A hard question for LEOs

[Trigger Time]

The guy beatin a path that people see always takes the heat for the guys on the hill who make the failed decisions and has no fear of repercussion or has enough people between him and the danger before he has to worry. Tale as old as time.

So what's the cliff note version for those who aren't cops (like me), or who haven't been in the military? Poop rolls downhill. Blaming the wrong guys.

 

[NSA 308]

Biggest problem in my mind is the term "Natural Rights" has been separated from God. The State has become god and many within the State have made themselves demi gods.

Good discussion.

"Natural rights" are a fallacy. They sound good on paper, but in the real world, you have only the rights that are not trampled on by your fellow citizens in the form of government. It's the difference between having a right in theory, and having the actual right in practice. "Rights" are a construct of man.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Biggest problem in my mind is the term "Natural Rights" has been separated from God. The State has become god and many within the State have made themselves demi gods.

Good discussion.

Well, it was a "good" discussion until that paragraph.

 

[charlietwo]

"Rights" are a construct of man.

Rights constructed by man can be taken away by man.

The idea behind natural rights, which is the basis behind the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, is that universal/Divine rights can not be taken by man... at least not without a justifiable response.

Hence, the 1st and 2nd Amendment were delineated to protect those natural rights. Not sure why my last paragraph turned the discussion away from 'good'.

 

[NSA 308]

Rights constructed by man can be taken away by man.

The idea behind natural rights, which is the basis behind the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, is that universal/Divine rights can not be taken by man... at least not without a justifiable response.

Hence, the 1st and 2nd Amendment were delineated to protect those natural rights. Not sure why my last paragraph turned the discussion away from 'good'.

If the rights are divine, why would they need protection by man?

 

[charlietwo]

If the rights are divine, why would they need protection by man?

Because men are the only ones capable of crushing the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in others. All other rights are the domain of men.

As I said, if those rights were not of a divine nature, then it could be argued, justified, and codified that some people do not deserve life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. You can view it as a slippery slope defense. I'll view it as a divine law. Both result in a free people.

Where are we in disagreement here?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Where are we in disagreement here?

Where some people believe that certain rights were created by an imaginary being.

 

[public servant]

How you guys fit in the puppy killing and the longs doughnut raids is beyond me.

It's all about priorities and time management.

 

[churchmouse]

The guy beatin a path that people see always takes the heat for the guys on the hill who make the failed decisions and has no fear of repercussion or has enough people between him and the danger before he has to worry. Tale as old as time.

So what's the cliff note version for those who aren't cops (like me), or who haven't been in the military? Poop rolls downhill. Blaming the wrong guys.

Bad policy always starts at the top. Except for a few bad apples and some folks having a rotten day LEO is OK to deal with if you have a good record and a decent attitude.

 

[John Titor]

Humans are like animals .
Path of least resistance .
Maximum gain - minimum effort .
Pain avoidance .

You are told to do X .
You don't like it .. think it is wrong .
But if you don't do it you will have to give up all of the
afore mentioned primal desires .
Three of those being paycheck and the two biggies .... pension and medical care / insurance .

You'll do what you're told ... after all ...
If it's unjust ... you get your day in court .

Courts are about money and politics . - Gabe Suarez

 

[Denny347]

Where some people believe that certain rights were created by an imaginary being.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

And what would it take to get LEOs to enforce laws as they actually are and not as the LEOs were trained years ago and as they want them to still be? Clearly changing the laws matters not at all if no one enforcing them is even going to bother to notice.

lol wut?

Last I checked, if I tried to enforce a non-existent law, I would be disciplined and/or fired.

To her point , in 2010 IIRC , I posted on here about a discussion I had with an IMPD officer that comes into a local gas station to get his free fountain drinks daily .

One of the clerks asked him what the law is on OC/CC . The officer told him is was CC ONLY .

I pulled out my license and asked him to show me where it said I had to CC only , he couldn't do it .

Long story short , I waited about 45 minutes with him so he could flip thorough his red "smart book" of codes to find it , obviously he couldn't .

He said that if his computer was "fired up" he could find it but he "knows" there's a law against it as well as it is IMPD / Marion county policy that firearms are to be carried CC only .

Maybe I'm nuts for thinking this way but I'd think , because of the potential consequences , LEO's would at least know the laws regarding the carrying of firearms in their county , if not their state .

 

[griffin]

Yet somehow, you think every cop recognizes exactly where that line is with every law? And then just decides if he wants to be constitutional or not?

Let's talk about the recent thread of the Texas cops who come to a home to make an arrest without a warrant.

To come and arrest someone at *THEIR HOME* a warrant is needed, unless exigent circumstances exist, or valid consent is given, is that not correct?

Clearly, if they arrested the mother - and not the child they came for in the first place - then exigent circumstances clearly did not exist.

This is not just the law in Texas, it is the law in the entirety of the United States. This was specifically ruled on the by the US Supreme Court in Payton v. New York and affirmed in Kirk v. Louisiana.

The law is and has been very clear about drawing a line at the entrance to a home.

It seems to me that there are a number of cops out there that trample the constitution. Or am I wrong?

 

[TEK]

......
To our lawmen: You swore to uphold the Constitution, not the will of 51% of the legislature. Constitutional rights and basic human dignity are the right of all, not just the pretty people and perfect people. Where do you draw the line?....

Civics lesson. In our system of separation of powers-- which itself is a cornerstone concept of the USA's 1787 Constitution-- article I, II, III-- follow? legislative, executive, judiciary-- the courts decide what is constitutional.

True each branch makes a thresshold determination, in the sense that the legislature should not presume to pass a patently unconsittutional law (lol) and the executive should not sign one (lmfao) but it is the job in the end of the judiciary to say what is constitutional and what is not.

