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

I read him just the opposite. He kept repeating and emphasizing that most cops are regular guys just making a buck and supporting a family. The problem, he stated, was that too few reflect on their role in a machine which is becoming increasingly tyrannical. He makes the point that most Weimer German police, who were still on duty during the round-up of Jews, were also probably just regular folks who went along to get along, just doing their job, not questioing the role they were playing in a growing tyranny. They were, after all, just enforcing the law.

Quotes:

I despise cops and I despise their superior attitude.

Most have clearly crossed the line and consider themselves to be our "masters", most of us have allowed ourselves to slip into the the "serf" role.

If you beleive me when I characterize my belief that the system is increasingly evil, corrupt, and unnaccountable, then you shouldn't have much problem understanding why I don't have a very high opinion of someone who voluntarily decides to become part of such a system...
End quotes.

Well, Hawkeye, that is all I could find. I apologize for messing up. I think I really had another poster in mind with what I wrote. Apologies to you and Cossatotjoe.

Matt, who are you quoting there?

The three or so quotes I had in that post were from Joe.
But, like I said, I was thinking of somebody else when I said Joe despises all cops. I apologize for that.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, I missed this one the first time around until it got quoted.

To the best of my knowledge, after disease and periodic bouts of famine, death at the hands of other humans has been a leading cause of death over MOST of human history. This being true until perhaps the last 100-200 years in the West and up until the present in much of the poorer nations of the world.

Certainly this high killing rate has proven true in most surviving or until-recently surviving hunter/garthering and subsistence agriculture societies, even those which appeared outwardly peaceful. If disease or famine didn't carry you off, all it took was one violent altercation over the course of a lifetime to become a murder statistic, which in areas of low population density may amount to only one killing every few years.

Likewise, most of our own Western history has been replete with accounts of footpads, vagabonds, blackguards, robbers and highwaymen of various sorts accosting the lonely traveller. Look up the history of the Natchez Trace on our own frontier for examples of folks getting along "just fine" without law enforcement.

Even given a historical elcted Sherriff and Citizen Posse under ideal conditions, I believe history shows that such bodies OFTEN committed acts that would be considered entirely illegal today. Sure they didn't kick down Granny Smith's door, but they might lynch a stranger on suspicion, and tolerate plainly immoral/illegal activities if enough of the community derived income from such (to quote a classic country song: "strangers don't come down off Rockytop, reckon they never will").

It is irrelevant to take the example of crime rates in rural societies as a model for the whole. Crime rates in rural societies in MOST places are low (even in Africa, I was there),

Even in rural societies in the absence of an organized legal system enforced by some policing body, it became necessary everywhere for armed groups of neighbors to periodically take up weapons and hunt down miscreants, as was done so often in our own American history. Our modern term for this is vigilante justice and we find it wanting.

I think folks forget just how many centuries it took to formulate modern Western legal systems, we really do stand on the shoulders of many giants, large and small.

Perhaps Crossatjoe did indeed enjoy an idyllic rural existence, but there WAS a police force, maybe not within 30 minutes response time but they were there, had been for years, and did react to evildoers. If one of Crossatjoe's neighbors had knocked him off or stolen his car, that person would have had real reason to fear eventual apprehension by said police.

I do not live in an idyllic rural area, I live in a middle-to-lower-income urban setting. Actually, in the absence of police I don't believe there would be TOTAL chaos. People are less inclined to commit crimes upon people they know, and most of humans everywhere are not actually violent psychopaths. We would do what people have always done, trust and band together with the people we know and be suspicious of strangers. Eventually control would probably devolve into the hands of the powerful, resulting in the sort of actual or de-facto feudalism that has prevailed in most human societies throughout history and still does in many Third World Nations.

I share Muleskinner's skepticism of the inherent superiority of locally elected law enforcement officials, one only has to look at the past history of MANY areas (not just Texas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ) in the USA.

I figure what has been MOST effective in raising the standards of law enforcement of all sorts has been an increasingly educated populace, an increasingly powerful free press, and above all improved means for the communication and disemination of information. Like the internet for example.

Birdwatcher

Amen brother.

