Really? So if you are your family is burglarized, victimized, or involved in a collision, who do you call? Why?
Here are some brutal cops at work: https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/king-county-sheriffs-office/400-kids-received-and-early-christmas-gift-from-santa/213877235361681.
Are we not a society who promotes law and order? At what point does law and order need not be enforced?
Actually, that quote was more intended to illustrate that "personal experience" is just another way of saying personal bias, and can very little basis in reality as a whole. I generally don't have too many issues with the police, besides issues that deal with my local police force specifically. However, that said, there are neighborhoods (which tend to be poor minority neighborhoods) where people generally do not call the police when there is a crime, because the police are feared more than the criminals. And when you turn on the TV and see police walking up to peaceful protesters sitting on the gournd, and spraying them with pepperspray, and then just walking away, those images can go a long way to reinforce that image. Personal experience is far too "personal" to really give it much weight in a broader policy discussion.
Here are two recent laws our state legislators felt needed to be passed – cell phone use and seat belt laws. Our fine leaders felt that “brutal” cops need to look for people using a cell phone or no seat belt while driving, pull them over, and give them a ticket after attempting to explain why they no longer have the freedom to choice for themselves. Personally, I think both of these laws are BS, serve no purpose. If a person using a cell phone is driving so reckless to endanger other, isn’t that Reckless Driving? What about those that eat or drink while driving? And, what does the seatbelt law do? Reduce injury if involved in a collision? And if someone wasn’t wearing a seatbelt when involved in a collision, should we brutal cops cite the offender?
Seatbelt laws? Well, you can get into a debate about balancing the need to protect the population from their own stupidity, and how much a cost not doing so imposes on the general public (idiot father doesn't put on his seat belt, gets himself killed, and now the wife and kids are on public asstance...cost of cleaning the guys smeared carcass off the side of the highway, publics increased cost in insurace w/o the laws). Again, that is a policy debate that happens in congress. I really don't see how this has anything to do with academics as you originally mentioned. Especially when you get to the state level, those people making the laws, very often comprise of the supposed "real world experience" you were saying is so lacking among attorneys. As for cell phone laws, I completely agree with them. No, prior wreckless driving laws don't necessarily cover them, until often the damage is already done. Unless some court in your praticular juridiction has already decided that operating a cell phone will driving constitues wreckless driving the state will have to present actual evidence that the driver was operating his car in a wreckless manner...ie swerving between lanes, nearly hitting pedestrians, etc. Often the evidence of wreckless driving would be that they got into an accident because they weren't paying attention to the road, and the damage is already done. So while it might help in a civil case, if the accident was fatal, that is hardly a reasonable exchange for the family. So by passing the law, you simplify the job of the state. The operation of the phone itself is an offense. You don't have to show that the phone usage resulted in wreckless operation of the car, and you are able to discourage cell phone usage while driving before the real damage is done. I would think the proliferation of cell phone usage is probably has created the recent legislative push for local governments to pass these laws, and there were far more instances of accidents caused by distracted drivers using cell phones rather than eating, or changing their radio station. Seems like a reasonable policy decision for a legislature in my book.
Sorry you are offended; no offense intended. People, like Zepp above, have this perception that cops – not so much firefighters or EMTs – are “mindless, brutish thugs on a power trip.” Not sure what his “experiences” have been to promote that feeling. Therefore, as a suggestion, I recommend people go for a ride along. Sure there are some who will not want a ride along, but most would like to have someone who “pays” their salary to come on out; you may be surprise. Life experiences come in many forms – social programs, food kitchens, etc. I was just giving you my perspective.
Again, I really have no issue with the police in the least. I had more issue with your painting young attorneys (a catagory I don't even fit into) with such a broad brush, that just smacked of anti-intellectualism. Law school was the start of a third career for me...prior being military (this will get a laugh out of you...I was an MP), a paralegal, and then law school. But on the same token, I know of very few attorneys (there's that "personal experience" thing again) who just came from a privileged background to roll through law school to a nice cushy position at a huge law firm. The most successful once actually come from rather modest backgrounds. There are very few people these days that get a golden ticket, and haven't had some kind of reality bite them in the back side. Most have to work during college. In 2008, 67% graduated undergrad with student loans. For law students, that number was 89%. That's telling you majority of college students are coming from middle income families or less. If those aren't "real people" what is?
And going back to the original point, you expect those who achieve academic success to respect the work of what you consider "real people" but you give no respect to the work they put into getting where they are. It's just fundamentally anti-intellectualism and hypocracy.