It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Law Enforcement
page: 3share:
Originally posted by Xcathdra
To the OP - Thank you for this thread. Its appreciated more than you may know.
You are welcome. Thank you for holding the line in this nut house.
I know cops. 99% of them are true blue. I figured the blue line needs to know that more of us understand than what you think. Keep protecting us in the long run we are all worth it.
reply to post by NightGypsy
I think the misconceptions about Law Enforcement, and the view we do what we want while ignoring the Constitution, is from a lack of understanding of how your rights work.
I can get dispatched to a call, say murder. I can do my investigation, interview witnesses, collect evidence, find my suspect, find the weapon used, arrest the suspect, submit my report to the PA, the file charges, it goes to court, the guy is found guilty and sentenced to Death, all without me reading Miranda rights to the suspect.
TV shows have given an exaggerated view of how all of that works, always showing police mirandizing during the arrest. The only time we have to read Miranda is if you are:
In Custody + Police are asking guilt seeking questions = Miranda
If I do not ask any guilt seeking questions, I am not required to Mirandize the person.
TO the person who made the comment about the COPS tv show. My personal opinion is if you want to learn what not to do as Law Enforcement, that would be it. However, keep in mind State / Local laws differ from each other, based on legislation, court rulings creating case law, and federal appeals court circuits. If the 9th circuit says cops can't do this or that, that ruling only applies to Law Enforcement within the 9th Federal Appeals Circuit.
Random Trivia
A - Many people would be surprised to learn that the 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, but only the Government.
B - Driving a motor vehicle is not a right, but a privilege. The next time you get your driver's license, check the fine print in the manuals about implied consent (DWI clause).
C - There are such things as quotas for citations. Generally they are allowed in larger departments that have a dedicated traffic enforcement division that does nothing but enforce traffic regulations. (subject to state Law).
D - Jaywalking is not a criminal offense, but an infraction, hence the fine, and only the fine. Just as in some states you can trespass without knowing, which is an infraction and not a criminal offense.
E - In some States you do not have a right to resist an unlawful arrest.
F - During a traffic stop or investigative detention, people argue they can do certain things due to their constitutional rights. What they fail to understand is, under the 4th amendment, you have been "seized", curtailing some of those rights. If action is taken the officer has to explain the nature of the contact, reasons for the contact etc in his report.
When I am on patrol I will not generally stop anyone that tends to drive in the same manner I do while off duty (unless there is some serious issue caused by it etc). Law Enforcement is not required to issue citations, as we have discretion in this area.
There are idiot cops out there, and there are idiot citizens out there as well.
Law Enforcement does not make or pass laws, the peoples and /or their representatives do. We take an oath (varies department to department) that is to defend the constitution of the state we are in, the Federal Constitution, and to serve the people who allowed us their trust to enforce their laws.
Assuming that as Law Enforcement we have a right to say this law is illegal, so i'm not enforcing it, is no different than a person arguing that going to jail for marijuana possession is illegal. It is not up to Law Enforcement to decide these issues.
That's why we have a Legislative branch and a Judicial branch. The moment we allow Law Enforcement to make the determination if something is unconstitutional, is the moment the people loose control of their Government. If we arrest someone and the PA decides its not how the statute is to be interpreted, the person is released, and Law Enforcement for that county gets a memo explaining what is expected if an arrest is to be made under the statute.
The single greatest thing a person can do to guarantee their rights is to participate in the process. Vote, send letters of concern to your rep about laws you don't like etc.
Simply stating it will never change and not doing anything but complaining, makes you just as much part of the problem as those you accuse of abusing their authority.
If anyone wants to, ask some hypothetical questions and see if your answer is close to what actually can happen (For the United States, unless we have Leo's from other countries present).
I think the misconceptions about Law Enforcement, and the view we do what we want while ignoring the Constitution, is from a lack of understanding of how your rights work.
I can get dispatched to a call, say murder. I can do my investigation, interview witnesses, collect evidence, find my suspect, find the weapon used, arrest the suspect, submit my report to the PA, the file charges, it goes to court, the guy is found guilty and sentenced to Death, all without me reading Miranda rights to the suspect.
TV shows have given an exaggerated view of how all of that works, always showing police mirandizing during the arrest. The only time we have to read Miranda is if you are:
In Custody + Police are asking guilt seeking questions = Miranda
If I do not ask any guilt seeking questions, I am not required to Mirandize the person.
TO the person who made the comment about the COPS tv show. My personal opinion is if you want to learn what not to do as Law Enforcement, that would be it. However, keep in mind State / Local laws differ from each other, based on legislation, court rulings creating case law, and federal appeals court circuits. If the 9th circuit says cops can't do this or that, that ruling only applies to Law Enforcement within the 9th Federal Appeals Circuit.
Random Trivia
A - Many people would be surprised to learn that the 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, but only the Government.
B - Driving a motor vehicle is not a right, but a privilege. The next time you get your driver's license, check the fine print in the manuals about implied consent (DWI clause).
C - There are such things as quotas for citations. Generally they are allowed in larger departments that have a dedicated traffic enforcement division that does nothing but enforce traffic regulations. (subject to state Law).
D - Jaywalking is not a criminal offense, but an infraction, hence the fine, and only the fine. Just as in some states you can trespass without knowing, which is an infraction and not a criminal offense.
E - In some States you do not have a right to resist an unlawful arrest.
F - During a traffic stop or investigative detention, people argue they can do certain things due to their constitutional rights. What they fail to understand is, under the 4th amendment, you have been "seized", curtailing some of those rights. If action is taken the officer has to explain the nature of the contact, reasons for the contact etc in his report.
When I am on patrol I will not generally stop anyone that tends to drive in the same manner I do while off duty (unless there is some serious issue caused by it etc). Law Enforcement is not required to issue citations, as we have discretion in this area.
There are idiot cops out there, and there are idiot citizens out there as well.
Law Enforcement does not make or pass laws, the peoples and /or their representatives do. We take an oath (varies department to department) that is to defend the constitution of the state we are in, the Federal Constitution, and to serve the people who allowed us their trust to enforce their laws.
Assuming that as Law Enforcement we have a right to say this law is illegal, so i'm not enforcing it, is no different than a person arguing that going to jail for marijuana possession is illegal. It is not up to Law Enforcement to decide these issues.
That's why we have a Legislative branch and a Judicial branch. The moment we allow Law Enforcement to make the determination if something is unconstitutional, is the moment the people loose control of their Government. If we arrest someone and the PA decides its not how the statute is to be interpreted, the person is released, and Law Enforcement for that county gets a memo explaining what is expected if an arrest is to be made under the statute.
The single greatest thing a person can do to guarantee their rights is to participate in the process. Vote, send letters of concern to your rep about laws you don't like etc.
Simply stating it will never change and not doing anything but complaining, makes you just as much part of the problem as those you accuse of abusing their authority.
If anyone wants to, ask some hypothetical questions and see if your answer is close to what actually can happen (For the United States, unless we have Leo's from other countries present).
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by NightGypsy
When I am on patrol I will not generally stop anyone that tends to drive in the same manner I do while off duty (unless there is some serious issue caused by it etc). Law Enforcement is not required to issue citations, as we have discretion in this area.
I was doing a ride along with the Michigan State Police and was looking at his radar (we were on a 70 mph freeway) and about five times saw it read close to 79 mph and I asked why don't you pull that guy over? He told me his cutoff point was 80 mph. Then said think all cops use that as a measure he said it was just his cut off point and that some other officers it may be less.
All cops use there own yardstick I'd guess.
I used to love it when every once and a while a deputy would be in the area when we (the fire dept) were on a run driving fast in a class A pumper is scary as hell and the deputy would leap frog ahead and block the cross roads. Hearing that crown vics engine screaming just as he would pass by was a good safe feeling. It felt like such teamwork and made me glad I had you boys as backup.
Stay safe cousin.
reply to post by LoneGunMan
He is correct we all have our own measuring sticks. Mine is based on personal driving habits. I just have an issue writing a citation to a person when I do the same thing. To me its an ethics thing I guess, and others may see it differently. Plus if it goes to court, there will always be a question about my personal driving habits. Its not an excuse and generally the question is objected to, but it makes the point -
Why are you writing my client a citation if you are doing the same behavior.
It makes us look bad, it makes us look like we are above the law. Perception in this profession is everything to those looking in at us.
