Free Drinks for Police, Yay or nay?

[TNT]

As some of you may or may not be aware of, businesses like gas stations have policies that state that anyone from the police/fire department can get free drinks, or half off meals at restaurants. They do this because the business owners feel obligated to thank them for protecting the community in some shape or form, so they offer these deals to them. Since I am majoring in Criminal Justice at my college, this was brought up a couple of times in two different classrooms. One was in Ethic Issues in the Criminal Justice System, while the other was brought up by a guest speaker in Criminal Investigations class. Recently I have learned that police agencies are now adopting policies where police officers are no longer allowed to accept free and/or half off meals because they are concerned of potential liability issues and lawsuits to unravel. So, I want to show both sides of the argument and see what you guys think of either of these policies, and which one you would side with.

Understand that I am talking about good police officers that actually do their jobs properly and not abuse their power. I am aware that there are police officers that are corrupted, but lets just assume that all police officers are the good guys just for the sake of this argument. Otherwise, bad cops shouldn't be allowed to enjoy free stuff regardless of police policy or business policy.

Business Policy
Positive
This is fairly straight forward. Businesses give discounts to the police officers for showing respect for what they do, and that they put themselves in danger in order to protect us. By doing this, police officers will continue to visit their gas station or restaurants for free drinks or half off meals, while probably develop new friends along the way. Security for their businesses will raise some (but not much depending on time of day) as cops would visit their place on a regular bases, which reduces the likely hood of a crime to occur at their business and/or property.

Negative
While the following may seem less likely to occur, liability issues are somethings that shouldn't be ignored by both businesses and the police agencies themselves. Regarding to the employees, they could use it to their advantage when they catch themselves in trouble with the police. A common thing that comes up, for example, is that an employee that works for a gas station sees this same police officer getting his usual free drink every other day to the point where they know each other quite well. One night that employee gets pulled over by that cop for speeding, and the employee would use this business policy as an excuse to get away with the speeding ticket. If the employee knew what he was doing, and he ended up with a speeding ticket, he could sue the police agency for this and have a good chance of winning.

Another problem that rises up from it, is that some businesses will have trouble attracting the police officers over to their restaurants or gas stations because they cannot afford to offer the deals. It becomes a bit of a slight economic problem, and chances of crime to occur there will go up just a tad (but not significant).

Police Policy
Positive
This policy reduces the off chance of a lawsuit, and it prevents their officers from potential corruption (sounds silly I know when it comes to free drinks). It also helps the little economic problem for some other businesses that can't offer such deals to the police. With that, when officers need to eat or grab a drink, every business will have a fair advantage of making revenue from the police officers, while having a potential balance sense of security for all. It may not be as good as some well known companies like 7-11 or Dunkin Doughnuts, but the threat of crime will be around the same compared to the smaller businesses (if it makes a difference at all).

Negative
The only big negative thing about this policy is that it will conflict with the business policy. When an officer wants to buy a drink, the employee that works there will tell them that they must take it for free (or any other discount they offer) because they will get in trouble if they take their money. The business owner and the employee could feel awful about not giving any cop free or discounted items, and they will complain to the police agency that they cannot tell them what to do with their business. It will get to the point where the police officers cannot go to that place anymore, which reduces their potential security and increases it for someone that does not offer free or discounted goods for the cops.

With all of that provided, which side of the policy would you side with? I am personally split in half with both of these policies as I have stated from the good and bad of each. I feel that this topic should belong to the politics forum because this has some effect on the economic factor and crime reduction, and quite frankly there are more intellectual responses from the politics page than the general page. But if I have to move this to the general page, then so be it.

[orangebomb]

Really, I don't have much of a problem with police officers getting a discount on meals, donuts or whatnot. It's not that much different than active duty military personnel getting a free appetizer at a certain restaurant to show their appreciation for serving the country. Of course with that said, I would probably imagine that they would be some sort of limit on how much said officer can get with a discount per day, either from the management from the shop itself, or police policy from the station.

