Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire It is not just cops

I take it you believe that every prospective cop dreaming of joining that evil system fully knows and understands he/she is entering the army of darkness?
Again, you are not making much sense, and some of your logic is flawed. So is your knowledge of history.

Didn't Thomas Jefferson say something to the effect that the tree of liberty needs to be fed with the blood of tyrants periodically?

Right now, I just ask for individuals to evaluate their roles and follow what the believe to be right. The time may come for more drastic measures. If it does, the conduct of LEOs will be a major catalyst of future events.

If you have the dark vision of the future as many of us do, then you realize we may have a duty to resist at some point. Who do you think will be on the other side?

Right now this is all rhetoric and, frankly, I am too comfortable to do anything serious, as I suspect most others are. I will remind you, however, the American Revolution was fought because conditions were considered to be intolerable and incompatible with liberty. Our forefathers had it 10 times better than we did as far as liberty goes, yet they felt the conditions were intolerable. Probably, in the end, we are all sheep and will be treated as such.

Nevertheless, at some point people will have to take sides. I promise you, at that point, the LEOs will not be on the side of good.

Matthias:
>>Illegal drugs have always been illegal and should stay that way.<< I'm not exactly sure what this sentence means, but if you're implying that cocaine and marijuana have always been illegal, you're wrong. In the early part of the 20th century Cocaine was sold over the counter, and was an ingredient in a popular soft drink. Ever drink Coca-Cola? It originally contained extract of coca. Marijuana was a derivative of the hemp plant used for making textiles and fabrics. If you're interested, "Smoke and Mirrors" by Dan Baum chronicles the evolution of drug law.

>>Just because evil seems to have the upper hand doesn't mean that we can quit fighting it and hope it will disappear.<<
What do you define as more evil? The use in the privacy of one's own home of some "controlled substance", or the use of civil law enforcement as cannon fodder for the various drug/terror wars going on today?

>>If you make it legal, or decriminalize it, what are you really saying?<< How about, "As long as you're not hurting others, driving under the influence, or abusing your family, what you do is your own business. We have more important criminals to pursue."

>>What I am telling you is this: Ignoring it or decriminalizing it will not work. Whatever is bad now, will get much worse.<<
And what I'm telling you is this: It worked for a hundred years. We no longer know if it works because we haven't tried it for so long. What we have done is to increase the amount of enforcement, punishment, and sentencing for drug violators. The result? We have more drug traffic in this country than in any other time in our history. The increases in penalties and prison time have done nothing but make the profit increase commensurate with the risk. Look, we have been doing the same thing for 40 years, we decide that the drug "problem" must be dealt with, laws are enacted, the Constitution gets another little piece torn out of it, and drug traffic increases. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly, each time expecting a different result. What would happen if we decriminalized drugs? We would be a freer people for it. I understand your trepidation, liberty is a scary thing. The liberty to own firearms, reload ammo, and shoot are liberties that scare others. That's why they fight so hard to abridge our rights; fear of other people's freedoms. In my opinion, it is philosophically dishonest to want to be left alone to pursue my hobby, while I seek to have others imprisoned for their personal habits.

>>I refuse to quit fighting, and I refuse to believe that there aren't lots of decent people out there.<< I commend you for that. I feel the same way. It's just that we have to be careful about what we fight for because there are power-mongers about that will happily convert our good intentions into the road to tyranny.

Aye Aye great Oracle. I suspect your crystal ball is telling you that ALL LEOs will be on the bad side?
Wait, aren't they ALL on the wrong side already?

In fact, I think he shares my opinion that TR was the last President we've had that was worth a s**t...

As an aside, during their qualification, nephew outshot the AR15 armed officers with his lever gun. I don't put that as being overly impressive-the young man is blessed with excellent hand/eye coordination, and regularly outshoots everyone with rifle or pistol..