We are required to do harm on behalf of citizens when its required. We are required to tell a family no, you cannot go back into you house to get personal belongings because the Fire Department is still working. We have visit the parents at 3 o'clock in the morning and inform them their husband / wife / child is dead.
People love the Fire Department because they always get to say yes.
I loved working with my first responders. I would generally do the same thing, leap frogging in front so they can drive a bit faster to keep up. A lot of times they would beat us to the scene, and would have most of it taken care of by the time we got on scene (Personal info collected before they head to the Hospital for us). I never cleared intersections for the Fire Department, as my rule of thumb in that manner is they have more lug nuts, so they have the right of way. We cleared for ambulance, providing a leap frog escort due to the way our city is urban - rural, blocking intersections etc.
I always found it amazing how first responders from different professions always got a long. I was working a DWI accident and about got into a fight with a person who was not involved. I ended up drawing my Taser since the guy kept advancing on me. All of a sudden he stopped dead in his tracks, apologized, and backed off.
I was kinda proud of myself for being able to hold the line with my impressive command presence, of course that view went to hell when I turned around. About 10 feet behind me there was a staggered line of 7 firefighters, bunker gear off, watching and waiting.
God I love my job....
He is correct we all have our own measuring sticks. Mine is based on personal driving habits. I just have an issue writing a citation to a person when I do the same thing. To me its an ethics thing I guess, and others may see it differently. Plus if it goes to court, there will always be a question about my personal driving habits. Its not an excuse and generally the question is objected to, but it makes the point -
Why are you writing my client a citation if you are doing the same behavior.
It makes us look bad, it makes us look like we are above the law. Perception in this profession is everything to those looking in at us.
We are required to do harm on behalf of citizens when its required. We are required to tell a family no, you cannot go back into you house to get personal belongings because the Fire Department is still working. We have visit the parents at 3 o'clock in the morning and inform them their husband / wife / child is dead.
People love the Fire Department because they always get to say yes.
I loved working with my first responders. I would generally do the same thing, leap frogging in front so they can drive a bit faster to keep up. A lot of times they would beat us to the scene, and would have most of it taken care of by the time we got on scene (Personal info collected before they head to the Hospital for us). I never cleared intersections for the Fire Department, as my rule of thumb in that manner is they have more lug nuts, so they have the right of way. We cleared for ambulance, providing a leap frog escort due to the way our city is urban - rural, blocking intersections etc.
I always found it amazing how first responders from different professions always got a long. I was working a DWI accident and about got into a fight with a person who was not involved. I ended up drawing my Taser since the guy kept advancing on me. All of a sudden he stopped dead in his tracks, apologized, and backed off.
I was kinda proud of myself for being able to hold the line with my impressive command presence, of course that view went to hell when I turned around. About 10 feet behind me there was a staggered line of 7 firefighters, bunker gear off, watching and waiting.
God I love my job....
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by LoneGunMan
I never cleared intersections for the Fire Department, as my rule of thumb in that manner is they have more lug nuts, so they have the right of way.
Nothing like punching through traffic in a big apparatus! They hear that distinct cry of the fire truck, nothing sounds like the wail of person in need like a fire truck...it seems to mimic the human spirit in emergency. People here em and always think of what it would be like if it was there family we are rolling out too. Its why we roll them on a lot of medicals they may be big lumbering things but they get across town in a hurry!
We had one incident where a rural tanker was heading to an intersection and a deputy was hauling ass on the cross street. Both thought the other would stop. The tanker rolled right over the cruiser, the deputy at the last minute dove for the floorboard (thank god he wasn't wearing his safety belt that time. Took about an hour to get the tanker off the cruiser and cut him out of it. He walked without a scratch...except he was a bit wobbly in the knees and may have messed his uniform!
That reminds me, since we are never already in our units most of us dont bother with safety belts its too cumbersome when you first roll out and all your bunker gear is in the way and you are trying to communicate with central dispatch most of us just roll without them.
Love the story of the smokeaters backing you up.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Random Trivia
A - Many people would be surprised to learn that the 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, but only the Government.
The Constitution & BoR are limitations on the Fed Gov, certainly. I don't think we need it spelled out that an individual has no right to search me or my home, etc.
B - Driving a motor vehicle is not a right, but a privilege. The next time you get your driver's license, check the fine print in the manuals about implied consent (DWI clause).
Yes, unfortunately we have been con'd into thinking we need to turn in our right to travel on the common way for a privilege that the gov can take away. "Driving" is a commercial activity. Traveling is not. Accepting a Driver's license means you also accept the state's limitations imposed on you. One of the many cons we have unwittingly accepted.
C - There are such things as quotas for citations. Generally they are allowed in larger departments that have a dedicated traffic enforcement division that does nothing but enforce traffic regulations. (subject to state Law).
D - Jaywalking is not a criminal offense, but an infraction, hence the fine, and only the fine. Just as in some states you can trespass without knowing, which is an infraction and not a criminal offense.
E - In some States you do not have a right to resist an unlawful arrest.
And in some you have the right to resist unlawful arrest (also called kidnapping) with up to & including deadly force. This has been reaffirmed by the SCOTUS
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
F - During a traffic stop or investigative detention, people argue they can do certain things due to their constitutional rights. What they fail to understand is, under the 4th amendment, you have been "seized", curtailing some of those rights. If action is taken the officer has to explain the nature of the contact, reasons for the contact etc in his report.
When I am on patrol I will not generally stop anyone that tends to drive in the same manner I do while off duty (unless there is some serious issue caused by it etc). Law Enforcement is not required to issue citations, as we have discretion in this area.
There are idiot cops out there, and there are idiot citizens out there as well.
Law Enforcement does not make or pass laws, the peoples and /or their representatives do. We take an oath (varies department to department) that is to defend the constitution of the state we are in, the Federal Constitution, and to serve the people who allowed us their trust to enforce their laws.
Assuming that as Law Enforcement we have a right to say this law is illegal, so i'm not enforcing it, is no different than a person arguing that going to jail for marijuana possession is illegal. It is not up to Law Enforcement to decide these issues.
And you have to understand that any law repugnant to the Constitution is null & void (Marbury v. Madison). By you enforcing those repugnant laws you violate your oath & the trust of the people. Your job is not to do what your 'supervisor" tells you. Your job is to protect our rights. The people of your city/county/state have delegated this 'power' to you. Your boss is the people you serve.
That's why we have a Legislative branch and a Judicial branch. The moment we allow Law Enforcement to make the determination if something is unconstitutional, is the moment the people loose control of their Government.
In case you haven't noticed, we have already lost control of our government. Our reps do not even read the bills they pass (this has been admitted on camera multiple times). Lobbyists write the bills & pay the reps to sponsor & vote on it. That is exactly how our legislative branch works in this day & age. Do you think they are beholden to their oath? Hardly.
Secondly, you *must* weigh every action you do against the Constitution. That is exactly why your oath (as well as all elected public servants) includes you swearing to defend it. Holy hell. That mentality is exactly why this country is in the predicament it is.
Our legislative branch has been bought off. The American people are asleep at the wheel. And you, the enforcer of the corruption, think "it's not my job to question".
Look, you seem to be a pretty upright guy. All i ask is that you take a step back & reevaluate where you duty lies. Read your Fed & State Constitutions again. Weigh your other "laws" & your actions against them.
The single greatest thing a person can do to guarantee their rights is to participate in the process. Vote, send letters of concern to your rep about laws you don't like etc.
Already do & my reps addresses are in my 'Rolodex'.
Simply stating it will never change and not doing anything but complaining, makes you just as much part of the problem as those you accuse of abusing their authority.
You assume I don't do anything about it. That assumption is not correct. I have resigned to the belief that my roll is best served in passive resistance & educating others. I am in a county advocacy group of 1500 members. I am an Appleseed IIT & assistant state coordinator (we teach rifle marksmanship & more importantly the events around April 19, 1775 in order to encourage others to participate in our government before we are forced to resort to... err, other means). I was a member of the Tea Party movement before they were "The Tea Party". I also brief my gun club monthly on fed & state legislation that infringes on our right to keep & bear arms. I was a member of the Young Republicans for a spell (until i exceeded the age req).
If anyone wants to, ask some hypothetical questions and see if your answer is close to what actually can happen (For the United States, unless we have Leo's from other countries present).
