Was there a victim though or was there a complainant?

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

Before you participate in this forum, please view the two videos listed below. The first video is a Press Conference in reference to a shooting that occurred at the MacDill Air Force Base gate in Tampa, FL. Several agencies were involved in the investigation and therefore present for the media. Take notice of the delivery of information by trained media relations officers and questioning techniques utilized by reporters.
The second video is an “ambush interview” involving amateur media representatives who posted this video to YouTube. This video received a lot of attention. Take notice of the questioning methods utilized by these interviewers vs. the previous example as well as the difference between a trained Media Representative vs. that of a regular officer for the agency.

Transcript of Candid Interview with a Bellevue Police Officer
Officer: What would you like to know? I’ll tell you anything you want to know
Interviewer 1: I’d like to know if there was a victim.
Officer: She crossed over a railroad crossing with the lights still flashing
Interviewer: 1: Right, Was there a victim though or was there a complainant?
Officer: The complainant was me when she went over the railroad tracks
Interviewer 2: it affected you?
Interviewer 1: Were you injured in some way?
Officer: No.
Interviewer 2: Then why did you pull her over?
Interviewer 1: Why did you think you had the right to?
Officer: Because that’s a traffic violation according to state code
Interviewer 1: Why did you think you had the right to?
Officer: That’s a traffic violation according to state code.
Interviewer 2: Sodomy is also illegal. Do we also
Interviewer 1: So you’re saying that you’re doing your job even though you admitted there is no victim?
Officer: I’m not going to get into a beef about this with you
Interviewer 1: I’m just (also trying to talk over)
Officer: I’m just telling you right now that that’s what I pulled her over for
Interviewer 2: so you’re saying you are just doing your job even though you admitted there is no victim but yourself
Officer: it’s a violation of state code that you’re not allowed to go over a railroad crossing when the gates are flashing. I’m telling you right now what I stopped her for.
Interviewer 1: So, I’m asking you, you’re allowing your own actions to be directed by some text on paper. What happens when that text on paper harms peaceful people who haven’t caused victims?
Officer: what How did I harm her? By giving her a written uh
Interviewer 2: Because you made her stop
Interviewer 1: Yea, you interfered. She was scared.
Officer: No you’re making assumptions
Interviewer 2: You had a gun sir. We are scared of that
Officer: You could have asked her if she was afraid but you didn’t.
Interviewer 2: I bet she was.
Interviewer 2: I’m assuming if someone had a gun and sirens I would be afraid.
Interviewer 1: (also talking)
Interviewer 2: Sir what would you have done if she did not stop.
Officer: What are you talking about?
Interviewer 1: You said there was no victim but yourself. You haven’t been able to prove any demonstrate able harm yet you claim the right to be able to pull her over and why?
Officer: If you guys want to talk, you can get out of the roadway and so you’re not standing in the middle of the road.
Interviewer 2: Ok that would be great.
Interviewer 1: Ok, my question sir, you said she went across the lights, a railroad, she violated a state ordnance but you said you were the victim, but can you show how you were harmed?
Officer: uh I didn’t say, uh I said that I didn’t say that. I the violation was by the Ohio state code said I enforced the Ohio revised state code
Interviewer 2: Do you enforce all of Ohio’s code laws?
(Multiple people asking questions and the officer talking at once.)
Interviewer 3: Who’s the victim?
Officer: The victim is a uh the state code?
Interviewer 2: What is the state?
Officer: That’s the state code.
Interviewer 1: But at one time state code said that if you house someone who was escaping from slavery you should return them.
Interviewer 2: You should return them.
Officer: So we went from a traffic stop to slavery?
Interviewer 2: No, it’s about the law.
Interviewer 1: No, you said you were following the law. I’m trying to point out that sometimes manmade legislation doesn’t sync with natural law, common law or God’s law
Officer: Ok that’s a debate you have to take with law makers
Interviewer 2: But you’re hurting people you’re violating people we know.
Officer: Are you going to let me talk?
Interviewer 2: But you’re hurting that woman’s rights. You’re violating that woman’s rights.
Interviewer 1: Just let him talk
Interviewer 2: I’m Sorry
Officer:  Alright, if you don’t feel that statue is right that is something you have to talk with to your law makers. I don’t make the law. I just have to enforce it.
Interviewer 2:  Do you enforce all laws?
Interviewer 1: If it was against the law to house slaves, would you enforce that law?
Interviewer 3: No? Yes? You would?
Officer: Yes
Interviewer 2: You would actually
Officer: To a certain point I can only to a certain point I. There’s only so much I
Interviewer 3: So If pedophilia was legal, would you enforce that law? If it were legal would you allow that?
Officer: If it were legal?
