In one of the threads below, I posted a pretty inflammatory post about cops. I don't back down from it and I feel that way. However, perhaps, it didn't express the true depth or nature of my frustration and cynicism.

Yes, I understand that there are good, honest, hardworking cops who only enforce the laws. However, the laws have become oppressive and unfair. Does it not bother any of you LEOs that a farmer who may have violated some obscure environmental law can be raided by police and federal agents in combat gear? Or a tax evader can have his front door blown off by cops and agents? Or a blind man in California can be shot as he comes down the stairs carrying a blackpowder pistol in an attempt to defend himself when police raid his home because he had one marijuana plant growing on his 650 acre property? I'm sure all the agents and police in these events were nice guys with families who were just doing their jobs, it still didn't help their victims, the last guy is dead. Like it or not, LEOs, you are the enforcers and the symbols of these laws. Aggresive policing of these laws results in needless conflicts and raised tensions. When will the police start taking responsibility for these sorts of things and stop hiding behind the "we don't make the laws" dodge. I'm sure the Polizei who started working when the Kaiser was in power, through the Weimar Republic, and ended his career rounding up Jews to send to the camps said the same thing. And I am sure that he was a decent guy who had a family and kids and drank beer on the weekends with his buddies.

Fact is, people fear the cops today because they know that there are many laws that can result in otherwise good and harmless people running into conflict with cops. They know that given the slightest excuse, cops will exercise their authority with the maximum amount of force. Some cops revel in this fear and the fact that they represent the power of an awesome state apparatus. Even those of you who don't think about it all that much, have to, upon reflection admit that you embody this power and that there is great potential for abuse. But what is abuse? Merely doing your job and following the laws as written can result in otherwise harmless people being arrested and imprisoned, often for crimes that were not crimes six months ago or for things that aren't crimes across the state line. Do these people deserve to be imprisoned or harassed? How does it make you feel to have a part in that?

LEOs and others claim that we make our own laws by elections? Well, how many of you actually believe that? Even if completely true, do you want the absolute say in what is right and wrong based on the opinion of 51 percent of the registered voters who bothered to vote? Do you really think you have any say in determining obscure regulatory rules and laws?

All of this is to say that LEOs represent the sharp edge of an oppressive centralized government. They may be good people and they may try to do their job as well as possible, but they cannot get away from what they are. It gets worse continually. As to protecting me from bad people, well, I'm glad they're doing it. I really don't feel I need the protection, but is nice. However, I don't feel it is worth the cost in civil liberties. Afterall, I hear that street crime was very low in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

I don't fear cops. In fact, I trust 'em. Never been one either and none have ever been family members. I am sorry you are so paranoid.

Man, what a load of crap. At the least you sound like someone who has something to hide, or ran into a bad cop at some point and have never gotten over it. We have all run into one at some time, but a few choose to generalize and preach that all cops are tainted, power-hungry, twisted bastards. I bet all teachers are that way too, because you got in trouble by one of them for smoking at school. You need to lighten up on it and realize that not all of these people are as dimented as you'd like to paint them to be. If your attitude is like this every time you run into a person in authority, it seems pretty clear that you likely have seen the tougher side of them. They have no idea what's going on in that skull of yours, but it's very likely not something to warm up to. Get off the paranoid Gestapo thing and grow up a little.

Joe,

How any moons are there in your planet?

Our cops come armed to the teeth when enforcing the law for the
simple reason that they have to or get sent home with their
tails between their legs or in body bags. The bad guys are
very well armed and mean as snakes.

The only "solution" is to disarm the citizenry at large and
this only means the law-abiding citizenry. The criminal rest
then can have their way with society as they are doing now in
Australia and in the UK, where cops, as they would in your
world, go unarmed.

It's a war, not a tea party.

1B

Cossatotjoe,

Lets take some of your points(?) and look them over.



And the LEO's that actually shot the guy knew he was blind right? What did they see but an armed man coming at them. He could have been anybody. What about the officers? Is it fair that every time an officer has to use his/her weapon that they face a lawsuit? Isn't it bad enough that they feel terrible for having to take a life that they end up worrying about keeping their home and family due to a lawsuit? Why not try walking a mile in our shoes first.