If being subject to election on a regular basis is the cause of corruption, perhaps we should get rid of representative government on all levels. Is this what you are advocating? According to you, local elections result in corrupt politics, so let's get rid of all local elections. If it works locally, perhaps it will work nationally too. Let's get rid of elections on all levels to eliminate government corruption altogether. What you are talking about, if we follow your argument to its logical end, is a return to despotism. Personally, I am not for it. This nation was founded on the principle that anyone in a position of official power over the people needs to be subject to election, and that had traditionally included (especially so) the heads of law enforcement.

But this is only true because the good cops that we know today will resign, gradually being replaced by thugs. The non-thugs that do not resign will be of the sort who just go along to get along. That said, I agree with you. Tyranny invariably arrives at your front door wearing a policeman's badge and uniform.

Now that makes sense without painting all with the black brush.

Hawk,

Democracy is the best thing going, but it is prone to subversion. Why should I move if a thug wins office locally, and proceeds to consolidate his powerbase and ensure himself lifelong re-election? All too often, name recognition goes a lot farther than rationality and memory when it comes to local elections. Being able to call in the state police or the feds when civil rights are being abused is one of the blessings we have now, that didn't always exist. Still, it ain't perfect, and I am suspicious of any local fiefdom, and always make a point of knowing who's related to the local lords.



And term limits do make sense, at every level of government.

Birdwatcher (me) wrote....



To which Hawkeye replied...



Umm... I dunno where I advocated "an end to representative government and a return to despotism" (I'm sorta reminded of the scene in "Animal House" where the frat members start humming the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or some such and file out of Dean Wormers office <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ).

I thought I was seconding Muleskinner's observation that, just because LEO's are locally elected, doesn't mean a sort of civil Shangri-La necessarily results.

To the contrary, various County Sherriff's Department personnel around the nation have historically been responsible for a multitude of offenses, from notorious cases like the lynching of civil rights workers in 1960's Mississippi to recent local (S.Texas) incidences of misappropriating siezed funds, shaking down travelling motorists, and providing drugs to and having sexual relations with jail inmates (all of these S. Texas incidents within the last five years).

A common theme (including that notorious Mississippi case) to all of these is that is was NOT outraged locals who eventually brought justice, but rather Federal agencies like the FBI, and all of these offenders are all still members of their local community today, if not put on a pedestal, at least not ostracised by their longtime friends and neighbors.

The most egregious case I am aware of happened to an aquaintance of mine, a landowner close to the Border, who after many veiled threats was shot in the arm with a .22 out in an open field one day while putting on his hat. The shot had to be from at least 200-300 yards away and under the circumstances was possibly an attempted head shot.

My friend did not hear any gunshots nor suspect he had been shot until a little while later. It was not hunting season. Initially he was wondering what had hit his arm hard enough to cause bleeding, the wound was shallow and the bullet recovered. (might sound like I'm BS-ing here but I am NOT making this up).

He believes to this day that it was a local Deputy that did it, that man a known marksman and firearms enthusiast and since arrested (by the Feds) and serving a long prison term for involvement in drug trafficking. The point of this being that the Deputy's children went to high school with my friend's kids, and everybody knows everybody but STILL these things can happen.

The flip side is of course all the good incidents that never make the news, and all the good local LEO's doing what they do every day. Perhaps our present system is the best we can hope for, local law enforcement agencies subject to scrutiny by Federal ones. Certainly the FBI and the Justice Department (whatever their own checkered history) have been a Godsend in South Texas, setting up stings and corruption investigations that have nabbed a number of crooked LEO's and even a couple of DA's.

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher, so, if I understand you correctly, you are saying it is better if we the people cannot remove the head of local law enforcement with elections? Which do you prefer, to be able to vote out the head of local law enforcement, or not to be able to vote out the head of local law enforcement?

I have no doubt that corruption exists in all levels of government. Whenever power is given, there is corruption. That's why you don't give anyone much power without them being subject to being voted out of office on a regular basis.

