Peel’s Principles of Modern Law Enforcement

[Libertarian01]

To All,

As I originally posted this I want to say that what I like about Sir Robert Peels Principles of Law Enforcement is that he understands that the LEO and the citizen are on the same level! The LEO needs the cooperation of the citizen otherwise "the degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes."

Sir Peel understood that the LEO must not become an oppressor with authority behind him/her, as "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval."

As I read Sir Peel the main concept of his writing is RESPECT for the public! Not to oppress with the law but to secure cooperation OF the law.

In Indiana we are equalized by our ability to perform a citizens arrest. Every citizen has almost the same arrest power as a police officer. Every single citizen can arrest a felon or misdemeanor breach of peace w/ citizens arrest (see IC 33-35-1-4 Indiana Code 35-33-1 ). I know this as a licensed Bailbondsman and Recovery Agent.

The problem isn't w/ most LEO's but rather with our mindset in America. We don't like something, then "there oughta be a law." Regrettably our idiot politicians listen and pass another inane law to appease the masses and get elected. Then the LE needs to worry about yet another rule they are burdened with upholding.

I really do wish that Sir Robert Peel was mandatory training in modern LE. I think we would all be better off for it.

Regards,

Doug

 

[serpicostraight]

To All,

As I originally posted this I want to say that what I like about Sir Robert Peels Principles of Law Enforcement is that he understands that the LEO and the citizen are on the same level! The LEO needs the cooperation of the citizen otherwise "the degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes."

Sir Peel understood that the LEO must not become an oppressor with authority behind him/her, as "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval."

As I read Sir Peel the main concept of his writing is RESPECT for the public! Not to oppress with the law but to secure cooperation OF the law.

In Indiana we are equalized by our ability to perform a citizens arrest. Every citizen has almost the same arrest power as a police officer. Every single citizen can arrest a felon or misdemeanor breach of peace w/ citizens arrest (see IC 33-35-1-4 Indiana Code 35-33-1 ). I know this as a licensed Bailbondsman and Recovery Agent.

The problem isn't w/ most LEO's but rather with our mindset in America. We don't like something, then "there oughta be a law." Regrettably our idiot politicians listen and pass another inane law to appease the masses and get elected. Then the LE needs to worry about yet another rule they are burdened with upholding.

I really do wish that Sir Robert Peel was mandatory training in modern LE. I think we would all be better off for it.

Regards,

Doug

i dont think thats quite true i think alot of the laws passed are not to please the masses but to please the politicians and or leo. obamacare,not taping a cop on duty,etc,etc. that is where the line is drawn between good leo and criminals with badges. the good leo will not enforce laws that go against the constitution bill of rights or common sense. the bad ones however will smile while they are doing it and always have an excuse. "i was just following orders" "officer safety" "but its my job". and here lately the ones smiling are showing up more and more.

 

[JBusch8899]

In Indiana we are equalized by our ability to perform a citizens arrest. Every citizen has almost the same arrest power as a police officer. Every single citizen can arrest a felon or misdemeanor breach of peace w/ citizens arrest (see IC 33-35-1-4 Indiana Code 35-33-1 ). I know this as a licensed Bailbondsman and Recovery Agent.

However, a citizen does not enjoy the nearly unqualified civil immunity of that of a police officer.

 

[UncleMike]

If the law and the Constitution contradict each other, you are the last line of defense for upholding the law before tyranny is enforced. This has happened, this does happen, and this will happen again. Not all laws are worth enforcing.

Agreed. However until a Court of Law determines that a law is Unconstitutional the Police are bound, again by their oath, to uphold that law. If Officers were to pick and choose the laws that they believe are "worth" enforcing, we would have total Anarchy

You must acknowledge that sometimes the law is worth taking a stand against. It has happened throughout history and will happen again. If the law says that all people of Japanese descent must be rounded up and put into concentration camps, would you participate? Because that happened in America in the 1940s. If the law says to go house-to-house and round up people's guns, would you participate? Because that happened in America a couple years ago.
Again I agree. Some laws are unconscionable and should never have been passed.
And NO I wouldn't participate in a collection of the Citizens firearms. I would be fighting like most of the members here. My status as "inactive duty" doesn't exempt me from any Draconian laws that maw be passed by a Tyrant.
In fact the Civilian Police are the FIRST people disarmed by a tyrannical ruler as they represent exactly what such a ruler doesn't want. Law and Order.
They are always replaced by a "Loyalist Police Force" founded by the Regime.