Matthias... Turns out it was the jury who decided the probated sentence against the recommendations of the District Attourney (see link, another ACLU site I know, but the June 17th 2001 SA Express News article it references can be found on the newspaper archives at www.mysa.com ).

http://home.austin.rr.com/apdhallofshame/Blotter%207-01.htm

Without looking it up, I dunno what the minimum sentence for indecency with a child is in Texas, probation apparently, and yes, I believe the jury can consider all factors when deciding a sentence.


Huh? A pretty nonsensical statement I think you would agree.

What we had here was a person whose powers of judgement did not preclude him from committing indecency with a child entrusted with a Peace Officer's shield for a period of nineteen years prior to the offense. I believe many reasonable folks would find that fact alarming.


This also sounds like a reasonable response to me, prob'ly a lot of Cops feel the same way. The thing is, a Law Enforcement Officer going bad is an order of magnitude worse than just any Joe Blow on the street going bad, for a number of reasons.


Maybe, but that statement seems to presuppose the "good old days" were ALWAYS all that "good". Without intending to harp on a PC rant, a number of my elderly Hispanic neighbors might offer a different opinion. Even aside from race issues, police corruption is nothing new.

Agreed that overall America DOES seem to be going to Heck in a handbasket . I also think that our police today are subject to a greater degree of legal and political scrutiny than ever before, which is probably a good thing for all of us. The same technology that threatens to invade our privacy can also gather information about them. GPS units in squad cars can record exacting minutae on an Officer's every move, and the routine videotaping of traffic stops can also serve to indict the police.

An average citizen like myself can nowadays turn on his home computer and find an unprecendented amount of specific information relating to police conduct from all over the nation, a thing that would have been all but impossible before the internet.


Probably I would start with a close to zero tolerance policy on Cops letting other Cops slide on offences that would earn a regular citizen a citation or arrest, including the de-facto and apparently nearly ubiquitous "violate traffic laws free" policy prevalent in many areas.

Secondly I would like to see sentences subsequent to convictions imposed that were consistently comparable to or more severe than those which would be imposed on a regular non-LEO citizen for a similar offense.

I can think of a number of cases where various LEO's caught in felonies walked after a light or probated sentence. Being an LEO involves a near-sacred trust, perhaps there should be penalties imposed specifically in recognition of the breaking of that trust.

That being said, I don't claim to know all the answers any more than does the next guy.

Birdwatcher

Aww heck FreeMe, things ain't all that bad down here (I hope <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ).

Let me put it this way; I don't feel any more at risk in Texas than I did in New York State. I do enjoy my less-impeded Second Amendment rights down here.

Birdwatcher

I would love to see the citizens of the Metro Detroit area police themselves for even just one night. Perhaps if I were on the Hubble telescope looking down. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />




Mac

Hunting is not a matter of Life or Death; It's much more important than that!

Matthias,

Please lay off the Scottish cuisine! There is absolutely nothing wrong with a wee dram of Glenmorangie! Throw in a steak and you'll have a fine meal. Eggs, sausage, and some fried tomatoes in the morning - what's not to like about that. What about oatmeal(porridge)? I've eaten haggis and suprisingly, it's not bad.

Gentlemen,

I posted on alleged police brutality some time ago and it has evolved into several different threads. Lets call it quits please. Those of us who've worked the job know what it's like. We are also private citizens with families and can understand some of the other points made. We are not perfect. We took an oath to do a very difficult job and we feel we shouldn't be categorized as scum for no reason other than what the ACLU or the liberal media says.


Mac

Mac: They already tried that, remember Devil's Night 1984? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I couldn't have said it better. Somebody is going to get shot if my door is broken into, at any time of day or night. My assumption is that my government is not a tyranny, and thus will not engage in this activity. It must therefore be the bad guys intent on doing me harm. Besides, being a peaceful and law-abiding person, the police are the last people I expect to break my door down.

Exactly, Joe. You are making some great points that need to be made more often. The guys who are calling you a nut are the one's who concern me.