Indeed. Please indulge me this somewhat extreme example, but i'm only echoing history.
We have our Natural/God given rights.
We have the 2nd Amendment.
The PA Constitution has Article I, Sec 1: Inherent Rights of Mankind
"All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness."
& Sec 21: "The Right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves & the State shall not be questioned."
No amendments contradict the above.
Hurricane Katrina moves up the east coast & hits Pennsylvania. The Governor calls a State of Emergency.
Pursuant to Exec Order or other State laws the Chief of Police says on TV, "All firearms will be taken. No one will be armed."
At your morning briefing your supervisor says you must confiscate all firearms.
Do you?
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Every encounter an officer has with John Q public is a roll of the most deadly of dice.
John Q is becoming more dangerous by the day.edit on 17-10-2010 by LoneGunMan because: lack of clarity
This is EXACTLY why I dont trust law enforcement. Its that "Us vs.The Civilians" Mentality that truely frightens me.
Even If im not doing any illegal, the officers of the law make you feel like you are. You call to report a crime and they belittle you until you feel like the one commiting an offense.
I know my rights, I also know the that society has given Officials the power to step all over my rights.
edit on 19-10-2010 by Wizrd
because: (no reason given)
I've had the (mostly) honor to meet law enforcement officers in many countries through my job as a journalist, and in most places I wholeheartedly
agree the vast majority are good people trying to help their fellow citizens. This has been especially true in the UK, US and Western Europe. There
are some countries where there was a bit more corruption, especially in Eastern Europe and Russia and there were some places where there were in fact,
I believe, outright evil and thuggish cops, Uzbekistan really sticks out in my mind for that.
I really do not believe that the majority of Americans even have any idea what it is like to live in an oppressive police state. Instead I think that the real reason some Americans hate the police is because they are the most outward symbol of social control. In the US, more than any other free country, I've seen people just bristle at the sight of a police car rolling down the street. It is as though these people take personal offense at the very fact that there are those who enforce laws.
In my humble observations, this kind of gut-reaction has primarily been seen in rural areas, by people who really don't have much contact on a day-to-day basis with law enforcement. By contrast in most major cities, even in the poorest and most crime-riddled parts, police are almost just a background element, like passing cars and such. It really is quite an odd thing.
I find it even more odd because in the US police are far less obtrusive a presence than they are in London. Here, reactionary police carry military-grade weapons and patrol high-risk areas in high-visibility vests while sometimes even outwardly wearing body armor. In the US I believe this would lead to such a high state of paranoia that such a thing would be nearly impossible.
I really do not believe that the majority of Americans even have any idea what it is like to live in an oppressive police state. Instead I think that the real reason some Americans hate the police is because they are the most outward symbol of social control. In the US, more than any other free country, I've seen people just bristle at the sight of a police car rolling down the street. It is as though these people take personal offense at the very fact that there are those who enforce laws.
In my humble observations, this kind of gut-reaction has primarily been seen in rural areas, by people who really don't have much contact on a day-to-day basis with law enforcement. By contrast in most major cities, even in the poorest and most crime-riddled parts, police are almost just a background element, like passing cars and such. It really is quite an odd thing.
I find it even more odd because in the US police are far less obtrusive a presence than they are in London. Here, reactionary police carry military-grade weapons and patrol high-risk areas in high-visibility vests while sometimes even outwardly wearing body armor. In the US I believe this would lead to such a high state of paranoia that such a thing would be nearly impossible.
Originally posted by mal1970
Random Trivia
The Constitution & BoR are limitations on the Fed Gov, certainly. I don't think we need it spelled out that an individual has no right to search me or my home, etc.
I think we do though. The number of times I have seen people (US Citizens) in these forums make a comment about search and seizure and not understand how it works / applied is irritating.
Originally posted by mal1970
Yes, unfortunately we have been con'd into thinking we need to turn in our right to travel on the common way for a privilege that the gov can take away. "Driving" is a commercial activity. Traveling is not. Accepting a Driver's license means you also accept the state's limitations imposed on you. One of the many cons we have unwittingly accepted.
This has been ruled on the the Supreme Court. The constitution protects your right to travel freely. There is nothing stopping you from using Shoe Leather Express, IE walk to where you want to go if you don't like the fact driving is a privilege and not a right. If you do not agree with this please point out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that specifically grants you the right to use a motor vehicle.
Originally posted by mal1970
And in some you have the right to resist unlawful arrest (also called kidnapping) with up to & including deadly force. This has been reaffirmed by the SCOTUS
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
Which I pointed out in my statement that not all states allow you to defend yourself from a False arrest. In addition to kidnapping, felonious restraint would be here as well, depending on state.
Originally posted by mal1970
And you have to understand that any law repugnant to the Constitution is null & void (Marbury v. Madison). By you enforcing those repugnant laws you violate your oath & the trust of the people. Your job is not to do what your 'supervisor" tells you. Your job is to protect our rights. The people of your city/county/state have delegated this 'power' to you. Your boss is the people you serve.
I think I know what Oath I took and how my job works. It is irrelevant if I, and you, find a law repugnant. Laws are created and passed by the the Legislature. If they pass a law that has possible violations of the constitution / bill of rights then someone has to have standing to challenge the law, IE a person has to be affected by the law to challenge it in court. If the law is in process of being created / voted on, then people need to voice their concerns before its signed into law. Stop the Law before it gets started.
My job is to protect and serve the people of the community I work in, not to take up the job of a congressman or play point counterpoint in what laws "might" be illegal. The people are the ones who must participate in the process, to hold their elected officials accountable.
The constant argument about Law Enforcement taking orders etc is naive and shows a very ignorant view about how Law Enforcement works, what our responsibility is and who we answer to. Blaming Law Enforcement for laws you consider immoral / illegal / unconstitutional is also naive and shows a lack of understanding of how the system and your Government works.
Originally posted by mal1970
In case you haven't noticed, we have already lost control of our government. Our reps do not even read the bills they pass (this has been admitted on camera multiple times). Lobbyists write the bills & pay the reps to sponsor & vote on it. That is exactly how our legislative branch works in this day & age. Do you think they are beholden to their oath? Hardly.
Thank you for proving my point. In the above you got it right in terms of who is responsible for passing the laws you find illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. You also proved my point about what happens when people do not participate in the process to hold our elected officials accountable. What you described is not a Law Enforcement function. There is nothing stopping people from forcing change in Government, forcing their representatives to pass / repeal legislation. If you feel your representative is not doing a good job, then fire them in the next election.
Originally posted by mal1970
Secondly, you *must* weigh every action you do against the Constitution. That is exactly why your oath (as well as all elected public servants) includes you swearing to defend it. Holy hell. That mentality is exactly why this country is in the predicament it is.
If you can do me a favor and point out where in the Constitution it says this in reference to my job. When I perform my duties, which deals with "Law" enforcement, I am very well versed in what actions I can take and not take, and what actions are going to be a violation of someones civil / constitutional rights. While you may think its as simple as reading the constitution you would be incorrect. You are failing to take into account Case Law, both at the State and Federal level, that has refined / resolved / removed / expanded a persons rights.
The Federal Law that governs Police is 42 USC 1983
The country is in the predicament we are in because people are apathetic about participating in Government, and has nothing at all what so ever to do with Law Enforcement.
Also, I do not enforce Federal Law, but State Law and municipal ordinance (law). The only application of Federal Law in my job is the fact I am acting under the color of Law.
Originally posted by mal1970
Our legislative branch has been bought off. The American people are asleep at the wheel. And you, the enforcer of the corruption, think "it's not my job to question".
Again you really need to read the entire Constitution. The American people are asleep at the wheel. They don't care to vote, but would rather complain about how the system doesn't work. Our system was never designed to have a ruling class. The founders envisioned a Government of the people, by the people and for the people. They expected people to take part, actively, in Government.
If a public official (political) from my city breaks the law for something minor (traffic) we take action. If its going to be a felony we allow either the County Sheriffs Department or the State Police to investigate to ensure its fair and to avoid any appearance or possibility of inappropriate conduct. If its at the State or Federal level Law Enforcement has no authority to take action while the person is still in office. They have immunity until they are either removed from their position by the legislative body, or until their term in office is done.
The issue I see a lot of though are people making claims that this or that is illegal and or corrupt etc. Its one thing to think that (and I do), but its entirely different when trying to put a case together for prosecuting for it. The reason I say this is because of Supreme Court rulings that say donating money to a politician is free speech.