Just how would YOU go about enforcing the laws? Do you really think that walking up to a 240 lb. man that is beating the c*#@ out of his wife/girlfriend and saying "Kind Sir could you PLEASE refrain from what you're doing and come over here and talk to me for a moment." is going to work? Give me a break. Do you actually believe that LEO's make the laws?



You have attended school haven't you? Laws are made by elected officials that YOU(by you I mean people) help put in office. You don't like a law, go out and work to change the law. Don't blame the ones sworn to enforce them.



This needs more explanation from you. You like to be protected from bad people but don't think you need it. Yet why is it people like you are the ones that holler the loudest for a LEO when they are getting their rights violated.



And you believe what the Nazi Propaganda machine put out when they came to power? You don't think that before the breakup of the Soviet Union that they didn't have crime? Their crime rate was and is near as high as many areas here. You need to grow up and get your facts straight. Lawdog

Two of my favorite old proverbs are:

"Who guards the guards"

and

"Good iron is not used for nails, nor good men for [enforcers]."

I'm not paraniod, neither am I some kiss @$$ cop wannabe.

CJ's right - it's NOT just cops.

Now that I got your attention, I'd like to expand on part of Lawdog's post...



Too many citizens think that just because THEIR guy lost (or even won) the election that they have or need no say in the legislative process. The game is NOT over the day of the election. Freedom requires CONSTANT active participation in government (politics).

The reason we have so much done TOO us by politicians is because they know that relatively few people are really watching, and even fewer will take effective action to right governmental abuses. So it ain't just cops - it's US.

Sure - I've heard all the excuses, like "most folks don't have the time or money to be politically active". The truth is - in THIS country, at least - MOST OF US have the time and/or the money to make a difference. We just don't care enough. We'd rather spend our leisure time in front of the boob tube or down at the bowling alley. We'd rather spend all our extra cash on another toy or another adventure.

Friends, I see this pathetic stuff all the time. I am constantly involved in the political system - all year, every year. It amazes me to see 1) how much difference a few dedicated people can make, and 2) how pitifully few people are willing to get actively involved.

In fact - the folks who are most likely to get involved, in many cases, are the ones who don't mind seeing YOUR rights go down the toilet! They are the ones looking for a handout or for a Big Brother. WHILE YOU SLEEP, they plan and execute their next "improvements".

The kicker is - THERE AIN'T THAT MANY OF THEM! We (freedom lovers) could outnumber them easily, if we would just get off our duffs (or spend less time in the woods) and make a showing.

Legislatures and City councils do respond to pressure from the people - in spite of the nay-saying that you may hear (or speak). I SEE IT. I LIVE IT. You cannot convince me otherwise. And if you try, I will know that you have little or no experience in the matter.

You cannot send your $34 a year to the NRA and expect the NRA to do all the work. It takes more than that. It takes some sacrifice. It may mean you don't get to take that fishing trip sometimes. Or you can't have that new wide-screen TV. You may have to take heat from the wife and kids while you give them a civics lesson in why it is more important for you to take a day off work than to buy that new "thing", or to spend some vacation time lobbying for freedom instead of Disneyland.

If you do less, while piling on the cops for all the abuses of government, then IMO you are guilty of hypocrisy. You want the LEO community to take all the heat for resisting bad law? Well, ain't that just the way we (The People) are.

I put to you that if we can't do better than that, then we DESERVE what we are stuck with. And no amount of cop-bashing will help us.

Some of you may say, "I do my part. I write letters. I attend legislature and city council meetings. I lobby for freedom. I participate in protest, etc." To those, I say - "great!" But you and I both know that we are in the minority - EVEN HERE.

We can make all the excuses and accusations that we want - but the bottom line is "...the people get the government they deserve". Freedom is EARNED - not inherited!

FreeMe (rant at idle)

Haggis YOU gaurd the gaurds. Have you manned your post (besides complaining here)?

As to your second quote - I don't know or care where it came from. It is just a quote - probably from some other mope who thinks/thought himself a "good man" (your invitation to prove me wrong) - and likely out of context, besides.

