The best
Law Enforcement books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Law Enforcement books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Law Enforcement books:
Folks should read and remember "3 Felonies A Day". Amazon link..
When everyone is guilty of something, selective enforcement is what lets inequality disguise itself as equality.
It's not just a matter of being exposed. Three Felonies a Day is a great book about how it's almost impossible to not break the law on a daily basis.
I think you pretty much got your answer from previous commentators. It is largely symbolic but it does also mean Richmond would have to rely on State Police and not local police or sheriffs. That means, for example, you'd need VSP to witness something or someone would have to report it VSP, not the local police. You also wouldn't have courts in that county issuing warrants either. It's not that you can't enforce it, it's that it makes it difficult/annoying to do so. (Lots of laws on the books fall into this category btw. You likely commit felonies every day without realizing it.)
Honestly it's not that different from say state Marijuana legalization. The big difference here is scale, it's just one state vs the country. But for example, there's literally nothing stopping the DEA right now from going in themselves and rounding up marijuana business owners in Denver for violating federal law. DEA did it to medical marijuana dispensaries in CA for years. The reason they don't do this now is it's unpopular so politicians don't want to help fund it and burn local bridges to do it.
Great book on this called "On Killing - the Psychological Costs of Learning to Kill in War and Society
​
It explores killing in war through history and the effects, largely linked to proximity of the kill, had detrimental effects on the killer.
Some notable facts about the book that I can remember after reading it 10 years ago:
Knife/Bayonett kills, though exceptionally rare in more recent wars, had the most devastating effects. Soldiers cited as feeling a man's last breath had a big hurdle to climb.
American soldiers in WWII were exceptionally bad shots, especially when shooting Germans. Turns out most Americans didn't want to kill people, even during the heroic march to victory. All-time terrible percentage of shooting.
War attracts psychopaths and make up something like 5% of combatants who are out to kill and not the norm.
​
If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend the book. Things I read have stayed with me and it never surprises me how much this topic comes up in conversation.
He wrote a follow up book on this subject that basically says you can’t just not talk to police. You have to request a lawyer and only talk to police once your lawyer is present. If I remember correctly in the book he explains there have been some rulings that let them consider complete silence as admission of guilt. Been a while since I read it though so I’m sure I’m missing the nuance.
Edited to add the book https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393/ref=nodl_
Read same.
Get used to weird shifts, holidays, sense of humor. Be there for him when he comes home and has seen some fucked up shit. Understand that he may want to talk about it or he may not want to. Make sure he understands that people insulting him or being rude to him is not to him personally but to the position of authority so he should try not to take it personally and let it continue to bother him.
I absolutely respect your position.
Laws changing is a very slow process, which is why we rely on courts to constantly test their application. What happens when we know the written laws are harming people but the legislative body is slow to act? Should the justice department knowingly hurt those people for years just because of a technicality? Studies and lit have alleged that the average American commits three felonies a day. I think I would rather live in a world where the justice department used their discretion colored by their humanity and empathy for its application over robotic enforcement. After all, what is the justice department for if not to help provide an environment of health and safety for the community?
Edit: just as an afterthought there’s also the issue of budget. Trial, investigation, and storage of criminals is a very expensive business. Would you rather courts, prisons, and jails be overloaded with pot smokers or be able to quickly and efficiently process people who have actually hurt others in their crimes? Discretion is very important.
On the macro-scale, end the "drug war". Massive decriminalization of all sorts. Our legal code is a massively overgrown nest of bullshit that criminalizes every single person in the country not currently in a coma. For a rundown of the more egregious corners of this, read "Three Felonies a Day".
​
On the technical side, a massive increase in the number of police officers, judges and public defenders. Reduction or removal of immunity for prosecutors and police officers. Reduction or elimination of most fines, and channel the money from fines to the public defender's office.
​
Ban plea deals outright. Disincentivize prosecutorial overcharging.
​
If I really want to get into the weeds, I recommend public shaming/corporal punishment as a substitute for minor jail sentences and fines. I believe it would be more of a disincentive and more humane to the criminal at the same time.
​
The ideal system I would like to see would have massively frontloaded resources. Actual crimes (as opposed to silly bullshit) would be investigated with the zeal and manpower of a federal task force. I'd want to see clearance rates in excess of 90% across the board. I care a lot less about the punishment than I do about finding and convicting the maximum number of criminals. In the short run (say, the first ten years), this would massively increase the prison population, but over time it would shrink it. Something I recall from a criminology class was that the harshness of punishment had little correlation with deterrence effects, but the likelihood of apprehension was strongly correlated.
You could probably find a lot of "criminals" to empathize with. The problem is that it is simply too easy to labeled a criminal by the state. There is a book out there called Three Felonies A Day that is a pretty good read.
More than once on this sub, I've cited the book Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police. It's a bit lengthy, and covers the historical foundation of the Bill of Rights (great read if you're an American history student).
But the real takeaway is that SWAT teams bring their own exigency with them. "Exigency" is just a fancy word for urgent and unexpected circumstances that allow SWAT teams to improvise and shoot dogs and kick in doors and operate without a judge's oversight. But the book makes a compelling argument that SWAT teams create exigency, they create violence where none existed before, they create dangerous situations where none existed before.
What if there are hostages inside a bank during a botched robbery? Sure, send in SWAT. But a house where no one is in any danger? Or a house where no one is threatening anyone? Hey, what if someone is suspected of cock fighting? Just have a celebrity drive a SWAT tank into their house. WCGW?