I'm not asking cops to judge every law. But there may be a time when you are really challenged between your keeping your conscience and upholding the "law." I'm just trying to cause people to think. Some laws are wrong.
Yes they are, and that's why we rely on The Courts to sort out the bad laws and render them harmless by Court Order. It's all part of the "Checks and Balances" that the Founders built into our form of Republican government.

See above replies.
Mike

 

[serpicostraight]

Agreed. However until a Court of Law determines that a law is Unconstitutional the Police are bound, again by their oath, to uphold that law. If Officers were to pick and choose the laws that they believe are "worth" enforcing, we would have total Anarchy
correct me if im wrong but from what you are saying here whatever the courts tell leo to do then they must do by thier oath even if they know its wrong? i guess what im getting out of this is that if a politician says do something then the police do it even though it violates thier oath the constitution and what is right.

 

[UncleMike]

Agreed. However until a Court of Law determines that a law is Unconstitutional the Police are bound, again by their oath, to uphold that law. If Officers were to pick and choose the laws that they believe are "worth" enforcing, we would have total Anarchy
correct me if im wrong but from what you are saying here whatever the courts tell leo to do then they must do by thier oath even if they know its wrong? i guess what im getting out of this is that if a politician says do something then the police do it even though it violates thier oath the constitution and what is right.

Nope.
When The Courts issue a ruling is has the force of law until the Legislature passes an amended law, an entirely new law, or they say "Screw it" and let the Courts ruling stand as in the case of "The Miranda Ruling".
Miranda is a Court Ruling, not a law!!
Although in 1968 Congress passed
The Omnibus Crime Control Act (Title 18 U.S.C.A. sec. 3501)
which was an attempt to over rule Miranda.
Although the Omnibus Act was passed by Congress, the Department of Justice refused to enforce it. The Department has gone so far as to say, on one or more occasion, that the statute is unconstitutional!
In a "perfect" Legal System, "Justice is Blind" and all laws are to be enforced equally regardless of the personal beliefs of the Officers.
Since our system is far from perfect some laws are "ignored"
An example would be the Indiana law from the early 1900's that stated "Every motor vehicle shall have a man walking ahead of the vehicle carrying a red lantern and shouting the warning, Car Coming."
That gem was still on the books when I was a Rookie. We ignored it!
It was eventually repealed along with several other "antiquated" laws.
As I stated earlier, some laws are so onerous that they should never have been written, much less passed into law, but until such a law is overturned by the Courts they are "supposed" to be enforced.
All of this puts LEO's in the middle of a p*ssing match between The Legislatures, and The Courts.
In short.
If you're unhappy about a law you need to argue with the Courts and the Legislature.
Not the Cops.
They don't write them. They just enforce them.
Mike

 

[JBusch8899]

Agreed. However until a Court of Law determines that a law is Unconstitutional the Police are bound, again by their oath, to uphold that law. If Officers were to pick and choose the laws that they believe are "worth" enforcing, we would have total Anarchy
correct me if im wrong but from what you are saying here whatever the courts tell leo to do then they must do by thier oath even if they know its wrong? i guess what im getting out of this is that if a politician says do something then the police do it even though it violates thier oath the constitution and what is right.

As I states previously in this thread, law enforcement swears or affirms an oath to the Constitution, not unto the government. At least, no oath that I've ever encountered.

Nope.
When The Courts issue a ruling is has the force of law until the Legislature passes an amended law, an entirely new law, or they say "Screw it" and let the Courts ruling stand as in the case of "The Miranda Ruling".
Miranda is a Court Ruling, not a law!!
Although in 1968 Congress passed
The Omnibus Crime Control Act (Title 18 U.S.C.A. sec. 3501)
which was an attempt to over rule Miranda.
Although the Omnibus Act was passed by Congress, the Department of Justice refused to enforce it. The Department has gone so far as to say, on one or more occasion, that the statute is unconstitutional!
In a "perfect" Legal System, "Justice is Blind" and all laws are to be enforced equally regardless of the personal beliefs of the Officers.
Since our system is far from perfect some laws are "ignored"
An example would be the Indiana law from the early 1900's that stated "Every motor vehicle shall have a man walking ahead of the vehicle carrying a red lantern and shouting the warning, Car Coming."
That gem was still on the books when I was a Rookie. We ignored it!
It was eventually repealed along with several other "antiquated" laws.
As I stated earlier, some laws are so onerous that they should never have been written, much less passed into law, but until such a law is overturned by the Courts they are "supposed" to be enforced.
All of this puts LEO's in the middle of a p*ssing match between The Legislatures, and The Courts.
In short.
If you're unhappy about a law you need to argue with the Courts and the Legislature.
Not the Cops.
They don't write them. They just enforce them.
Mike