-FreeMe

8ball, I think what the man is trying to say is city councils and other law making branches of local and state governments require police officers to write citations for little chicken shiz laws they make to gather revenew from the masses for their expenditures. I hate the seat belt law or the helmit law, this infringes on my personal choice and is of no concern of anyone else. I don't know of anyone getting free medical attention but hear a lot from politicians about it. A citation regardless of guilt decided in court still calls for court fees even if the case is dropped. That's legal graft any way you put it. If an officer writes a citation and the defendant beats the case the officer should pay the court costs, also attorneys fees. Would stop a lot of legal rip offs. -- no <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Both quotes have been around for a few thousands of years.

As for the first quote, I'm doing my best to spread the word that the guards can't be trusted right here.

As for the second quote, it's from a Chinese philosopher some 2500 years ago. Its truth is what has kept it around for so long.

See? There's another one of those quotes that give me the willies, sorta like the "Why would you object to a search?" I quoted from a certain ex-cop.

Seems like responses to these Cop threads here fall into two camps, "Cops are wonderful" vs Cops are a "waste of skin". Might be relevant to point out some of my own experiences...

In twenty-plus years of teaching I've known a lot of High School Cops. Some are great, they become community police in the truest sense of the word, they KNOW the kids, good and bad, and many kids come to them for help and advice on legal matters. On the other hand, I've known of two such Cops taking advantage of the eighteen year-old Senior girls, one of whom comically skipped town with his wife after a girl turned up pregnant (the other was fired).

Along the same lines as School Cops, at school I have met some very fine and caring Gang Unit Cops whose work brought them into frequent contact with minors (one of which Cops was an attractive blonde with her own gun collection. Man, half the guys at the range were totally smitten.... sigh!).

I have taught many delinquent kids who had frequent dealings with police. By and large they would give honest assessments of the Cops they had dealt with, some Cops were respected, a few were well known scrotes.

Through these same kids I have learned two things never to say to Cops: "Shouldn't you be off eating donuts somewhere?" and "Can we wait until the REAL police get here"., which resulted in about an extra $300 in citations on the one hand, and some extra bruises on the other.

Along those same lines the funniest tale was related by a tough gangster kid well known to me for years, he had assaulted another kid with a baseball bat one afternoon after the other kid had driven by his house and shot at it some nights before. Leaving the scene of the assault he was apprehended by two Cops who, to hear him tell it, began to rough him up on the right side of the cruiser away from the video camera. Repeatedly he tried to throw himself in front of the camera to get it on tape only to be dragged back every time by the Cops.

I do know of a tragedy where a troubled and slightly retarded young man and a young Police Officer both died because of inept mismanagement of a warrant. The kid, who had been raped in jail, was being picked up for a minor parole violation and prefered to die rather than go back. Unfortunately he took a young Cop with him. The arresting Officer was just serving a warrant originating from another Law Enforcement agency and had no clue what he was walking in to or the background of the kid.

A family aquaintance was for a while a suspect in a violent felony investigation. During this time the man, who had no prior criminal record, endured repeated visits at his office workplace from a Detective working the case such that he lost his job. By time it was all over he was destitute and living with his parents.

One case I am embittered about is that of a young man well known to me who's life has been absolutely ruined by an aggressive Detective following the letter rather than the spirit of the law, who took advantage of an otherwise law-abiding young man's trust and naivite to obtain incriminating statements absent a lawyer (the irony being that any of the actual criminals I have taught would have known enough to "have the right to remain silent").

Didn't just ruin the kid, ruined his working-class parents too when they hired a lawyer after the fact. In this case the punishment definitely did NOT fit the crime. I am reluctant to go into specifics about this case on a public forum but I do wonder how a certain Detective manages to look at himself in the mirror.

Birdwatcher

LAwdog;
cossatojoe brings up a good point: what exactly is the criteria for involving local law enforcement on a raid? I mean, I recognize the cases that he's referring to and I've always wondered why the local yokels participated. Do the feds come in and say, "We need help with another drug dealing, baby raping, gun-totin' looney. Bring all of your SWAT stuff and let's go get this scumbag!!" or what? Are the local cops acting under orders? Do they have the choice to sit it out? On the surface, it seems like it comes down to "just following orders" a lousy defense for a soldier that killed civilians for no reason, and an even lousier one for a civilian police force.