We can't just go arrest them, just like we can't just stop a car and arrest the driver at random. A Law has to be broken, and until the people force their reps to act responsibly and hold them accountable, or get legislation in place, there is literally nothing we can do.
Its every citizens right and responsibility to question their Government and to take action to make change for the better. Just because you says its corruption, doesn't make it so, doesn't make it illegal, and doesn't allow law enforcement to act.
I am kind of confused as to how you want us to obey the Constitution, while arguing that we don't arrest politicians for corruption. Last I checked they have a right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, due process, a right to face their accusers, to confront the evidence etc.
Originally posted by mal1970
Look, you seem to be a pretty upright guy. All i ask is that you take a step back & reevaluate where you duty lies. Read your Fed & State Constitutions again. Weigh your other "laws" & your actions against them.
I am well versed in both, but I am confused as to hwy you want me to go back and read them. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to be an ass or anything towards you, so please dont take it that way. The argument I am seeing from you is very black and white, and it does not, and cannot, work that way.
Example: You have a 1st amendment right to speak in public. If you are in a movie theater and you decide you want to talk during the movie, you can. Because the Theater is private property, the property owner, or one of his employees can tell you, you need to leave. They are not violating your first amendment right and refusal for you to leave will become criminal trespass.
Same scenario except instead of just talking, you start yelling fire. Again you can do this, but the Supreme Court said absolutely not. A person does not have a right under the 1st amendment to go into a public area and cause a panic that is not real.
Example: You are driving down the road and get stopped by an officer for speeding. You have a right to not answer questions, as I see people argue all the time. The officer asks for your drivers license and insurance, and you refuse to provide it. You end up going to jail for failing to identify to Law Enforcement (in my state) and you would sit in jail until your identity is confirmed.
These are just a few examples from people who cite constitutional law, but are not familiar in how its applied, and in the end feel the cops are overstepping their authority, when in actuality, its authority we have.
Originally posted by mal1970
Already do & my reps addresses are in my 'Rolodex'.
I commend you then. At least you take part in the process. Thank you for that.
Originally posted by mal1970
You assume I don't do anything about it. That assumption is not correct. I have resigned to the belief that my roll is best served in passive resistance & educating others. I am in a county advocacy group of 1500 members. I am an Appleseed IIT & assistant state coordinator (we teach rifle marksmanship & more importantly the events around April 19, 1775 in order to encourage others to participate in our government before we are forced to resort to... err, other means). I was a member of the Tea Party movement before they were "The Tea Party". I also brief my gun club monthly on fed & state legislation that infringes on our right to keep & bear arms. I was a member of the Young Republicans for a spell (until i exceeded the age req).
You don't have to use err, since the Constitution allows for the people to "change" their government when they fail to represent the interests of those people they represent, which is the ultimate expression of a Government of, by and for the people.
Do citizens have a right to bear arms - Yup, and recently that was applied to the people thanks to idiot laws in Washington DC and Chicago Illinois. The Supreme Court though has ruled the government has a right to regulate the types of guns and ammunition you can carry though, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
My question for you is (and again no offense is intended) you seem to invoke the Constitution a lot, as well as the Bill of Rights. Do you recognize Supreme Court rulings in clarifying these amendments?
The reason I ask is if you do, then some of the other arguments you make would be on shaky grounds due to case law established.
Originally posted by mal1970
Indeed. Please indulge me this somewhat extreme example, but i'm only echoing history.
We have our Natural/God given rights.
We have the 2nd Amendment.
The PA Constitution has Article I, Sec 1: Inherent Rights of Mankind
"All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness."
& Sec 21: "The Right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves & the State shall not be questioned."
No amendments contradict the above.
Hurricane Katrina moves up the east coast & hits Pennsylvania. The Governor calls a State of Emergency.
Pursuant to Exec Order or other State laws the Chief of Police says on TV, "All firearms will be taken. No one will be armed."
At your morning briefing your supervisor says you must confiscate all firearms.
Do you?
Lol I didn't see this one coming. Its not an extreme question, since it has already happened. The Judicial system was 100% correct in screwing New Orleans Police Department to the wall for their illegal confiscation of weapons in the aftermath of Katrina.
I would not have followed that order to collect Firearms and would gladly run the risk of being fired for that stance. I would rather have to explain during my interviews for a new job that its a matter of principle and ethics for me, and would rather look for new employment rather than work for a Police Agency that turns on the very people we are sworn to protect while at the same time shredding the document we are sworn to defend. In my own opinion I feel it limits the ability of the population to defend themselves against the criminals that would take advantage of chaos.
An armed population are citizens... An unarmed population are subjects.
Question for you - In the same above scenario, are you ok with National Guard Troops acting in the capacity of Law Enforcement?
A second question - You invoked Marbury vs. Madison and Judicial review, which I agree is a valuable tool for the Supreme Court to have. Funny enough though, can you show me where in the Constitution the Judicial Branch gets this right of Judicial review from?
edit on 19-10-2010 by Xcathdra because: Spelling, fixed quotes, added info
edit on 19-10-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason
given)
extra DIV
Originally posted by Wizrd
Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Every encounter an officer has with John Q public is a roll of the most deadly of dice.
John Q is becoming more dangerous by the day.edit on 17-10-2010 by LoneGunMan because: lack of clarity
This is EXACTLY why I dont trust law enforcement. Its that "Us vs.The Civilians" Mentality that truely frightens me.
Even If im not doing any illegal, the officers of the law make you feel like you are. You call to report a crime and they belittle you until you feel like the one commiting an offense.
I know my rights, I also know the that society has given Officials the power to step all over my rights.edit on 19-10-2010 by Wizrd because: (no reason given)
Out of curiosity though aren't you just as guilty for the US vs THEM mentality based on your comment above? You are also using one example in the context of a blanket statement. I think some of the irritation you might be seeing with Law Enforcement is when we get dispatched to a call, where the caller thinks a crime has occurred when in actuality there is no criminal offense.
Can you please ive me an example of how your rights have been stepped all over?
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by mal1970
Yes, unfortunately we have been con'd into thinking we need to turn in our right to travel on the common way for a privilege that the gov can take away. "Driving" is a commercial activity. Traveling is not. Accepting a Driver's license means you also accept the state's limitations imposed on you. One of the many cons we have unwittingly accepted.
This has been ruled on the the Supreme Court. The constitution protects your right to travel freely. There is nothing stopping you from using Shoe Leather Express, IE walk to where you want to go if you don't like the fact driving is a privilege and not a right. If you do not agree with this please point out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that specifically grants you the right to use a motor vehicle.
Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant any rights what so ever. The Constitution documents how the people delegated some of their power to establish a government to safeguard their rights, regulate inter-state commerce & provide for the defense of the union of these sovereign nations, etc. It details what powers the Fed Gov is specifically limited to. The BoR further clarifies the limits of the newly established Fed Gov. The framers thought these were implied, but the nations of the union sent in (IIRC) 137 amendments which were boiled down to the 10 in the BoR.
To answer your question, the right to move about freely as one chooses is a Natural/God-given right. It is so basic a right that it is not specifically mentioned, but it is implied in the preamble, “...the right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness...”
Now that we know the Con & BoR do not grant rights, but limits gov, could you please point out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that specifically grants the Gov the ability to limit my ability to travel, move about the land freely or my choice in mode of conveyance?
Originally posted by mal1970
In case you haven't noticed, we have already lost control of our government. Our reps do not even read the bills they pass (this has been admitted on camera multiple times). Lobbyists write the bills & pay the reps to sponsor & vote on it. That is exactly how our legislative branch works in this day & age. Do you think they are beholden to their oath? Hardly.
Thank you for proving my point. In the above you got it right in terms of who is responsible for passing the laws you find illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. You also proved my point about what happens when people do not participate in the process to hold our elected officials accountable. What you described is not a Law Enforcement function. There is nothing stopping people from forcing change in Government, forcing their representatives to pass / repeal legislation. If you feel your representative is not doing a good job, then fire them in the next election.
Originally posted by mal1970
Secondly, you *must* weigh every action you do against the Constitution. That is exactly why your oath (as well as all elected public servants) includes you swearing to defend it. Holy hell. That mentality is exactly why this country is in the predicament it is.
