not willing or haven't taken the time to do their job, then there must be a penalty. (i.e. lawsuit) I do not expect the police to come to my place of business and teach me to administer medications or start and IV. So, I do not believe it is correct to go to a police dept. and teach them the laws they should already know. Its just like raising a child. You can teach them the right way but sometimes you just need to let them make their own mistakes.
Before I go too far, MCOLES training REQUIRES that, in order to teach anything regarding the law, that the trainer be a licensed attorney or that they are otherwise approved by MCOLES. This means that in order for the training to count as Professional Development or Initial training, we would have to have a member who is an attorney (or otherwise approved) provide this training.
I think EVERYONE (wardog included) brings up very good points in their posts. However, most of the posters then ruin a perfectly good and helpful observation by crossing into what could be termed personal attacks. If everyone could communicate under the proposition that every person here is posting with pure motives and intentions, even in the face of evidence that they are not, this discussion could have been distilled down to probably 4-5 posts. To respond any other way is simply counter to productive discussion. (I know, I am guilty of it too)
BTW: the responsibility falls most heavily, though, upon MOC membership... especially those who are assumed to speak with some official sanction for the organization itself " ie an MOC non-member: little-to-no responsibility; MOC President, Board, Moderators, other people given an official title: Huge responsibility.
The increasing
ability power/ability/prerogative to act or speak for MOC carries the increasing weight of
responsibility to act honorable and without ill-intent. or
much ability power/ability/prerogative = much responsibilityThis in mind, I would hope that anyone banned would only be so under the most unusual circumstances and that they have the opportunity to appeal the decision. Also, any information or interpretation of the information, which is purely subjective in nature should be decided in favor of the person appealing the ban.
Last, I've included the problems associated with GROUPTHINK... these are some of the issues that will kill MOC if we let them, folks.
--Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
--Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
--Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
--Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
--Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
--Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
--Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
--Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