I've never been a cop, don't want to be, and hope I never need one bad enough to call 911. But I sometimes wonder, do any of them ever question the Constitutionality of what they're doing? "No knock" warrants and confiscation of private property for crimes not yet tried in court are two of the reasons that the colonies revolted against the British. The cops I've known and associated with are above average in intelligence and political awareness, it seems inevitable that they ask themselves from time to time whether or not what they're doing is right.

I truly fear for this country and I have lost all hope when I see posts where people ask me to feel sorry for the cop who shot the old blind guy. Executing people is tough. That is why the Nazis started using gas, the guards couldn't handle the emotional stress of shooting that many people. The better question is, what in the hell were the cops doing in that old man's home in the first place? Did one marijuana plant on a 650 acre ranch warrant federal, state, and local police storming his house and busting down his door in an early morning raid? Can it be a coincidence that the city council had tried to unsucessfully annex his property earlier in the year and that federal drug statutes would allow them confiscate it if it were found to be used in the growing or manufacture of drugs? The point is, what were these cops thinking? Did they honestly think it was right to go into this old guy's house? If not, why did they go? Just following orders? We hung people at Nurenburg who were just following orders. My point is cops go around wondering why everyone hates them and having a persecution complex. Happenings like this are why.

Why is it necessary to execute a no knock warrant with overwhelming force on an old man's house with no felonies on his record who has one marijuana plant on his property? Average law abiding citizens are not expecting the cops to break down their door. If my door is broken down, I'm going for a gun because I'm not thinking it is going to be the cops. I'm thinking it is going to be criminals out to do me harm. Of course, I can't see much difference in this sort of situation. In any case, do none of you LEOs see how in many cases these no knock warrants could actually INCREASE the chance of someone getting shot, usually the suspect. I suppose you don't really care about the suspect because afterall his is a SUSPECT. That is the attitude I am talking about. I am not asking you to go politely up to a drug dealer or murderer and politely ask him to go downtown. I am asking you to question why it is necessary to execute a no knock warrant on an old man or a tax evader. Do you not understand that it may increase the risk for everyone? What about human dignity? Cops like to be known as public servants. One of the key defining characteristics of a servant is that he values his worth or welfare second to someone else's. LEOs appear to use the maximum amount of force to protect their own lives when that force places members of the public in danger. Remember, a person is innocent until proven guilty and that suspect is most likely a taxpayer and therefore, technically one of your employers and a member of the public to whom you purport to be a servant.

As to the statement that I should work to change the laws. I ask which of the many many thousands should I work to change. Which of the presidential orders, regulatory rules and procedures, congressional mandates, federal laws, state regulatory rules, state and federal tax laws, local regulatory rules, local tax laws, state laws, and local laws should I work to change first. A violation of any one or combination of these could result in someone coming to my door to arrest me. Odds are, I am violating one without even knowing it.

My whole point is that just because the cop down the street is nice guy, gives your kid a ride home from school occasionaly, and seems to treat his wife well does not mean that he is not on the cutting edge of an increasingly oppressive system. It does not mean that he wouldn't participate in a raid on your house and possibly shoot you if ordered to do so. I don't hate all cops individually or necessarily even as a whole. I do, however, have no illusions as to what their true role in society is becoming. My point is that LEOs cannot continue to enforce laws that are unreasonable with the maximum amount of force without expecting to become unpopular. I also ask that LEOs (those that think anyway) to ponder their role in the system and ask themselves if it is something they wish to continue doing.

I really feel sorry for those of you who seem to have such bad experiences with cops.

I'm a prosecutor so I see both the good and the bad work that police do on a daily basis. You all speak of isolated incidents, but how many times a day does a citizen incounter a policeman? From getting a traffic ticket to asking for directions to being arrested for a crime. Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

Sure there are bad cops. From the lazy to the @sshole to those who are the real criminals. I see it. But they are a small, small minority when you look at the big picture. Have some perspective. It's often a [bleep] job and the fact they do it so well so often speaks well of policmen as a whole.

I don't see everyone trying to disband the army for raping girls in Okinawa or the Air Force for killing Canadian troops in Afghanistan. There are bad people in all walks of life and mistakes happen.