If you can do me a favor and point out where in the Constitution it says this in reference to my job.
It's not in the Constitution. It's in your oath TO the Constitution. Ok, here is my line of logic. Feel free to point out where my logic fails. (careful now! you're about to enter the inner workings of my mind...)
1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (I think this is beyond debate).
2. Being the supreme law of the land, if any later law contradicts the Constitution (without amending it) that law is null & void (after all, if this is not the case, then point 1 is not true). (I thought this was self evident, but apparently it took a SC ruling to establish this as fact)
3. All public servants must swear an oath to uphold & defend the Constitution. This is their chief duty.
4. As an officer of the executive branch you took said oath. So, how can you enforce any law that violates these constitutionally protected rights?
Originally posted by mal1970
Our legislative branch has been bought off. The American people are asleep at the wheel. And you, the enforcer of the corruption, think "it's not my job to question".
If a public official (political) from my city breaks the law for something minor (traffic) we take action. If its going to be a felony we allow either the County Sheriffs Department or the State Police to investigate to ensure its fair and to avoid any appearance or possibility of inappropriate conduct. If its at the State or Federal level Law Enforcement has no authority to take action while the person is still in office. They have immunity until they are either removed from their position by the legislative body, or until their term in office is done.
I'm not asking you to march to Capital Hill & cuff everyone there. Not sure where you got that idea.
Originally posted by mal1970
Look, you seem to be a pretty upright guy. All i ask is that you take a step back & reevaluate where you duty lies. Read your Fed & State Constitutions again. Weigh your other "laws" & your actions against them.
I am well versed in both, but I am confused as to hwy you want me to go back and read them. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to be an ass or anything towards you, so please dont take it that way. The argument I am seeing from you is very black and white, and it does not, and cannot, work that way.
I think the Constitution is pretty clear. I also think TPTB are intentionally making every attempt to confuse the plain definitive language of the Constitution.
Example: You have a 1st amendment right to speak in public. If you are in a movie theater and you decide you want to talk during the movie, you can. Because the Theater is private property, the property owner, or one of his employees can tell you, you need to leave. They are not violating your first amendment right and refusal for you to leave will become criminal trespass.
Agreed.
Same scenario except instead of just talking, you start yelling fire. Again you can do this, but the Supreme Court said absolutely not. A person does not have a right under the 1st amendment to go into a public area and cause a panic that is not real.
Slippery slope. But, I think you have every right to yell “Fire” in a theater. But you must also be ready to accept the repercussions of doing something like that. Before you jump up & down on my head, let me try to explain that differently. (careful again... back we go into the inner workings of my mind)
Say you & I are standing on the edge of a cliff, right on the edge gazing out at the beautiful view. Mischievous you decides to slap 2 long flat boards together behind my back creating one hell of a “CRACK!” sound. I, startled #less, fall to my death. Do we now make slapping 2 boards together against the law or do we charge you with negligent manslaughter or homicide or whatever?
I guess what i'm trying to say is that we already have laws covering the repercussions of yelling fire in a theater without having to infringe on the Constitution.
Example: You are driving down the road and get stopped by an officer for speeding. You have a right to not answer questions, as I see people argue all the time. The officer asks for your drivers license and insurance, and you refuse to provide it. You end up going to jail for failing to identify to Law Enforcement (in my state) and you would sit in jail until your identity is confirmed.
Of course. I've broken the law & you have every right to enforce it .
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by mal1970
You assume I don't do anything about it. That assumption is not correct. I have resigned to the belief that my roll is best served in passive resistance & educating others. I am in a county advocacy group of 1500 members. I am an Appleseed IIT & assistant state coordinator (we teach rifle marksmanship & more importantly the events around April 19, 1775 in order to encourage others to participate in our government before we are forced to resort to... err, other means). I was a member of the Tea Party movement before they were "The Tea Party". I also brief my gun club monthly on fed & state legislation that infringes on our right to keep & bear arms. I was a member of the Young Republicans for a spell (until i exceeded the age req).
You don't have to use err, since the Constitution allows for the people to "change" their government when they fail to represent the interests of those people they represent, which is the ultimate expression of a Government of, by and for the people.
Yet we would be labeled Domestic Terrorists. Funny how that works out.
Do citizens have a right to bear arms - Yup, and recently that was applied to the people thanks to idiot laws in Washington DC and Chicago Illinois. The Supreme Court though has ruled the government has a right to regulate the types of guns and ammunition you can carry though, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Of course they would uphold their own ruling. My question is, what part of “...shall not be infringed.” does the Supreme Court not understand?
in·fringe/inˈfrinj/Verb - Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on
Seems pretty clear to me. I have a copy of Black's Law 5th Ed & the definition has not changed since 1891. I cannot absolutely verify this, but i'd wager this word meant the same in 1787 as well.
So, you tell me exactly where in the Constitution the legislature was given the ability to infringe upon my right to keep & bear arms when the same Constitution says they explicitly do not have that ability? And, how can the SC rule against the very document they swore to uphold?
My question for you is (and again no offense is intended) you seem to invoke the Constitution a lot, as well as the Bill of Rights. Do you recognize Supreme Court rulings in clarifying these amendments?
The reason I ask is if you do, then some of the other arguments you make would be on shaky grounds due to case law established.
The Constitution was written in the language of the common man so that it would not be misconstrued or misunderstood. I am no expert in SC rulings or law (though I have begun studying), but I find it hard to believe that anyone with a reasonable intellect, a grasp of the history of the period & perhaps a contemporary dictionary could not determine what the founders meant when they wrote it.
I think today's court system is a mockery of a judicial system. I know they go out of their way to make law incomprehensible for the common man. I know that there are no less than 4 forms of law that are jockeyed around & that without a firm grasp of what they are & how they work in the court system, you hang yourself as soon as you open your mouth.
Originally posted by mal1970
Indeed. Please indulge me this somewhat extreme example, but i'm only echoing history.
We have our Natural/God given rights.
We have the 2nd Amendment.
The PA Constitution has Article I, Sec 1: Inherent Rights of Mankind
"All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness."
& Sec 21: "The Right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves & the State shall not be questioned."
No amendments contradict the above.
Hurricane Katrina moves up the east coast & hits Pennsylvania. The Governor calls a State of Emergency.
Pursuant to Exec Order or other State laws the Chief of Police says on TV, "All firearms will be taken. No one will be armed."
At your morning briefing your supervisor says you must confiscate all firearms.
Do you?
Lol I didn't see this one coming. Its not an extreme question, since it has already happened. The Judicial system was 100% correct in screwing New Orleans Police Department to the wall for their illegal confiscation of weapons in the aftermath of Katrina.
I would not have followed that order to collect Firearms and would gladly run the risk of being fired for that stance. I would rather have to explain during my interviews for a new job that its a matter of principle and ethics for me, and would rather look for new employment rather than work for a Police Agency that turns on the very people we are sworn to protect while at the same time shredding the document we are sworn to defend. In my own opinion I feel it limits the ability of the population to defend themselves against the criminals that would take advantage of chaos.
An armed population are citizens... An unarmed population are subjects.
Question for you - In the same above scenario, are you ok with National Guard Troops acting in the capacity of Law Enforcement?
I have mixed feelings about the NG. To me, the National Guard is an attempt to replace & federalize the state militia. I think the NG need to remain under the command of the governor. I think they need to remain inside the boundaries of their nation-state or at worst, inside the boundaries of the union. (Sending guardsman over to the ME is total BS & i'd like to slap silly any governor who allows it). As soldiers, I feel they have no business policing.
A second question - You invoked Marbury vs. Madison and Judicial review, which I agree is a valuable tool for the Supreme Court to have. Funny enough though, can you show me where in the Constitution the Judicial Branch gets this right of Judicial review from?
Begging the question. It is implied in Article III & dare I say Sec 2 which outlines Judicial power. Judicial review was a common practice in England & the colonies before the Constitution. You simply did not write subordinate laws that contradicted established higher law. Judge Marshall was was just echoing Madison & already established practice. Like so many of our rights (like travel) it was so basic as to be assumed.
I quoted Marshall because I liked the use of the word 'repugnant'. The vast majority of the laws being passed are repugnant to the Constitution & simply repugnant on their own merit. The word 'repugnant' sounds repugnant when you speak it. It fumbles around on the tongue & falls out of your mouth in a repugnant fashion when you say it. It's a very fitting word.