There are four differing types of civil law, and all accepted as binding, subject to qualification:

• Constitutional law
• Legislative laws, or statutes
• Executive laws, or codes
• Judicial laws, or Common laws

However, as I again stated earlier within this thread, there is absolutely no legal immunity to the enforcement, or order to uphold a bad or otherwise, immoral or corrupt law. Of course, the same stands for failure to enforce a moral, or lawful law; a well as the selective enforcement of any law.

President Andrew Jackson was incorrectly attributed the remark, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" after the ruling, Worcester v. Georgia. Despite the incorrect attribution, the concept of the executive branch of government's refusal to enforce a bad law, is still a plausible option, just as the Justice Department did with the previously mentioned 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act, and still continued in practice today on both large and lesser levels.

 

[UncleMike]

As I states previously in this thread, law enforcement swears or affirms an oath to the Constitution, not unto the government. At least, no oath that I've ever encountered.



There are four differing types of civil law, and all accepted as binding, subject to qualification:

• Constitutional law
• Legislative laws, or statutes
• Executive laws, or codes
• Judicial laws, or Common laws

However, as I again stated earlier within this thread, there is absolutely no legal immunity to the enforcement, or order to uphold a bad or otherwise, immoral or corrupt law. Of course, the same stands for failure to enforce a moral, or lawful law; a well as the selective enforcement of any law.

President Andrew Jackson was incorrectly attributed the remark, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" after the ruling, Worcester v. Georgia. Despite the incorrect attribution, the concept of the executive branch of government's refusal to enforce a bad law, is still a plausible option, just as the Justice Department did with the previously mentioned 1968 Omnibus Crime Control Act, and still continued in practice today on both large and lesser levels.

The discussion isn't about Civil Law.
It's about Criminal Law.
They are enforced differently. At least in Indiana.
City and State Police Officers do not enforce Civil Law unless there is an order from the Courts directing them to do so.
Sheriffs, and their Deputy's, deliver, and enforce, Civil Orders.
Try to explain that to a Citizen who's spouse/partner has violated a Protective Order and he/she wants him/her jailed immediately for that CIVIL Infraction that was not witnesses by the Officer.
I spent nearly a quarter century living that balancing act!

As I mentioned earlier my Oath Of Office stated that I would "Protect and Defend The Constitution of The United States and The State of Indiana" It went on to state that I would, "enforce the laws of The State of Indiana."
The last part would seem to indicate that Officers are bound by their oath to enforce not only The Constitution, but also, the laws as passed by the Legislature, a branch of The Government.
Mike

 

[JBusch8899]

The discussion isn't about Civil Law.
It's about Criminal Law.
They are enforced differently. At least in Indiana.
City and State Police Officers do not enforce Civil Law unless there is an order from the Courts directing them to do so.
Sheriffs, and their Deputy's, deliver, and enforce, Civil Orders.
Try to explain that to a Citizen who's spouse/partner has violated a Protective Order and he/she wants him/her jailed immediately for that CIVIL Infraction that was not witnesses by the Officer.
I spent nearly a quarter century living that balancing act!

As I mentioned earlier my Oath Of Office stated that I would "Protect and Defend The Constitution of The United States and The State of Indiana" It went on to state that I would, "enforce the laws of The State of Indiana."
The last part would seem to indicate that Officers are bound by their oath to enforce not only The Constitution, but also, the laws as passed by the Legislature, a branch of The Government.
Mike

When I stated civil law, I really meant civilian law, to differentiate it from military law, maritime law, etc.

The Constitution is law. As a matter of fact, it is the supreme law of the land. If a statutory law is in conflict with the Constitution of both the United States and/or the State of Indiana, how does one enforce both? The supremacy clause answers that question, quite frankly.