My ex-father-in-law was the county sheriff for many years in a very rural area of N Minnesota. Several years ago he was approached by federal law enforcement officers to aid in executing a warrent on a rural farm. It seems that the farmer and his brother in law had been shooting a few timber wolves - listed as "threatened" by the feds. The info had come from a suspect in another case who turned in this guy, who happened to be his uncle, in exchange for immunity. The sheriff was a pretty down to earth guy and told the feds that there was no reason to storm this guy's house. Everyone in the community knew the guy and he was generally well respected - not some scumbag career criminal. The sheriff called the guy at work and asked him to come up to the sheriff's dept. when he got done for the day. He did and was eventually arrested and charged for shooting the wolves(isn't that ridiculous????)... In this case a little sanity in law enforcement saved the man's family the additional trauma of having their house invaded by a bunch of overzealous fools. No, I don't hate law enforcement - I just think that some of these guys have a point when they say that in many cases LE has gotten a bit out of control. Maybe some new laws need to be made to temper the powers of LE. Personally if you invade my home without knocking and I don't know who you are you'd better hope I miss. You see I'm an American who has served his country and defended the rights that I hold dear... Nobody will take them without a fight... If the authories need to talk to me about something they can approach me with the same respect that I give them, which is a significant amount. If they choose not to respect me then I will respond in kind.

JLHEARD

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE GOOD COPS OR BAD COPS! It is about cops and their role in society. First of all, these incidents are hardly isolated, they occur regularly enough that you can count on reading about some monumental blunder or some seemingly needless death on a weekly basis happening somewhere in our country. Secondly, good cops enforcing bad laws is no better than bad cops running amuck in society. Thirdly, as a prosecutor, you should know better, one instance is one instance too many. You would do well to remember that it is better that 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be jailed. Oh yeah, I have been a prosecutor as well. I know all about quotas and being unable to grant deals that you know are fair because your boss prohibits it. I know all about pressure to pursue cases that shouldn't be pursued because someone above has a hardon over a particular issue. I know all about ambitious prosecutors who look for any angle just because they can and never question whether they should. The whole process sickened me. Yes, I know that most of the suspects are guilty, but the whole atmosphere was contrary to what I feel is necessary for a free society to function.

Cops are only part of the problem. They just get the most attention. I am amazed at the level of discourse in this country. It is impossible to have a logical discussion with someone. I fully understand that others may disagree with me, however, all anyone has responded with is that cops are good people, I must have something to hide, I must have had a bad experience with cops, I must be a loser, cops do great things for many people, etc.. Address the issue, do cops use excessive force unnecessarily at times, is it excusable, are there too many laws, are they oppressive, does the fact that many cops do a great many good things excuse the things that bad ones do or the bad things done by good ones, what is the role of the police in our society today, how has it changed historically. These are the issues. How about a little reasonable and logical discussion.


"Those that expect to remain ignorant and free, are expecting something that has never been and never will be". Thomas Jefferson

I would add that when intelligent discourse is gone or that people are unable to take an issue and evaluate the merits of different viewpoints or issues, then we are in trouble. Most of us realize instinctively that we already are in trouble. We just have different opinions as to why.

You ask for "reasonable and logical discussion" after starting this thread with references to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union? Why didn't ya throw Nanjing in there while you were at it?

You're clueless. If you want a decent discussion find a stand-in first or get a handle on your runaway sense of perspective.

Mistakes can amount to a tragedy, but mistakes we will have regardless. Your elitest ("It is impossible to have a logical discussion with someone.") drivel makes no points with me. Calling people stupid because they don't agree with your utopian slop is something must of us quit in junior high.

Joe: I will try to answer "the issues" you raised. My own personal viewpoints, of course.