Originally posted by mal1970
Yet we would be labeled Domestic Terrorists. Funny how that works out.
So because you assume you would be labeled, you won't take any action to help fix the Government?
Originally posted by mal1970
Of course they would uphold their own ruling. My question is, what part of “...shall not be infringed.” does the Supreme Court not understand?
The "problem" comes from this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment can be interpreted different ways, and has been, based on the well regulated militia wording. The Americans at this point in history were the militia. Throughout our history this has come up time and again, until finally the Supreme Court got it right - The individual has a right to bear arms.
Better late to the party than not showing up at all. My continued argument for the inclusion of individuals is all males between 18 and 26 are required by law to register for the selective service. To me, since they require our info in case of war and a draft, makes us a militia also.
You cannot view history through 20/20 hindsight and wonder why they didn't come to this conclusion earlier. You have to read the text in the manner it was written at the time. Government is not perfect.
Originally posted by mal1970
The Constitution was written in the language of the common man so that it would not be misconstrued or misunderstood. I am no expert in SC rulings or law (though I have begun studying), but I find it hard to believe that anyone with a reasonable intellect, a grasp of the history of the period & perhaps a contemporary dictionary could not determine what the founders meant when they wrote it.
Actually I think in this case, we over complicated it ourselves. I pointed out above the well regulated militia issue a few responses up. During colonial times the people were the militia. As times changed this became less, as the states had standing militaries at various points in history up to today.
They can argue, as they have, that since the States have militias, the people were no longer covered under the 2nd amendment. I don't agree with that thought process, as I believe the 2nd amendment applies to the people.
One of the ways people interpreted the intent of the 2nd is in the way its written. A Well regulated militia is referring to the citizens at this time, so the 2nd covers the militia stating they need to be armed to protect the state. The portion about the right of the people to keep and bear arms is referring back to the militia, because again at this time, the people were the militia.
Essentially, its saying that the people of the state, because they are also part of the militia when needed, can keep weapons in their house, and they cannot be taken away because it would jeopardize the security of a free state.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Again, I understand your view, and agree the 2nd should apply to the individual. I hope the explanation at least helps some in understanding how even plain language can be vague at times.There are a bunch of Supreme Court cases regarding this issue, with some of the most notable coming around in the early 190's up to today.
Originally posted by mal1970
I think today's court system is a mockery of a judicial system. I know they go out of their way to make law incomprehensible for the common man. I know that there are no less than 4 forms of law that are jockeyed around & that without a firm grasp of what they are & how they work in the court system, you hang yourself as soon as you open your mouth.
The Supreme Court aside, we can thank congress for our judicial system since they are the ones responsible for creating it. 4 types of law? I am not familiar with what you are talking about. We have a judicial system based on English Common Law, which allows the judges to exercise common sense when dealing with cases instead of being tied to a strict standard.
As far as making it impossible for people to read... I wouldn't blame the courts for that. I would blame the lawyers and the Legislative branch for using big words to sound important to justify a 200k a year salary, while representing people who didn't get a J.D. and do not speak lawyerese. 95% of the cases in our judicial system are closed out using plea bargains etc. If it didn't it would grind to a halt.
Originally posted by mal1970
Question for you - In the same above scenario, are you ok with National Guard Troops acting in the capacity of Law Enforcement?
I have mixed feelings about the NG. To me, the National Guard is an attempt to replace & federalize the state militia. I think the NG need to remain under the command of the governor. I think they need to remain inside the boundaries of their nation-state or at worst, inside the boundaries of the union. (Sending guardsman over to the ME is total BS & i'd like to slap silly any governor who allows it). As soldiers, I feel they have no business policing.
I was curious because I see a lot of people got nuts when the States deploy their National Guard units in a police manner, screaming it violates Posse Comitatus. Because these units are state units, they are exempt from Posses Comitatus. Posse Comitatus prohibits the Federal Military from performing Police functions.
The state units actually do answer directly to the Governor. All states have an Adjutant General (highest ranking officer in charge of the State Militia) who coordinate with Federal Military. During Katrina, The Governor of Louisiana refused the request to have her NG units placed under federal command. President Bush didn't force the issue (he could of federalized them) so we actually had 2 different military commands for that mess, answering to 2 different commander in chiefs.
To put my opinion on this - I am not a fan of using military either for police functions. Some of the people I have worked with who had military police backgrounds had a difficult time transitioning to a civilian law enforcement. I would rather they secure the critical infrastructure to free up LEO units to do the other stuff.. Just my opinion though.
Originally posted by mal1970
Begging the question. It is implied in Article III & dare I say Sec 2 which outlines Judicial power. Judicial review was a common practice in England & the colonies before the Constitution. You simply did not write subordinate laws that contradicted established higher law. Judge Marshall was was just echoing Madison & already established practice. Like so many of our rights (like travel) it was so basic as to be assumed.
I find the answer intresting and here is why (mind you im not trying to pick a fight so please don't take it this way). You made an argument about how the Constitution was made using common speak so it was easy to understand by all. We agree that anything not specifically spelled out for the Federal Government, is reserved for the states. The use of the word implied says it was not specifically spelled out or granted for use.
I like the fact they decided to just take it and use it for many reasons. If we are to use the "implied" standard then we would need to apply it to other areas, such as the 2nd amendment, where it would be implied that the only people who are in the militia can own a weapon, and no one else.
Like I said, not trying to pick a fight, but pointing out how even plain speech can be confused and ambiguous.
Originally posted by mal1970
I quoted Marshall because I liked the use of the word 'repugnant'. The vast majority of the laws being passed are repugnant to the Constitution & simply repugnant on their own merit. The word 'repugnant' sounds repugnant when you speak it. It fumbles around on the tongue & falls out of your mouth in a repugnant fashion when you say it. It's a very fitting word.
The Supreme Court, with their judicial review, could easily exercise their authority in this area, but they choose not to, instead allowing the court system to work itself. If a law is passed that violates the Constitution it will get fixed using the legal system. I have seen incidents where a law is passed that is just messed up. We have received memorandums from the AG's office giving his opinion on how the law should be used, if at all. They can advise LEO's to not enforce it while they seek a way to have it fixed or removed.
Our system of Government, all branches were not designed to be efficient at all. The thought process was to create checks and balances to ensure the Government did not move to fast. It allows the people time to voice their concerns about pending legislation. It guarantees the minority positions will be heard.
The only way we can make it better is to understand it, and participate in it.
Thanks for replying.. Lots of good stuff.
edit on 20-10-2010 by Xcathdra because: Spelling, quote issue, grammar, dinner (just seeing if anyone
pays attention to the edits.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
This has been ruled on the the Supreme Court. The constitution protects your right to travel freely. There is nothing stopping you from using Shoe Leather Express, IE walk to where you want to go if you don't like the fact driving is a privilege and not a right. If you do not agree with this please point out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that specifically grants you the right to use a motor vehicle.
I haven't been check this thread until today or I would have gave you a star and a kudos for a great thorough well put together explanation of how you have to function as an officer of the law and a clear as to what one can (hopefully) do to change any laws that are unjust. There are many different things an officer does not agree with different laws depending on the person but still in many cases have to enforce something the officer doesn't feel is just.
In some case if you did not do your job you could get it for obstruction of justice cant you?
I quoted the above because most people really don't understand how deadly important it is to take driving seriously. Most people are so distracted while driving (cell phones should not be allowed while the vehicle is moving period,) it only takes any little thing out of the ordinary for them to create an unspeakable horror on and around the road. These terrible accidents happen all the time and you will never forget no matter how well you are trained the helplessness you feel when a child severely injured in personal injury accident.
People would be amazed the simple things that cause most accidents.
Back to Xcathdra that was an awesome post.
You missed the 1st half. I had to split that last reply into 2. We're getting too long winded!
Like I said above, i'm in about half a dozen different groups advocating & working for restoration. I don't know what Gov lists i may be on, but i was able to buy another rifle a few months ago, so i'm not high up there yet.
Yes, The Constitution allows for a standing army for only 2 years, or appropriations for such time. It appears it was not the founders intent to have a permanent army. The people were expected to be armed, to train & to be able to muster in short order to defend their state/nation under, to be lead & trained by officers of their state.
Also note it does say "...the right of the people..." not "...the right of the Militia..".
Agreed.
I can see that.