 

[UncleMike]

When I stated civil law, I really meant civilian law, to differentiate it from military law, maritime law, etc.

The Constitution is law. As a matter of fact, it is the supreme law of the land. If a statutory law is in conflict with the Constitution of both the United States and/or the State of Indiana, how does one enforce both? The supremacy clause answers that question, quite frankly.

OK that clears it up.
My point it that it's grossly impractical to expect each individual Police Officer to be a Constitutional Scholar.
They have to rely on the Courts to clarify what laws are Constitutional and what laws are not.
Until a Court of Jurisdiction makes a ruling, the law has to be taken on its face as being valid.
I agree that an obviously Unconstitutional law, weapon confiscation for example, needs to be subject to deferred enforcement by the Police until the Courts pass a ruling on it's validity.
That option however must be used with extreme caution to avoid having the Police simply ignore a law that they don't personally like.
e.g.; The Chicago Police turning a blind eye to Prohibition because they either didn't agree with it, or they were getting paid by the Mob.
Mike

 

[JBusch8899]

OK that clears it up.
My point it that it's grossly impractical to expect each individual Police Officer to be a Constitutional Scholar.
They have to rely on the Courts to clarify what laws are Constitutional and what laws are not.
Until a Court of Jurisdiction makes a ruling, the law has to be taken on its face as being valid.
I agree that an obviously Unconstitutional law, weapon confiscation for example, needs to be subject to deferred enforcement by the Police until the Courts pass a ruling on it's validity.
That option however must be used with extreme caution to avoid having the Police simply ignore a law that they don't personally like.
e.g.; The Chicago Police turning a blind eye to Prohibition because they either didn't agree with it, or they were getting paid by the Mob.
Mike

I agree with the impracticality of expecting law enforcement to be Constitutional scholars, however, it is my experience that police training and officer information interject too much opinion, in lieu of fact.

For example: 18 months ago, a Beech Grove Police Officer informed me that his department counsel offered a legal opinion that a LTCH did not authorize the holder to carry the weapon with a round chambered.

An officer of the law, should be provided with a fairly rounded education of Constitutional law, in order to make informed choices of the law. This would include original constitutional intent, legislative intent, and the process of determining public policy. Perhaps I expect the police to be better educated, but considering the working description of their occupation, I don't believe it's unreasonable.

 

[UncleMike]

I agree with the impracticality of expecting law enforcement to be Constitutional scholars, however, it is my experience that police training and officer information interject too much opinion, in lieu of fact.

For example: 18 months ago, a Beech Grove Police Officer informed me that his department counsel offered a legal opinion that a LTCH did not authorize the holder to carry the weapon with a round chambered.

An officer of the law, should be provided with a fairly rounded education of Constitutional law, in order to make informed choices of the law. This would include original constitutional intent, legislative intent, and the process of determining public policy. Perhaps I expect the police to be better educated, but considering the working description of their occupation, I don't believe it's unreasonable.

You have to bear in mind that not all Officers are as firearms savvy as those on this Forum. I've worked with individuals who considered carrying a sidearm as a downside to Police work.
Likewise not every Officer has the interest in the fine points of the law that I did. Just because we had access to a complete Law Library doesn't mean that every Officer took advantage of the facility.
Law Enforcement is like any profession. Some people excel at certain aspects of the job but show little interest for others. The goal of every Police Academy is to turn out well rounded, educated, and dedicated Police Officers.
However some individuals slip through the cracks in the initial screening processes and end up as the ones that don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground when it comes to the Law.
It's been my opinion for over thirty eight years that some people have no business being Police Officers. Unfortunately those are the ones that we read about when a corruption scandal is reported within the ranks or someones Human Rights are violated.
You can't expect all Police Officers to be perfect examples of humankind. They are as human, and flawed, as any other group in society.
Mike

 

[serpicostraight]

It's been my opinion for over thirty eight years that some people have no business being Police Officers. Unfortunately those are the ones that we read about when a corruption scandal is reported within the ranks or someones Human Rights are violated. that is the problem now mike i can remember a time when the police were our friends and neighbours if you wasnt a bad guy the police was your friend. now most of them have the attitude your either a cop or a scumbag. im just wondering if they have that attitude when they join or are they taught that?