"Do Cops use excessive force unnessecarily at times?"
Sure. At times they do. Haven't seen a thing that was perfect this side of heaven in my life time yet.
Now, to be a little less smartass-like and more specific: It depends on the specific departments rules and regulations. The cops are there to enforce the law, not to pussyfoot around. This is especially true in large metropolitan areas that see a lot of crime. The cop has a job to do, and he needs to go home at the end of his shift. He should respond with at least one level of force above that of his opponent. Personnally, I have not been yanked out of a vehicle for running a stop sign yet. However, if I was speeding 50mph over limit and eluding arrest, I would just about expect to get shot. Reasonably so, if I was endangering people. Joe, just once, try to be in their shoes: With all the crime and human filth out there, you got to be careful and anticipate violence against you. Yet, you must meet PC guidelines to keep your job. It ain't fair,is it? I have never had a problem with cops. My wife, OTOH, cannot stand them, because of a few minor bad experiences. I still feel they are out to protect YOU and ME. I do not rely on them to do that. Not because I don't trust them, but protecting myself and my family is my job, nobody else's. Same with providing income and food on the table. Small government, not big..... I do appreciate the police, though.

"Is it excusable?" Sometimes. Sometimes not. It just depends. See my answer to your previous question.
In short, I refuse to believe that all cops, or even a majority, is an elite cast of @sshole weekend warriors out to get the common folk.

"Are there too many laws?"
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Go beat up a cop to change that.
Seriously, whaddaya gonna do about that? I don't buy the argument that you and me can change something about that. That's just the way it goes. To my limited knowledge, there has never been a government that over time has simplified its legal code, gone back to the roots. Generally, nations and governments get more and more convoluted, complicated, perverted all the time. It would behoove anybody doubting me to look at Rome, the Greek Empire, today's European States, Russia, and finally, this country of ours. The end is inevitable, my friend.
This country is the greatest country on God's green earth, but it ain't eternal. Take a look at the Good Book and you'll find that in the end, there are no great countries. It will all end.
I am not promoting passivity and complacency. Do whatever you can, speak your mind, bear good witness for what you believe. You can slow things down, make things right for you and your community. But don't kid yourself into believing that you can change the final outcome.

"Are they oppressive?" You bet. All to protect you. However, not the entire volume of CFR is oppressing you personally. Ain't nuttin perfect, is there?

"Does the fact that many cops do a great many good things excuse the things that bad ones do or the bad things done by good ones?" Nope. Absolutely not. And yet, that's the way things go. Nothing excuses the truly bad actions of individuals. Just don't judge the entire force based on those actions of those individuals. Don't fall into that trap.

"What is the role of the police in our society today, how has it changed historically?"
Protect, serve, enforce. I really do believe that, so don't laugh at me. The police force is meant to offer the citizens of this great US community some common protection which they pay for with taxes. You gotta have some order in the pigsty, otherwise things will fall apart.
In the distant past of this country, there used to be a thing called personal responsibility, and independence. People nowadays RELY heavily on the police. Which is partly due to that responsibility thing. Also, a lot more people these days. See, in the old days, the men were men, brave frontiersmen that could handle things themselves. Today....well, you know what I mean. That's just the way things go.

JOG

Why the personal attacks? I have not attacked anyone personally. I am not elitist. I am about as far away from an elitist as someone can be. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are merely examples of police authority taken to its highest extent.

Mistakes will happen, true. Try making a significant mistake on your tax return and telling the IRS that, "whoops, mistakes happen". Accidentaly run a red light and kill someone and tell the prosecutor, "whoops, mistakes happen". The point is, LEOs make mistakes with tragic consequences and nothing happens to them, or at least nothing like would happen to the average citizen. The point is, what is being done to make sure these mistakes don't happen again? Are steps being taken to lower the risks? It doesn't appear to me that they are.

I refer to the Nazis because they are the ultimate example of where the "just following orders or the law" will get you. I do not say todays LEOs are like the Nazis. But then again, I really don't think that the vast majority of Nazis were evil people as we seem to truly think they were. The lesson that they can teach us is that otherwise good people can do terrible things when they are part of a system that dehumanizes its victims. The average Nazi was guilty of not questioning his role or acting upon his questions in the whole scheme. The point is, it can happen here or anywhere where people don't constantly question and evaluate their society and their role in it.

Now, I don't ask that you agree with me. Merely provide me with reasons to disagree beyond the fact that I am elitist scum or that my reasoning is something that you, the "realist", left behind in junior high. Also, I see that you are from Minnesota. I've found that you Yankees are more apt to go along with government coercion or use it against others. People where I'm from know all about the "good government" you people brought us. There is a personal attack for you.