Well, from what i've read of the Federalist Papers, this is in fact one of the duties of the Judicial branch. If it was not implied, it was assumed. The Judicial Branch was supposed to be a check on the power of the Legislature (& Exec of course) & wouldn't be much of one if it could not limit their over-reach with unconstitutional laws (or execution of those laws).
No offense at all. You've been more than congenial.
Exactly. It was designed to be very inconvenient & cumbersome to do anything so that they couldn't destroy our nation so quickly. Well, it has taken quite some time, but *they* have still been able to do so.
Indeed.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by mal1970
Yet we would be labeled Domestic Terrorists. Funny how that works out.
So because you assume you would be labeled, you won't take any action to help fix the Government?
Like I said above, i'm in about half a dozen different groups advocating & working for restoration. I don't know what Gov lists i may be on, but i was able to buy another rifle a few months ago, so i'm not high up there yet.
Originally posted by mal1970
Of course they would uphold their own ruling. My question is, what part of “...shall not be infringed.” does the Supreme Court not understand?
The "problem" comes from this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment can be interpreted different ways, and has been, based on the well regulated militia wording. The Americans at this point in history were the militia. Throughout our history this has come up time and again, until finally the Supreme Court got it right - The individual has a right to bear arms.
Better late to the party than not showing up at all. My continued argument for the inclusion of individuals is all males between 18 and 26 are required by law to register for the selective service. To me, since they require our info in case of war and a draft, makes us a militia also.
Yes, The Constitution allows for a standing army for only 2 years, or appropriations for such time. It appears it was not the founders intent to have a permanent army. The people were expected to be armed, to train & to be able to muster in short order to defend their state/nation under, to be lead & trained by officers of their state.
Also note it does say "...the right of the people..." not "...the right of the Militia..".
Originally posted by mal1970
The Constitution was written in the language of the common man so that it would not be misconstrued or misunderstood. I am no expert in SC rulings or law (though I have begun studying), but I find it hard to believe that anyone with a reasonable intellect, a grasp of the history of the period & perhaps a contemporary dictionary could not determine what the founders meant when they wrote it.
Actually I think in this case, we over complicated it ourselves. I pointed out above the well regulated militia issue a few responses up. During colonial times the people were the militia. As times changed this became less, as the states had standing militaries at various points in history up to today.
They can argue, as they have, that since the States have militias, the people were no longer covered under the 2nd amendment. I don't agree with that thought process, as I believe the 2nd amendment applies to the people.
One of the ways people interpreted the intent of the 2nd is in the way its written. A Well regulated militia is referring to the citizens at this time, so the 2nd covers the militia stating they need to be armed to protect the state. The portion about the right of the people to keep and bear arms is referring back to the militia, because again at this time, the people were the militia.
Essentially, its saying that the people of the state, because they are also part of the militia when needed, can keep weapons in their house, and they cannot be taken away because it would jeopardize the security of a free state.
Agreed.
Originally posted by mal1970
Question for you - In the same above scenario, are you ok with National Guard Troops acting in the capacity of Law Enforcement?
I have mixed feelings about the NG. To me, the National Guard is an attempt to replace & federalize the state militia. I think the NG need to remain under the command of the governor. I think they need to remain inside the boundaries of their nation-state or at worst, inside the boundaries of the union. (Sending guardsman over to the ME is total BS & i'd like to slap silly any governor who allows it). As soldiers, I feel they have no business policing.
I was curious because I see a lot of people got nuts when the States deploy their National Guard units in a police manner, screaming it violates Posse Comitatus. Because these units are state units, they are exempt from Posses Comitatus. Posse Comitatus prohibits the Federal Military from performing Police functions.
The state units actually do answer directly to the Governor. All states have an Adjutant General (highest ranking officer in charge of the State Militia) who coordinate with Federal Military. During Katrina, The Governor of Louisiana refused the request to have her NG units placed under federal command. President Bush didn't force the issue (he could of federalized them) so we actually had 2 different military commands for that mess, answering to 2 different commander in chiefs.
To put my opinion on this - I am not a fan of using military either for police functions. Some of the people I have worked with who had military police backgrounds had a difficult time transitioning to a civilian law enforcement. I would rather they secure the critical infrastructure to free up LEO units to do the other stuff.. Just my opinion though.
I can see that.
Originally posted by mal1970
Begging the question. It is implied in Article III & dare I say Sec 2 which outlines Judicial power. Judicial review was a common practice in England & the colonies before the Constitution. You simply did not write subordinate laws that contradicted established higher law. Judge Marshall was was just echoing Madison & already established practice. Like so many of our rights (like travel) it was so basic as to be assumed.
I find the answer intresting and here is why (mind you im not trying to pick a fight so please don't take it this way). You made an argument about how the Constitution was made using common speak so it was easy to understand by all. We agree that anything not specifically spelled out for the Federal Government, is reserved for the states. The use of the word implied says it was not specifically spelled out or granted for use.
Well, from what i've read of the Federalist Papers, this is in fact one of the duties of the Judicial branch. If it was not implied, it was assumed. The Judicial Branch was supposed to be a check on the power of the Legislature (& Exec of course) & wouldn't be much of one if it could not limit their over-reach with unconstitutional laws (or execution of those laws).
I like the fact they decided to just take it and use it for many reasons. If we are to use the "implied" standard then we would need to apply it to other areas, such as the 2nd amendment, where it would be implied that the only people who are in the militia can own a weapon, and no one else.
Like I said, not trying to pick a fight, but pointing out how even plain speech can be confused and ambiguous.
No offense at all. You've been more than congenial.
Originally posted by mal1970
I quoted Marshall because I liked the use of the word 'repugnant'. The vast majority of the laws being passed are repugnant to the Constitution & simply repugnant on their own merit. The word 'repugnant' sounds repugnant when you speak it. It fumbles around on the tongue & falls out of your mouth in a repugnant fashion when you say it. It's a very fitting word.
The Supreme Court, with their judicial review, could easily exercise their authority in this area, but they choose not to, instead allowing the court system to work itself. If a law is passed that violates the Constitution it will get fixed using the legal system. I have seen incidents where a law is passed that is just messed up. We have received memorandums from the AG's office giving his opinion on how the law should be used, if at all. They can advise LEO's to not enforce it while they seek a way to have it fixed or removed.
Our system of Government, all branches were not designed to be efficient at all. The thought process was to create checks and balances to ensure the Government did not move to fast. It allows the people time to voice their concerns about pending legislation. It guarantees the minority positions will be heard.
Exactly. It was designed to be very inconvenient & cumbersome to do anything so that they couldn't destroy our nation so quickly. Well, it has taken quite some time, but *they* have still been able to do so.
The only way we can make it better is to understand it, and participate in it.
Indeed.
Thanks for replying.. Lots of good stuff.edit on 20-10-2010 by Xcathdra because: Spelling, quote issue, grammar, dinner (just seeing if anyone pays attention to the edits.
Thanks for the debate.. I appreciate it.. I was thinking about going into the one point left, the difference between Militia and People, but since the
Supreme Court finally fixed their rectal-cranial inversion problem and set the record straight I say we are good.
I had fun, and learned some things.. Thanks for that and I look forward to the next topic.
I had fun, and learned some things.. Thanks for that and I look forward to the next topic.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
The Supreme Court aside, we can thank congress for our judicial system since they are the ones responsible for creating it. 4 types of law? I am not familiar with what you are talking about. We have a judicial system based on English Common Law, which allows the judges to exercise common sense when dealing with cases instead of being tied to a strict standard.
I had to separate this one out. Our court system no longer operates (on a daily basis) under Common Law. Under Common Law there would need to be a victim in order for there to be a crime. The majority of our laws are written under Private Law based on Roman Civil Law. That is why doing something like standing in public drinking a beer is illegal. No property has been damaged. No person has suffered injury. No victim, no crime.
It's a very deep issue that I only 1/2 understand myself, but I'm still studying. Let me direct you to The 14th Amendment & here CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES EXAMINED
The author's research is impeccable. This is not some patriot myth or UCC bunk. This stands up in court.
reply to post by mal1970
I disagree and here is why. English Common Law allows our judges to exercise common sense when presiding over cases. Without this ability, then I would agree we would be moving away from the common law setup.
Also, the possession of alcohol in public is not a crime. It becomes a crime when that alcohol is opened because of the laws in effect dealing with just the possession of a substance with restrictions.