I don't know if it matters much, but this policy probably depends of the size of the city/district of where the police have authority in. If it is a small town with only 1 donut shop or restaurant around the area, then chances are, the police can get whatever they want for a discount, if not for free, whereas say in a big section of New York or Chicago, that might not be the case.

[Entice]

This seems like a trivial issue that should be left to the shops and restaurants giving the discounts.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/7/12 12:53 AM, bgraybr wrote: This seems like a trivial issue that should be left to the shops and restaurants giving the discounts.

The only real issue here is the possible conflicts of interest that may apply. Seattle Police got into a bunch of troublea few years back for being chummy with the stripclubs and overlooking numerous violations, and some actual crimes, by the owners.

[BUTANE]

Even a "good" police officer that is not intentionally acting corrupt can fall into corruption for free services. It might not be blatant or intentional (I doubt any cop would let a murderer go free for a few free cups of coffee at a gas station). But little things may be ignored that shouldn't be, or preferential treatment may come to those businesses that give away free products to the police. If an irate parent calls the police to tell them their kid bought cigarettes at a nearby gas station (one that also gives police free soda) the police may give the benefit of the doubt to the store owner rather than issue a ticket because the employees are the gas station are "nice guys" that give out free soda. They wouldn't sell cigarettes to a minor, right?

I think that the agencies adopting polices that forbid their officers from accepting free products are on the right track (I think all agencies should be required to do the same). It may not be intended as a bribe, or seen as a bribe by the police, but at the end of the day it's a small bribe that can lead to negative consequences for both parties.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

hell no.

[Korriken]

Pfft. In many places, anyone with any connection, even indirectly can get shit fixed so easy it ain't funny.

While back I was going home after dropping off a friend and I blew a tail light and ended up with a ticket. his dad got it fixed for me.

back in January I got not one but TWO expired inspection sticker tickets. got em both fixed by a coworker.

Until things like THIS get sorted, the free donut thing is only swatting the wasp and not burning the nest.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/8/12 01:47 AM, Korriken wrote: While back I was going home after dropping off a friend and I blew a tail light and ended up with a ticket. his dad got it fixed for me.
back in January I got not one but TWO expired inspection sticker tickets. got em both fixed by a coworker.

Well trechnically those two types of tickets are fix-it tickets. The policy goal in even having those is to get people's cars fixed. The only ticket I ever got was one of those and I got it removed a couple weeks later by fixing the problem.

Until things like THIS get sorted, the free donut thing is only swatting the wasp and not burning the nest.

Meh. Giving people outs for minor violations hardly seems like a problem to me. It's when actual crimes get overlooked because of a quid pro quo relationship that things start to get bad.

In the end, the whole problem here is merely one of perception. Chances are any such arrangement wouldn't change the police officer's ability or willingness to objectively enforce the law. However, the minute someone makes a connection it becomes a massive PR nightmare, regardless of whether it is true or not. Police agencies are fairly unqiue in that they rely heavily upon the faith of the citizenry in their ability to do their job effectively and fairly. Anything that erodes that can dramatically hurt the community.

[TucoM]

At 4/7/12 01:03 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

chummy with the stripclubs and overlooking numerous violations,

What kind of violations? The kind where it would be fun to be a cop?

[stinkychops]

Businesses have the right to sell products however they like.

Reducing the price for police encourages them to enter your store.

I don't see a problem.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/14/12 08:14 AM, stinkychops wrote: Reducing the price for police encourages them to enter your store.
I don't see a problem.

There are three issues with this:

First, the proterction of the police is supposed to be provided equally to all. Allowing stores to give free stuff to police essentially allows them to buy more police protection. In the worst case scenario, only those who give to the police would get protected at all.

Second, this is too close to bribery.

Third, this issue is largely one of public perception. An effective police force relies largely upon the cooperation and trust of the public. If the public beginsd to believe that either the police are only protecting those who pay them, or are taking bribes, the public loses trust in the force. Once a police force loses the trust of the public it is extremely difficult to get it back (just ask the NYPD). Serious problenms begin to occur when the people don'ttrust the police to do their jobs fairly and effectively ( just as two guys named Martin and Zimmerman)