Joe, I agree with you that there need to be consequences for mistakes.
However, what kind of mistake are we talking here? If it is cops breaking down the wrong door during a drug raid, who will you punish? Do an investigation to determine WHO screwed it up. Who got the door wrong, the guy in the field, or the planner? Disciplinary action is in order. An honest mistake while doing your job to protect the public does not deserve public crucifixion.

Matthias,

I ask you. What would happen if you reasonably believed your neighbor was in desperate need of your help because he was being held by an intruder who was going to kill him? There is no time to call the cops. Based on this reasonable belief you busted down his door to find a masked man confronting you with a gun, who you shoot an kill. Soon however, you discover that your belief while apparently reasonable at the time, was mistaken. The man in the mask was your neighbor's teenage sun who was preparing to go to a costume party. What would happen to you? I think you know what would happen to you. Why is it fair or justice that you go to jail for it, but if a cop did it, he gets a paid suspension from duty. Farfetched you say? Remember the cop who shot the actor who had a fake gun at a costume party while there to investigate a noise complaint. Is he in jail? No, why not?

I am saying that the police and our attitudes need to change. We need to consider that all "suspects" are humans and entitled to basic human dignity. Giving them this respect, may on rare occasion, place the LEO in a situation of increased risk. Yet, it is a risk he chose when he chose his profession and it is one he owes to the society he purpports to serve.

As to the old lady mistakenly killed on the drug warrant. Your thinking is too narrow. Go back up the chain a bit and ask,"Why is it even necessary to bust down the door"? Anyone must admit that busting down doors increases the risks that these kinds of things will happen. Therefore, I suggest that it only be done in the most extreme circumstances and as a last resort. Nowadays, its seems that it is done as matter of course. We should demand that our public servants be held accountable for all their mistakes. They have great responsibilities and powers.

As to your earlier post. I have no illusions about changing anything. I simply refuse to be fed a sh** sandwich and call it prime rib.

Joe,

The officer would not receive the same treatment as I would because I made a choice to go over to the neighbors home and get into the situation. The officer is called there to do his job. Is it fair to throw a paramedic in jail because he misdiagnosed you and you died because of his good intentions? Remember, he is trying to save you. I don't know the answer.
What is the cop supposed to do then? Wait for the friendly masked man to identify himself as a dress-up? I'd shoot.
The officer is doing his job. Unfortunate incidents happen. Like I said, this side of heaven ain't perfect.
I am trying to put myself into the situation you described. What if it was my son? I would be very upset, to say the least. I do not think I would hold the officer responsible, unless he gave me reason to do so. However, I'd like to know why no phone call or any other communication method had been attempted prior to going into a possible hostage situation. That would stink of incompentency.

I suspect that most police officers would view your words as a personal attack. I won't define your "Nazi" comparison as an example at "its highest extent" - I'll stick with "clueless".

The average Nazi was bred to hate - end of story.

As for elitism:

��as a prosecutor, you should know better��
�You would do well to remember��
�I know all about quotas��
�I know all about pressure��
�I know all about ambitious prosecutors��
�I am amazed at the level of discourse in this country.�
�It is impossible to have a logical discussion with someone.�

I must say - I�m humbled in your presence.

What you specified as a personal attack on me came no closer than �you Yankees�, and yet somehow you�re surprised when �you policemen� is taken personally. Are you my wife?

Alright Matthias,

How would you feel if your door was busted down and your son shot because they suspected you of being a tax evader. Or better yet, your nosy neighbor reported that she saw you smoking weed in your house through the window.

I am not making these scenarios up. They happen all the time. Cops bust down doors for suspicions of non-violent offenses and other things that could be taken care of in a less confrontational manner. At what point do we start to hold LEOs and their bosses accountable for situations that spiraled out of control because they broke down a door when a knock would have sufficed? My point is not to consider the mistake, but to consider the policy and the decisions that led to the mistake. I completely understand how an LEO can make a mistake when in a stressful situation. My complaint is that LEOs often seem to take non-stressful situations and make them more stressful. They leave a person with no dignity and in effect goad them into fighting when they probably could have talked them into doing anything they wanted. Why was it necessary for a Federal Agent to point an MP5 at Elian Gonzalez and the woman who was holding him? They probably escalated the situation. Does it not bother you to see images like that? I know mistakes happen, they are just all too common and it bothers me to see the "mistakes happen" attitude. Hell, we demand more from football coaches than we do from cops.