That does not happen until a case goes to court and someone is punished or has a judgment against them and the matter is appealed. In other words, it is generally not even the place of the trial courts to say what is constitutional but appellate courts.

Now the beat cop is not a judiciary officer but an executive one. First reason why the beat cop does not presume to violate policies or orders because he presumes them unconstitutional.

Secondly the beat cop is not at the top of the executive chain of command. That would be the president or governor or chief or director of some department or what have you. The beat cop has a duty to obey, and obedience to a chain of command is an even more foundational concept of order and justice than "constitutions."

Obedience to a hierarchical chain of command is itself the most fundamental concept of government as such, of any exercise of group power in an orderly and just fashion rather than just a gang. That is so fundamental to universal ideas of human justice that every system on earth presumes it.

Which is why the anarchists never ran a government unless you consider a few cooperatives in Spain during the civil war. How could they? Everybody decides what is right etc etc.

So if you believe in order, and separation of powers, then the conclusion is that you believe that judges are the deciders of constitutionality and not low level executive officers.

 

[VUPDblue]

To her point , in 2010 IIRC , I posted on here about a discussion I had with an IMPD officer that comes into a local gas station to get his free fountain drinks daily .

One of the clerks asked him what the law is on OC/CC . The officer told him is was CC ONLY .

I pulled out my license and asked him to show me where it said I had to CC only , he couldn't do it .

Long story short , I waited about 45 minutes with him so he could flip thorough his red "smart book" of codes to find it , obviously he couldn't .

He said that if his computer was "fired up" he could find it but he "knows" there's a law against it as well as it is IMPD / Marion county policy that firearms are to be carried CC only .

Maybe I'm nuts for thinking this way but I'd think , because of the potential consequences , LEO's would at least know the laws regarding the carrying of firearms in their county , if not their state .

being uninformed is one thing. enforcing the part he was uninformed about is another. he would have had to cite the IC code on the arrest slip in order to arrest you. obviously he couldnt do that.

 

[griffin]

The beat cop has a duty to obey

So the beat cop should disarm citizens in their homes if told to like in New Orleans?

 

[lucky4034]

In order to understand the Constitution and interpret it properly within the context it was written, a firm historical education on the matter is an absolute necessity. Just as it is possible to have no education of the Constitution, it is equally likely (particularly within today's schools) to be mal-educated on the Constitution.

I don't have first hand experience as an LEO, but I know the military does not specifically teach the history of the Constitution or the context in which it is interpreted and all enlistees and officers swear an oath to it. I wouldn't know the Constitution as well as I do now without the individual motivation.

I think the reason for the 'cop bashing' stems from the plague of Constitutional mal-education across the board in this country, thanks to Progressives, Marxists, and Anarchists metastasizing in our educational/media systems. The ignorant citizens hate the cops because they don't understand their role as a citizen or what a 'Right' actually is. And ignorant police officers (they exist, just as ignorant soldiers exist) do not understand the contextual facts of the Constitution well enough to know when their lawmakers pass laws that violate the 'Rights' of the citizens they swear to protect.

Biggest problem in my mind is the term "Natural Rights" has been separated from God. The State has become god and many within the State have made themselves demi gods.

Good discussion.

This.... minus the God part

The obvious question to me is "Are police officers more responsible to protect and serve the people or to enforce laws voted in place by legislators and the 51% even if they are unconstitutional and blatantly oppressive?"

If a Constitutional Oath is the basis of the position, then police are going to have to decide for themselves what laws are worth enforcing and which are not. Simply saying " I get paid to enforce the law and if you don't like it then lobby for change " is a cop out. (no pun intended)

If this was a pure Democracy then this mentality would be acceptable, but this isn't a Democracy (or shouldn't be)... it is a Constitutional Republic and if that Constitutional Oath is the basis for the job... then enforcing oppressive law is a violation of that oath.

In a Democracy the 51% can oppress the 49%. In a Constitutional Republic... the 99% CAN NOT oppress the 1% unless totalitarian authority figures decide to enforce unjust/unconstitutional laws.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

To come and arrest someone at *THEIR HOME* a warrant is needed, unless exigent circumstances exist, or valid consent is given, is that not correct?

It is not correct. You are confusing forcing entry into a home with making an arrest. "Exigent circumstances" are for warrantless searchs, entries, etc, not arrests. Was the officer somewhere they were legally allowed to be? Sounds like it, they were in the house to serve a warrant. Did they have probable cause of criminal activity? Then they can legally make an arrest. or not making an arrest.

On a side note, are you basing your argument on the actual text of the Constitution or the body of case law that has grown up around it? I don't recall "exigent circumstances" making an appearance in the Constitution. People complain about case law and try to separate it from what is constitutional, but again that's a gross oversimplification of a complex system.

 

[griffin]

Then why did they not make the arrest they were there for? The kid was there. They waited until the next day when they had a warrant.

In Kirk v. Louisiana, SCOTUS said, "our holding in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980), that [a]bsent exigent circumstances the firm line at the entrance to the house … may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant."

 

[Destro]

Then why did they not make the arrest they were there for? The kid was there. They waited until the next day when they had a warrant.

In Kirk v. Louisiana, SCOTUS said, "our holding in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980), that [a]bsent exigent circumstances the firm line at the entrance to the house … may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant."

well they didn't need a warrant to arrest the kid, and it sounds like they didn't violate any 4th amendment rights. It sounds like they came to the door and asked nicely if they could take her son to jail (she did know prior to their arrival that they were coming for him). When she refused, she was arrested (it's interesting that none of the news reports state exactly what she was arrested for, simply that she was). They went and got a warrant and finished the job.

I'm confused how the case you cited applies?