Birdwatcher

You demonstrate the lamentable trend of associating or mistaking security with liberty. They are distinctly different. I as correctly stated, the idea of oraganized law enforcement is an entirely modern concept. For most of human history there were no organized police forces and we got along fine. You correctly noted that there were many instances of violence and other corruption that occurred in the past and used those past crimes as justification for our current law enforcement system. In order for this view to make sense, you would need to demonstrate how things are better now. Human nature being what it is, there has been and always will be predators. It may be safer to travel today than it was 200 years ago, but back then one didn't have to worry about his 13 year-old daughter being kidnapped by some sicko she met on the Internet. You may have been more likely to be Shanghaied and sold into slavery on a ship 200 years ago, but you didn't have to worry about your wife being abducted by a serial killer who could be at your home today and 1000 miles away in a few hours. The fact is, bad things happened then and they happen now. Increased law enforcement has not reduced overall crime one bit. The only difference between then and now is that in every city, county, and state of the United States there are police agencies that have the power to enter into your home, with very little probable cause, arrest you and shoot you if you resist. They could be dead wrong, but if you resist you will be shot just the same and the question will be as to why you resisted instead of why they were there. I do not view this as a favorable development. You have faith that government and its enforcers can make things better, I do not. Only two things can result in the end. Either the government enforcers will become frustrated at their inability to stop evil human behavior and seek powers that ultimately errode all of our rights in an attempt to stop evil doers, or they will become outright evil themselves and seek the power for its own sake. Either one is bad for you and me.

As to your naive view that the Feds are cleaning up local enforcement, you are mistaken. It amounts to two criminal gangs going at each other and the Feds are the most powerful. Sure, that is an overdramatization, but an increased Federal presence is bad for you and me.

Finally, much of your view of authority rests with your culture and ancestory. Mine is Scots-Irish from the Southern U.S.. No culture has a healthier disrespect for authority from Old Country right up to the present. Government is viewed much differently in the Northeast where the old Puritan influence of knowing what is best for ones neighbors and using government to see that they get it is strong. Hispanics and Blacks have a more trusting view of authority and look to the Federal level since they feel they have been held down by local elites.

Sure, these are generalizations, but I do believe they generally hold true <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. Now, the real question is is it right for a powerful central government to hold all of the disparate elements together when they may have different ideas about government? My country went to war to have a say in how we ruled ourselves and we were brought back kicking and screaming at the barrel of a gun. Our central philosophy in our government now is the old Puritan streak of doing what is best for your neighbor whether he wants it or not. That is the philosophy in our policing as well. That is what I hate. I hate the condescending attitude that I need protection whether I realize it or not. I hate the guys who say, "Just wait until you need us...or "you have no idea what it is like". To me, it is all part of the "We know what is best for you crowd". All I want is to be left alone and I will leave others alone. I am quite capable of defending myself and my family. I do not want someone to enforce laws. I believe police forces should be limited to investigatory agencies not enforcement agencies. I do not want someone who can arrest me or give me a ticket for shooting a pellet gun in my backyard. Sure, if I misuse it and hit someone, then I can be sued and made to pay seriously, but not some busybody who masquerades behind the notion of "Community Protection". I find police an insult to my notion of what a free man should have to endure. My view towards crime is that if it does no harm to others, then sin away. I am for complete social and economic liberty. I hate Liberals and Conservatives equally. Liberals want social freedom but want to reach into my pocket to give it. Conservatives say they want economic freedom but seldom deliver and they worry too much about that someone may be having a good time somewhere. If someone wants to kill themselves with heroin, it is not my place to tell them they can't. I don't think it is right and they will be held accountable by God, but I am not God, and neither is the Government (something many seem to forget). Likewise, don't force me pay taxes so that some ingrate can have a check because he is too lazy to work or his parents didn't teach him how. If you don't work, you shouldn't eat.

I want to be left alone, and for that, I will work hard, be productive, be charitable towards my fellow citizens, and strive to treat others as I would be treated. It just seems that to many people are concerned with if the neighbor might have a nasty cocaine habit, or he is driving 80 in a 70, or something else. Mind your own business and you will be amazed at how much easier things are. The police are the instrument that the busybodies use to intrude upon our lives.

But because I want to be left alone, treat others as I wish to be treated, accord no man any special respect until he has demonstrated why it should be so, disdain badges of human authority, and don't care what my neighbor does as long as it doesn't hurt me or my family, I am the crazy one and the one who is out of place in the modern world. Hopefully, the end is near.

Let's see if I got this right, Joe...

You think you should be allowed to shoot the pellet gun (or whatever, I suppose) in your backyard without interference, UNTIL your errent round causes my kid physical harm. You think it should be okay to drive dangerously, UNTIL you cause a wreck that kills my family.

Any system to coerce you to not do these things is immoral. And I can always sue you for civil damages after the fact.

...Is that about right?

-FreeMe

Oh brother.... Hawkeye and Joe...



I don't recall saying that, I thought I said that a locally elected Police Force has not been without problems either.