Exactly. This is something that most Americans cannot seem to grasp anymore. The idea of a police force is a modern one, and historically more associated with tyranny than liberty. In a free society (as we once had) there is an elected official called the Sheriff. He enforces the laws, and is subject to being voted out on a regular basis if he abuses his authority. If he needs extraordinary assistance from time to time, he anounces the need for armed citizens to bring their weapons (look up "posse cumitatus" in Black's Law Dictionary), and he organizes the show of force in such a way as to minimize violence. Regular Joes from the community are far less likely to shoot granny after breaking down her door. If he needs a couple of full-timers, he applies for the additional funds to hire them, but the important thing is that he is extremely accountable to his local community. He is on a short leash, and that is as it should be. What we call "police power" is not something that should be given to anyone not immediately answerable to the people. This whole notion of a police force is a modern one, and it has proven itself a bad idea in a free society. In a free society, most people protect themselves, and there is little need for MP5 armed commandoes running around blasting doors down and shooting granny in her PJs.

Come on now. You guys can't really be that naive to think that the good ol' Sheriff system wasn't as corrupt as corrupt can be? The good ol' sheriff was a lord in the rural counties of the south. He actually kept people from voting if they weren't the right color or nationality. It was his duty. He fed at the trough of kickbacks and protection money and cared little for civil liberties and things he didn't have to understand because "he was elected", even if he owed his existence to crooked politics.



And this is coming from somebody who had the misfortune to get into a fist fight with a sheriff's brother who was poaching on my property.

So you think people are less likely to abuse their official police powers if they are NOT subject to periodic re-election? If that's the case, maybe we shouldn't elect our presidents either. Make them less corrupt that way. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Frankly, yours was the argument put forth by the "black-shirts" under Mussalini. "We can't trust this elected office system. Too corrupt. We need men of action who don't fear the electorate's wrath."

No, my point is that history does not support the argument that an elected police official is less inclined to be corrupt. In fact, there might be an argument to the opposite. But it is clear that depending on the constituency and the traditions of the jurisdiction, elected officials can be prone to institutionalized corruption. We had an issue with our sheriff just recently. He allowed ATFB and FBI officials to come in and terrorize a citizen based on information gained from the guy's ex-wife. Turned out he broke no law, but was treated like the worse of the worse, and with no warrant. They complained, but re-elected the a-hole.

Yes, but, Muleskinner, even if what you say is true, you should take note that I emphasized the word LOCAL. When elected officials are local, even if corrupt, you always have the option of moving to a less corrupt county, or even state. When police action becomes increasingly federalized, where are you going to move to? But I still maintain that the ability to vote out the sheriff was, and in some places remains, a check on local abuse by law enforcement. Why would you wish to eliminate your ability to "vote the bums out" by substituting police commissioners (who are not elected and cannot be removed by the people of a community) for local elected sheriffs? If a sheriff has, by corruption, somehow thwarted the majority's ability to vote him out, the answer is to address the corruption, not to make the guy immune to the will of the people, which is what you seem to be advocating.

The reason I think Cossatotjoe has "nutty" tendencies is because he believes every last one of the LEOs in this country is rotten to the core. I have a huge problem with an outlandish statement like that.

Quote: "For most of the history of the world, there was no such thing as an organized police force. For the most part, we got along fine."

For most of the history of the world, there was no such thing as multi-million people metropolitan centers. Think about it.
You gotta admit that socially and demographically, the world has changed tremendously in the last 50-200 years. You can't apply millenia old wisdoms (that I agree with for the most part) to a new situation that the world has never seen.
Please take a look at Russia after the central government collapse.
No government involvement there. Should be heaven, shouldn't it?

Who said anything about destroying government or law enforcement? Not me. I am a firm believer in the need for government and law enforcement, just not tyranny. There is a difference, and it seems that too few know that difference anymore. Only under tyranny does government require a police force to look and act like a military force.