The laws on the books that make public intoxication a crime are, and have been, ruled unconstitutional because it is considered a status offense.
The city I work in has public intoxication on the books. It is however unenforceable and only remains in the books due to the cost of removing, then preparing newer update law manuals. Usually we just get a memo we attach to the statute in our books. The MDT (Computers in the cars) allow us to access the laws online, and they are updated there.
If we were to cite someone for public intoxication it wouldn't go anywhere, and most likely we would get a reminder, if not remedial training, to not do it again.
What we run into more of now days is disorderly conduct. Essentially you can be drunk, and be in public, but if your behavior elevates to the level of directly causing issues with other people, we can take action. Generally we make contact and tell the person to tone it down, or have the more sober of the group persuade them to calm down.
The only allowable (so far) status offense I am familiar with is whats called a minor in possession by consumption. If you are under 21 and have .02% or more BAC can you can be cited for possession by consumption. With this being said there are a few municipalities in my state that are being challenged due to the way the law is written:
Typically its along the lines of "visibly intoxicated" which any person with common sense knows that at .02% you are not going to look or act intoxicated, in addition the question becomes:
"Officer so and so, can you describe to the court what visibly intoxicated is?"
I answer, at which point other witnesses can be called and asked the same question, and you get different answers, which shows the standard the supreme court uses "what would a regular individual do".
. The smell of an intoxicating odor coming from a minor is the standard I use, which allows me to ask a few more questions, but I am not going to go overboard with it.
As far as crimes without a victim go, the only one I can think of, and only in rare cases, is drug use at home. However, and you know lawyers will make the argument, the manufacturing, transportation and distribution of that drug did create victims along the way. To me its a BS argument, but I don't want to go down the drug legalization argument.
During an investigation of a crime, if the victim does not want to prosecute, they don't have to, at which point we no longer have the authority to arrest the person (there is 1 exception in my state to this). We do a report, add all the info, witness statements, suspect information, and evidence collected etc, and submit it to our chain of command and it gets filed.
If the person changes their mind, we pull it all out and forward it to the PA's office and they take it from there. The one exception is Domestic violence. If a female gets the crap knocked out of her, and during our investigation she says she does not want to press charges, we can still take the primary physical aggressor into custody for a 24 hour hold. The report goes to the PA with the info about declining to press charges, and their investigators assist in talking to the victim etc. They can prosecute without the victims consent, but it gets pretty hard to get a conviction unless photos / medical evidence are submitted.
It was designed because LEO's were running into the problem of women being abused, and then declining to press charges because when the guy gets out of jail after 24 hours, she would be beat even worse or killed.
I've rambled on enough, and hope this answers some concerns. What other scenario's are you referring to for private law?
I disagree and here is why. English Common Law allows our judges to exercise common sense when presiding over cases. Without this ability, then I would agree we would be moving away from the common law setup.
Also, the possession of alcohol in public is not a crime. It becomes a crime when that alcohol is opened because of the laws in effect dealing with just the possession of a substance with restrictions.
The laws on the books that make public intoxication a crime are, and have been, ruled unconstitutional because it is considered a status offense.
1. A status offense is an action that is prohibited only to a certain class of people, and most often applied to offenses only committed by minors.
The city I work in has public intoxication on the books. It is however unenforceable and only remains in the books due to the cost of removing, then preparing newer update law manuals. Usually we just get a memo we attach to the statute in our books. The MDT (Computers in the cars) allow us to access the laws online, and they are updated there.
If we were to cite someone for public intoxication it wouldn't go anywhere, and most likely we would get a reminder, if not remedial training, to not do it again.
What we run into more of now days is disorderly conduct. Essentially you can be drunk, and be in public, but if your behavior elevates to the level of directly causing issues with other people, we can take action. Generally we make contact and tell the person to tone it down, or have the more sober of the group persuade them to calm down.
The only allowable (so far) status offense I am familiar with is whats called a minor in possession by consumption. If you are under 21 and have .02% or more BAC can you can be cited for possession by consumption. With this being said there are a few municipalities in my state that are being challenged due to the way the law is written:
Typically its along the lines of "visibly intoxicated" which any person with common sense knows that at .02% you are not going to look or act intoxicated, in addition the question becomes:
"Officer so and so, can you describe to the court what visibly intoxicated is?"
I answer, at which point other witnesses can be called and asked the same question, and you get different answers, which shows the standard the supreme court uses "what would a regular individual do".
. The smell of an intoxicating odor coming from a minor is the standard I use, which allows me to ask a few more questions, but I am not going to go overboard with it.
As far as crimes without a victim go, the only one I can think of, and only in rare cases, is drug use at home. However, and you know lawyers will make the argument, the manufacturing, transportation and distribution of that drug did create victims along the way. To me its a BS argument, but I don't want to go down the drug legalization argument.
During an investigation of a crime, if the victim does not want to prosecute, they don't have to, at which point we no longer have the authority to arrest the person (there is 1 exception in my state to this). We do a report, add all the info, witness statements, suspect information, and evidence collected etc, and submit it to our chain of command and it gets filed.
If the person changes their mind, we pull it all out and forward it to the PA's office and they take it from there. The one exception is Domestic violence. If a female gets the crap knocked out of her, and during our investigation she says she does not want to press charges, we can still take the primary physical aggressor into custody for a 24 hour hold. The report goes to the PA with the info about declining to press charges, and their investigators assist in talking to the victim etc. They can prosecute without the victims consent, but it gets pretty hard to get a conviction unless photos / medical evidence are submitted.
It was designed because LEO's were running into the problem of women being abused, and then declining to press charges because when the guy gets out of jail after 24 hours, she would be beat even worse or killed.
I've rambled on enough, and hope this answers some concerns. What other scenario's are you referring to for private law?
new topics
-
Time Traveler Caught on Camera?
Paranormal Studies: 7 minutes ago -
Trump legal cases are falling apart at break neck speeds
US Political Madness: 43 minutes ago -
We are screwed
Global Meltdown: 46 minutes ago -
Medvedev: “No one can hide, a global catastrophe is coming”
World War Three: 1 hours ago -
Russians And Americans At Same Airbase In Niger But Not Sharing Restrooms
World War Three: 4 hours ago -
US Air Force Secretary Kendall flies in cockpit of plane controlled by AI
Aircraft Projects: 9 hours ago -
Messages of Hope – Unity through AI
Dreams & Predictions: 9 hours ago -
Happy Cinco de mayo.
General Chit Chat: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
The BEAST System of Revelation has been awoken and has assumed control, at least since COVID.
New World Order: 14 hours ago, 6 flags -
Trump legal cases are falling apart at break neck speeds
US Political Madness: 43 minutes ago, 5 flags -
We are screwed
Global Meltdown: 46 minutes ago, 4 flags -
Medvedev: “No one can hide, a global catastrophe is coming”
World War Three: 1 hours ago, 2 flags -
Happy Cinco de mayo.
General Chit Chat: 10 hours ago, 1 flags -
Messages of Hope – Unity through AI
Dreams & Predictions: 9 hours ago, 1 flags -
US Air Force Secretary Kendall flies in cockpit of plane controlled by AI
Aircraft Projects: 9 hours ago, 1 flags -
Russians And Americans At Same Airbase In Niger But Not Sharing Restrooms
World War Three: 4 hours ago, 1 flags -
Time Traveler Caught on Camera?
Paranormal Studies: 7 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
The Vaccine Injured
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 25 • : PrivateAngel -
Medvedev: “No one can hide, a global catastrophe is coming”
World War Three • 18 • : TimBurr -
Dugin's interview and the West's complete ignorance of Russia
New World Order • 30 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Leading Surgeon from Al-Shifa Hospital Dies in Israeli Custody
Middle East Issues • 65 • : gortex -
Time Traveler Caught on Camera?
Paranormal Studies • 0 • : CarlLaFong -
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 1211 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Trump legal cases are falling apart at break neck speeds
US Political Madness • 4 • : network dude -
Thousands of Anti-Semitic People Protest Israel's government in Tel Aviv
Middle East Issues • 70 • : JAY1980 -
Messages of Hope – Unity through AI
Dreams & Predictions • 8 • : WhiteRabbitCanada -
The BEAST System of Revelation has been awoken and has assumed control, at least since COVID.
New World Order • 12 • : TheMichiganSwampBuck