I thought I was merely pointing out the benefits of a modern police force and that the "good old days" were anything but. I do not think I have been remiss on this thread in pointing out the past shortcomings and potential for abuse of power that exists in modern law enforcement. Personally I prefer security AND liberty. I don't believe the two are necessarily incompatible.



I disagree, as you correctly point out, there were bad people then and now, true my daughter wouldn't meet a sicko on the internet, and a serial killer would only have to flee as far as the next county to be equally remote. One difference is that, nowadays, I can call 911. Doesn't mean I don't need to know how to defend myself, it does mean that I can summon up folks who's specialty is finding the bad guys, and often do. I do think you are viewing history through rose-colored glasses. There are detailed sociological comparisons of crime rates throughout history out there, I just would rather not dig 'em up right now, Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.



Me neither. However you do not mention the fact here that our police do not yet operate in a vacuum, in the real world there is a free press, ourraged voters, interested critics (like the ACLU) and folks like Dewy, Screwem and Howe, personal injury lawyers (you do allude to lawyers later on). In the real world, Cops have to worry about all of these.



Agreed, except I don't view this as an either/or proposition, rather I think the the second follows the first. Probably you will think me naive, but I don't believe we are there yet or that such is necessarily inevitable.



Geeze, you sure are making a lot of presumptions in this next series of thoughts. What? there are or were no Scots-Irish suck-ups? and only Scots-Irish are skeptical of authority? and a modern Confederate government wouldn't be essentially identical in all specifics to our modern Federal one? Personally I'm sort of rootless, but I do flatter myself with the belief that I have the ability to think for myself and to regard authority figures with a healthy skepticism despite my lack of Southern Scots-Irishness. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Oh yeah, in my experience many individuals of all ethnicites looking to the Federal Govt are looking for a handout, period. I dunno that this necessarily involves blind trust in "the man". Also, a great many of the Minority folks I know seem pretty distrusting of ANYONE in authority.



I picked this sentence out because it seemed to be the gist. What if a bunch of kids pick up my neighbor's nasty cocaine habit, get addicted and ruin their lives? Can everyone be EVERYWHERE to protect their families? Also I know a place where everyone drives however the heck they want, its called "Mexico", did you ever drive in Mexico?

Joe, when I see the ol' red and blues flashing in my rear view mirror I resent it same as anyone else. When a rude Cop banged on my door early one morning looking for a delinquent (wrong address) I resented that too. The police can be a real pain, and in many ways are intrisically threatening to our rights and liberty. Near as I can tell, prob'ly the only thing worse in a real-world modern society would be life without 'em.

Just my humble opinion.

Birdwatcher

Nathaniel
Chingachgook. He warned me about people like you.

Cora
Oh, he did.

Nathaniel
He said: "Do not try to understand them,"

Cora
What?

Nathaniel
Yes, "and do not try to make them understand you. That is because they are a breed apart and make no sense."

Birdwatcher and others:

Once again, I vow that this is my last post (We'll see if I can stick to it).

I beleive that it is better that every kid in the neighborhood become a cocaine addict, etc.... than to infringe on one person's rights unnecessarily.

You see, when you start to go down the road of limiting behavior based on what might happen, then anything is justifiable. If you can prohibit me from shooting a pellet gun in my back yard, then why not just prohibit me from having one period, because, after all, I could go ahead and shoot it anyway and I could put someone's eye out, therefore, it would be better if I just didn't have one. They're not of much use anyway for any practical person. It isn't that far of a step and it is what we see with gun control advocates today.

If we are to live in a free society, we must trust people to make reasonable and rational decisions. Sure, many won't and we must deal with them when it happens. However, when we cross the line and prohibit behavior based on what might happen, we have crossed the Rubicon so to speak.

You cannot have true freedom if you regulate human behavior in the name of security.

Joe...unfortunately, living in ANY community means that individuals must subject themselves to the what's good for the community, not what's good for the individual. That's sorta how this whole living-together thing works.
Owning guns and snorting cocaine are not the same by a far shot. It doesn't take a lot of brains to figure out that cocaine (or whatever else) is bad not only for the individual but also for the community. Therefore, it is best to make it unavailable. I have a 2 year old son. I do not baby-proof my house, never have. If he feels he needs to touch the porcellain nativity scene, then he will have to experience a minor ass-whooping. I hope he learns not to touch it. Much better than me baby-proofing the house. However...this is a graded approach. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I will not have knives or guns or similar items laying around so he can "learn his lesson". It's not all black and white.
So, here is one of our fundamental disagreements that's causing a lot of the arguing: You believe that it is better for the whole neighboorhood full of kids to cocaine-addicted than it would be for you to have a law imposed on your liberties.
I do not believe that. I would agree with some instances, but not this one. Why? Because "the learning experience" for the kids invariably will end in death and injury for a few of them. Which could have been prevented.