 

[UncleMike]

It's been my opinion for over thirty eight years that some people have no business being Police Officers. Unfortunately those are the ones that we read about when a corruption scandal is reported within the ranks or someones Human Rights are violated. that is the problem now mike i can remember a time when the police were our friends and neighbours if you wasnt a bad guy the police was your friend. now most of them have the attitude your either a cop or a scumbag. im just wondering if they have that attitude when they join or are they taught that?

I'm afraid that I have to say that I haven't a clue where, or when, that attitude slimed it's way into Police work.
When I attended ILEA, back in The Stone Age, attitudes were vastly different. We were taught to protect, and defend, the Public even at the cost of our own lives.
We were, in effect, expendable commodities when it came to Public Safety. A bad attitude, being impolite, or even a cross word to a Citizen brought, at least,an immediate reprimand and often suspension without pay.
It appears that at some point the emphasis on Police training has shifted from Public Service to mindless enforcement.
I personally blame some of that attitude on the "Upper Echelon" who want to impress their Superiors by turning in a large number of enforcement contacts by their subordinates each month.
I still know many Officers who disagree with that type of enforcement but they are justifiably concerned that they would be singled out for "special treatment" if they speak up on the matter.
I'm sure that my answer has made the issue as clear as mud but it's the best that I can come up with at the moment.
Mike

 

[JBusch8899]

I find the mindlessness, as well as laziness of some law enforcement that I've met to be quite disturbing. I'm not only speaking of the burnout cases, but those who have a know-it-all, a bully, and/or a dictator-like mentality. Fortunately, these individuals consist of a small percentage of the force.

Quite honestly, the profession of a police officer requires more than this type of an attitude.

The corruption within the ranks has also become almost commonplace anymore. How many time does one turn on the television, to find another cop arrested? While many in law enforcement have nothing but contempt for criminal defense attorneys, those same attorneys have their own phraseologies when questioning law enforcement under oath: Its not "testify", but rather, "test-a-lie".

I'm at a loss as to how to rectify this problem, except to require a college degree, and perhaps to modify the MMPT for LE, to single out those who demonstrate a single-mindedness and are deficient, or incapable of real empathy.

 

[UncleMike]

I find the mindlessness, as well as laziness of some law enforcement that I've met to be quite disturbing. I'm not only speaking of the burnout cases, but those who have a know-it-all, a bully, and/or a dictator-like mentality. Fortunately, these individuals consist of a small percentage of the force.

Quite honestly, the profession of a police officer requires more than this type of an attitude.

The corruption within the ranks has also become almost commonplace anymore. How many time does one turn on the television, to find another cop arrested? While many in law enforcement have nothing but contempt for criminal defense attorneys, those same attorneys have their own phraseologies when questioning law enforcement under oath: Its not "testify", but rather, "test-a-lie".

I'm at a loss as to how to rectify this problem, except to require a college degree, and perhaps to modify the MMPT for LE, to single out those who demonstrate a single-mindedness and are deficient, or incapable of real empathy.

It wouldn't help.
The attitude comes from the Brass and their incessant demands that "Action be taken".
Mike

 

[serpicostraight]

I'm afraid that I have to say that I haven't a clue where, or when, that attitude slimed it's way into Police work.
When I attended ILEA, back in The Stone Age, attitudes were vastly different. We were taught to protect, and defend, the Public even at the cost of our own lives.
We were, in effect, expendable commodities when it came to Public Safety. A bad attitude, being impolite, or even a cross word to a Citizen brought, at least,an immediate reprimand and often suspension without pay.
It appears that at some point the emphasis on Police training has shifted from Public Service to mindless enforcement.
I personally blame some of that attitude on the "Upper Echelon" who want to impress their Superiors by turning in a large number of enforcement contacts by their subordinates each month.
I still know many Officers who disagree with that type of enforcement but they are justifiably concerned that they would be singled out for "special treatment" if they speak up on the matter.
I'm sure that my answer has made the issue as clear as mud but it's the best that I can come up with at the moment.
Mike

thank you for the honest answer and i as im sure most can understand what your saying. you sound like a good man and i wish we had more like you on the force now. but im sure im preaching to the choir when i say the leo we have now are just not what it used to be. the thin blue line is whats going to bring the leo to thier knees. theres no such thing anymore as a good cop or bad they all cover for each other that makes them all bad. until a good man is willing to stand up and do whats right how can we trust them?