Interviewer 3: Yes, if it were legal would you allow that?
Officer: So were’ getting into a debate about –
Interviewer 2: It’s about what’s right or wrong
Interviewer 3: I’m just saying that if it was a law does that make it right? And how many laws would you enforce if it was against your moral conscience. And where do you draw that line?
Officer: Well that, I mean right now there’s nothing that I can see that’s you know that makes it legal
Interviewer 2: What if it was legal?
Interviewer 1: But the thing is at the end of the day it’s not a law, it’s not text on paper some strangers made whom we’ve never met who claim to server for us but they have no idea what our preferences are or how we want to pursue so
Officer: so what you do is you vote people that
Interviewer 3: No, we vote every day with our actions and right now you’re choosing to act based on some text someone put on paper that might not sync with you internally when you think about it and all I’m saying is there could be a better way
Officer: So, so it’s a safety issue, say she’s crossing that railaroad,  a train had just passed and no gates had come down
Interviewer 1: We agree it’s risky, it’s risky. But the issue is why do you yourself feel that you have the right to pull her over? You say you’re acting based on some text people put on paper, but why? Why not pull her over, why not say, hey I live your community I don’t feel safe with you doing that. Ok cool.  Like maybe she’s cool about that. But we don’t’ need someone to follow blindly you know rules without thinking about it.
Interviewer 3: Especially given the victim. So, nobody was harmed.
Interviewer 2: Yea, Well she was harmed in this situation.
Officer: But you never know
Interviewer 3: But it could have been. I could go out and murder somebody. Are you going to arrest me now before I commit an act?
Officer: No
Interviewer 3: But before I harm someone, would you arrest me?
Officer: No
Interviewer 3: No, because you don’t have any proof that a harm was then taken place.
Officer:  um hmm
Interview 3: So then you don’t have any proof that any harm would have taken place. You’re assuming that yourself that a harm would have taken place
Officer: I didn’t give a citation, it was just a warning
Interviewer 3:  If she did it again, would you have given her a citation? If you witnessed her do it one more time, would you give her another warning or would you cite her?
Officer: If she had done it again, I probably would have cited her. Well I don’t know if
Interviewer 3:  So you would eventually harm her for her harming no one. That is a monetary loss and it is harm.
Officer: Would you mind standing out of the road.
Interviewer 3:  So monetary harm is harm even though she had not harmed anyone
Officer: Well, it  – we’re getting into a debate with
Interviewer 2: It’s not really a debate, it’s just
Officer: Well,
Interviewer 1: It’s about morality.
Interviewer 3: It’s just a fact. The fact of it that she has not caused any harm, and you are saying that you would harm her even though she has not cause such harm
Interviewer 2: By pulling her over it would be harm, I would think because she was on her way somewhere eventually. No I think that’s wrong.
Officer: Well, I tell you, the – what you have issues with is what you feel is right and what other people think are right.
Interviewer 3: Right
Interviewer 1: Do you think it’s right that
Officer: If you don’t like the way of the legislation is wrote, the rules that would be something that
Interviewer 3: So, let me ask you, another thing. If let’s say the legislater passed some law that you were morally opposed to, and you’re a cop, would you enforce that even though you’re morally opposed to it? Like if it’s against your personal moral code.
Officer: Morally opposed to it, hmm
Interviewer 2: Like if it were slavery
Interviewer 3: Anything that you feel strongly against. would you commit that action just because it’s law? To enforce such law just because it’s law? Would you enforce any bad law or where would you draw your personal line?
Officer: It depends on what you consider a bad law.
Interviewer 3: No, it depends on what you consider a bad law in this example. If you can think of something that is against your personal moral code, how far would you go as a police officer to enforce it and what would you do if you found that line? Would you cross it just because you’re a cop?
Interviewer 1: It is hard to think about.
Officer: I mean it’s something that you would have to, until I was put in that situation, I don’t know how I would react.
Interviewer 3: It might be something that you would want to think about because it is really your discretion. Police use discretion all the time for what laws they enforce and maybe a victimless crime is not that you might feel comfortable with doing if she hasn’t’ harmed anybody and it just might be something that you just can consider for the future you know? And really protecting what’s right and going after real criminals who harm people. That’s all we really advocate here.
Interviewer 3: Did you need a couple more of these? (pamphlets)
Officer: Ok, whatever you have to give me.
Interviewer 2: I really appreciate you talking with us.
Interviewer 3: We’d like you to consider focusing less on victimless crimes in future, if you could we would appreciate it.

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services