One other thing you mentioned: You said that we really aren't any safer today than we were 200 years ago. Well, try to look at it this way? Where would we be in our crime statistics without an organized police force? (Especially in Metropolitan Areas) Again, I point the finger to post-1990 Russia.
Like I said, this is not all black and white. With some common sense and a graded approach to different levels of problems and localities, sensible solutions can be had.
That said, I think it would be much better for this country to have much of Government shifted to a local (or State) level. The closer it is to the people, the more adapted the governing is to the situation. Also, it'd be more accountable.
But...I personally do not have any hopes of that actually happening (Since history is lacking such a precentent in its annals).

If the Bible is to be believed, there was a time when there was only one law and man broke it. As the centuries have passed we have created more and more laws thereby creating more and more criminals and more supposed reasons to have the Barneys slinking about.

Jesus said, "Before the law there was no sin." If we are plagued with criminals and high crime rates it is because our system tries to legislate the very air we breath and then put a bunch of half-wits out there with guns and clubs to enfoce the new laws.

Many laws, many criminals.
No laws, no criminals.

We only have a high crime rate because we have so many laws.

Sorry Joe. Your definition of "free society" looks completely uncivilized. Besides, the authority that has the power to punish wrongdoing can become abusive of that power, even under the conditions you espouse.

There is a tendency among many folks to view all things in "either/or" absolutes. This is not a healthy thing. Most things are better with moderation. This very subject is a perfect example.

All of this is why we have a government that can modify law. We are constantly learning and adapting (or we *should* be). Simultaniously maintaining liberty and civility requires constant attention. But many wish that we could simply have absolutes (absolute freedom, in your case) and be done with it. The real world ain't that easy, and never will be. Even the creators of our constitution expected it to be added to over time.

Oh yeah - that constitution is the one that was created for a "rightious people". It was admitted even at that time that freedom would deteriorate as soon as the populace strayed from rightiousness.

I would agree with you that we should not have to have laws restricting things like driving speed and drug abuse - but the catch is that we should not NEED these laws, because a rightious people would rarely act in ways that put others needlessly at risk.

You cannot cure society's ills by decriminalizing every "minor" thing. Your problem is you don't see the proper relationship of cause and effect. At least up to this point, a democratic government generally needs to justify proposed new laws in order for them to be passed (I know, there are exceptions). No government could ever justify such encroachments on freedom (extensive police powers), without it's people giving it reason. Many of these "onerous" laws have been thrust upon us because we give them an excuse. No, it doesn't always make it right - but that's how it gets started.

Freedom can and must be moderated. Even at the very beginning of US history we were moderating freedom. Our very constitution is a product of moderated freedom. If you don't understand that, it's time for you to go back and study the history of it. The Founders recognized that the States under the Articles of Federation would not survive long. They would fall prey to each other and other nations. A certain amount of freedom was exchanged for security - regardless what was said about that. If it were not so, there would have been no need for a federal Constitution at all.

There are things that can be judged by absolutes, but this is not one of them (in *this* world, anyway). It is not a matter of "yes" or "no" - it is a matter of degree. There is no "slippery slope" - only a willingness to maintain liberty, or a lack of willingness to maintain liberty.

Why do we have these problems which bother you so much? Because - right here, right now - the people, as a whole, lack the will to maintain liberty. THAT is THE problem.

No amount of cop bashing or restricting of police powers can get around that. Even if you could turn back the clock TODAY, and severely limit police powers - the state of society, as it is, would allow a hasty return to the status-quo. The ONLY way to effectively fix the police (or eliminate the need or desire for them), is to fix society.

You show me a society that is so responsible and rightious that neighbors generally settle their conflicts amicably amongst themselves, and serious misdeeds are rare - and I'll show you a society that needs no policing. It is a rare and fleeting thing, indeed. The "American Experiment" is proof of that.

-FreeMe