If you really want to get technical, the average American commits 3 felonies a day due to some ridiculously vague laws (like CFAA, which for example is so broadly written it allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute you merely for violating the TOS on a website). But the thing is those ridiculously vague and broad laws that everyone violates on a daily basis are almost never enforced, except as a way to prosecutors extra leverage in plea bargains.
But I highly doubt that this was what the person quoted was referring to. They sounded like they were talking about serious crimes, not stuff that shouldn't even be illegal.
I see you have read some Harvey Silver in your past.
> Are you arguing that because previous presidents have committed ethical violations and gotten away with it that we as a society should condone unethical behavior?
Selective prosecution is generally considered wrong, so all presidents should be held to the same standard. It would be very wrong to impeach a president for actions that were completely normal for most people, but which were technically criminal. People supposedly commit 3 felonies a day. It would be wrong to impeach a President for these kinds of crimes.
> The effect of which turns every person in the United States into a criminal.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Other readers: read Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
I don't understand why it's one or the other, can't schools AND prisons have AC? Most people don't decide to become criminals, most of the time it's out of necessity. I'd be willing to bet you've commited a few felonies in your lifetime just due to how obscure the law in the USA is.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
> and I'd be shocked if there's a US Attorney out there who's willingly going to go "yeah, you know what? I'm going to push for a weed conviction rather than going after heroin / coke / opiods / meth."
You're confusing the symptoms with the problem. The driving force behind the drug war isn't attorneys or even really politicians specifically, it's law enforcement agencies going after that sweet, sweet grant money. And MJ busts are quick, easy ways to make a buck. It has virtually zero impact on the actual crime rate but it looks good on paper. Radly Balko's book "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" is a really good breakdown on this subject.
Attorney's, politicians, and even the president himself can talk all the talk they want, the reality is until someone cuts the purse strings, this problem doesn't go away. And I have yet to hear even hint at limiting these grant programs.
Courts have held that this kind of thing isn’t entrapment, which I always found kind of crazy, but there it is.
I’m glad this is finally catching on in the mainstream, because it’s been a huge issue for a long time across ideologies and the political spectrum that just kind of flew under the radar. There was some coverage of it (mostly from left-leaning outlets) during the first “War on Terror” regarding how the FBI targeted Muslims and more-or-less designed terror plots that they would then “thwart”. These people rarely had the means (or even motivation) to actually carry out terror plots until the FBI gave them the means to do so. They often targeted mentally disabled or mentally-ill individuals.
I highly recommend the book Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silvergate to learn more about this. Basically, so many normal behaviors have been codified as federal felonies that the Feds could drop the hammer on anyone at anytime if they wanted to. The thesis of the book is that the average person commits several federal felonies every single day without even knowing it.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Yep, studied and published. The law is so complicated and perverse in some cases that it's hard to not have committed felonies.
EDIT:
For example I'm positive that many here would be violating obscure federal computer trespass laws by violating the reddit TOS by posting content that could be a violation of their content policy. Now you can say you've never, but read them and understand that they are vague enough to be used if someone is targeting you.
This guy has a book that expands on it more.
You Have the Right to Remain Innocent
You can't say "I think I need a lawyer," or "I don't talk to cops without a lawyer." Tell them to get you an attorney, in no uncertain terms. Do not deny the charges, or claim ignorance of any crime. Research your rights thoroughly.
You were formally charged, and then got to go home? That doesn't seem right. Usually once they formally charge you, they jail you.
It might not be as bad as you think.
I suggest reading the book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent.
fyi....just passing along something I've read: https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393
You should NEVER talk to the police, especially federal agents.
You should not claim your right to remain silent, but instead exercise your right to a lawyer.
Demand gov't to provide written questions and only answer gov't in written statements
Not me, but then, I don’t know all of the possible things that might be illegal. Do you?
Or illegal activities I haven’t done, but that a cop could construe evidence of.
We're not in the end times; the Millennial generation is simply at the same age the Boomers were in the 1970's. The Boomers were horribly destructive at that age, and the Millenials are simply repeating the behavior of their parents. Eventually, people will get hate-fatigue and it will be Morning in America again.
I highly suggest reading On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman. It gives excellent insight into how the military desensitizes people to killing and the effects it has had on soldiers, past and present.
"on killing" by Dave Grossman provides a lot of insight to this. Exceptional read On Killing
https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403
$20 and about one weekend of reading. It will help you even if you think you’re coping just fine. Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement should be issued on day 1 in the academy
In addition to what others say, people constantly violate the law unknowingly and knowingly and at that level it's basically impossible to not be violating any number of laws. Three Felonies A Day is a great book about how we're all basically just unprosecuted felons at any time.
Every citizen is estimated to commit Three Felonies a Day. If you don't think you're breaking the law, it's because you're ignorant of the law.
>The whole "ask for a lawyer" business is kind of overstated. The only thing a lawyer will advise you is to not say another word to the police. That's the entirety of the benefit of calling a lawyer. (Also, in circumstances where it's not clear that you've been detained/arrested, the lawyer will instruct you to ask the police if you can leave, and if offered the chance, to do so).
>
>Edit: you should still call a lawyer, because you're always better off with advice tailored to your situation than without it. I'm just pointing out it won't stop the police from asking the questions.
James Duane of the famous Don't Talk to the Police video recommends in his book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent that you should explicitly ask for a lawyer instead of pleading the fifth. He cites a supreme court decision that makes it so the fifth amendment no longer has the protections it used to have. Explicitly stating you want a lawyer and then remaining silent is your best option.