 

[hornadylnl]

Agreed. However until a Court of Law determines that a law is Unconstitutional the Police are bound, again by their oath, to uphold that law.
Mike

I have a problem with this line of thinking.

If I get pulled over for a "dim" license plate bulb (happened to another member here) to "fish" for other things to bust me for, that's a violation of my 4th amendment rights. DUI checkpoints are a violation of my 4th amendment rights. I've seen it posted on here many times that it is up to myself to know my rights and cops are allowed to use intimidation to get me to answer questions or consent for a search. That is a violation of my rights. You don't think the above examples are a violation of my rights? Find anything our founding fathers said that would square with the above "legal" violations of my rights.

I don't care if the local county judge all the way up to the US Supreme Court has said that "fishing expeditions" and DUI checkpoints are constitutional, they still violate the spirit of the constitution and the rights our founders fought to give us. I've seen many LEO's on here say that those actions are tools that our government has given them to do their job. Some in here are saying the higher ups are the cause of the degradation of the relationship between citizen and LEO.

When a LEO is tasked to do something that violates my rights, he is just as responsible for violating my rights the moment he does it as those who tasked him to do it. I've seen the excuses range from the courts say its okay to or I have to to keep my job. At that moment, a LEO needs to decide what's more important. Liberty or a paycheck.

D I S C L A I M E R !!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not using this following analogy to call our LEO's Nazis.

Many of those tried at Nuremburg wanted to use the "I was just following orders" defense and it was thrown out. An estimated 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust. How many would have died if the lower enlisted to the lower officers to the camp workers would have refused to take part in it? How many Jews would Hitler and his henchmen been able to personally kill without all the military and camp workers to take part in it? My point is that the workers and the soldiers were just as guilty of genocide as Hitler was.

Violating my rights under the guise of "following orders" or because our current courts say you can makes you just as complicit in violating my rights as your superiors or judges.

If I were a LEO, I'd refuse to take part in "fishing" traffic stops, DUI checkpoints, etc. I value your liberty more than my paycheck. If your rights are being violated, then so are mine.

 

[UncleMike]

I have a problem with this line of thinking.

If I get pulled over for a "dim" license plate bulb (happened to another member here) to "fish" for other things to bust me for, that's a violation of my 4th amendment rights. DUI checkpoints are a violation of my 4th amendment rights. I've seen it posted on here many times that it is up to myself to know my rights and cops are allowed to use intimidation to get me to answer questions or consent for a search. That is a violation of my rights. You don't think the above examples are a violation of my rights? Find anything our founding fathers said that would square with the above "legal" violations of my rights.

I don't care if the local county judge all the way up to the US Supreme Court has said that "fishing expeditions" and DUI checkpoints are constitutional, they still violate the spirit of the constitution and the rights our founders fought to give us. I've seen many LEO's on here say that those actions are tools that our government has given them to do their job. Some in here are saying the higher ups are the cause of the degradation of the relationship between citizen and LEO.

When a LEO is tasked to do something that violates my rights, he is just as responsible for violating my rights the moment he does it as those who tasked him to do it. I've seen the excuses range from the courts say its okay to or I have to to keep my job. At that moment, a LEO needs to decide what's more important. Liberty or a paycheck.

D I S C L A I M E R !!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not using this following analogy to call our LEO's Nazis.

Many of those tried at Nuremburg wanted to use the "I was just following orders" defense and it was thrown out. An estimated 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust. How many would have died if the lower enlisted to the lower officers to the camp workers would have refused to take part in it? How many Jews would Hitler and his henchmen been able to personally kill without all the military and camp workers to take part in it? My point is that the workers and the soldiers were just as guilty of genocide as Hitler was.

Violating my rights under the guise of "following orders" or because our current courts say you can makes you just as complicit in violating my rights as your superiors or judges.

If I were a LEO, I'd refuse to take part in "fishing" traffic stops, DUI checkpoints, etc. I value your liberty more than my paycheck. If your rights are being violated, then so are mine.

Remember the song "Walk a Mile In My Shoes"?
If you did, your attitude would be quite different.
Mike

 

[hornadylnl]

Remember the song "Walk a Mile In My Shoes"?
If you did, your attitude would be quite different.
Mike

So "fishing expeditions" and DUI checkpoints are not a violation of rights? Is your paycheck worth more than liberty?