As for JGOG

First of all NAZIs where not bred to hate. Most of the people in Germany at the time were born before the Nazis came into power. Therefore, the Nazis could not have bred them to hate. Or do you maintain that Germans are somehow different and "inherently" more evil than Americans? True, the Hitler youth were fanatical, yet they were mostly too young to have great effect on anything. The Nazi regime only last 12 years. Not long enough to "breed" much of anything. You are kidding yourself if you think something comparable couldn't happen here.

As for personal attacks. You are a [email]dumba@@[/email] yankee and I despise you because you are one. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> That is the only reason I need. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Joe....I am starting to wonder about this thread you started. Well, no. I am starting to wonder about you.

So these scenarios happen all the time, huh? Not in my community they don't. Of course, I should not be blind and ignore other, less fortunate regions of the country. I seriously doubt doors get kicked down and people shot for tax evasion and a joint ALL THE FRIGGIN TIME. First time you do it to a black person TV'd be all over it.

The Elian Gonzalez affair was wrong as can be. No argument from me here.

Federal government has too many powers. No argument here, either. I thought we were talking about LEOs (maybe on a local level?) and not federal agents with no local involvment.

I am not asking no football coach to risk his life for me. And you, sir, are a seriously-whacked-in-the-head-idiot if you think "we" expect more from them coaches than from LEOs. .
Gimme a break!
Do you let your opinions be known at Town Hall meetings, Letters to the Editor, letters to your congressman, etc? Do you vote? Did you take time to get familiar with each candidate, whether local or national?

The Nazis were "bred" to hate in the following manner: From 1914 on, the world was against them. WW1, Treaty Of Versailles, unspecified reparations payable to France, France being a dickhead about it, 1929, Backstabbing theory, etc....they were in economic ruins. Hitler gave them somebody to blame, some way to focus their anger against somebody. That's how. Plus, the Germans are very "pliable", they like to follow government. They aren't like you or other Americans, rebellious and all.

Sounds like you worked in a pretty crappy office. There are no quotas in my office. I make my own charging decisions. Are there decisions that I enforce? Yep. Does the fact I might do something differently make it right or wrong. No. It is my opinion.

However, hindsight is 20/20. Sure, after the fact we can say, "Why did you break the door in? You could have just knocked." Did they know that at the time? Maybe. Or maybe they were just being careful. There are too many laws in the country. It's a nanny society. But who's fault is that? What are you asking for? Do we blame an officer for enforcing the law that is on the books? Or do we blame the legislator who passed it in the first place? And what happens if that officer says he doesn't like law? He gets fired. Until the Supreme Court tells him that a law is unconstitutional, he does not have the right to pick and choose which law he enforces. If he doesn't like the laws, then let him quit and try to change them. I don't want LEO's picking and choosing which law they get to enforce.

And as a former prosecutor, you should know that painting all of law enforcement with the same brush does them a great disservice.

"As for personal attacks. You are a [email]dumba@@[/email] yankee and I despise you because you are one."



Does this mean you're giving up on "reasonable and logical"?



That's what I figured.

JOG: Pull up this guys posts. Check "Another citizens view on Law Enforcement". He's got something wrong with himself.

JLHeard

There are many issues about the laws and who makes them, etc.. This thread has already gone all over the place. But I'll address the issue of the cops just knocking. You said maybe they were just being careful. Well, my question is if they were being careful, who were they protecting, themselves or the suspects. Obviously, they were protecting themselves. In all honesty, I believe in the type of society in which we are supposed to be living, they should ere on the side of protecting the individual. You know that cops nowadays routinely use overwhelming force for many things. My point is they don't seem to be learning, or do they not care, or they care more about themselves. I think we use our police too much like the military and the military too much like the police. It sickens me to see local cops dressed in black BDUs, helmets, and flack jackets. Frankly, it is scary. I believe we need to curb the aggressive attitude. Even the terms we use like "war on drugs" and "war on crime" suggest too much aggressiveness. Suspects are "perps", "scumbags", etc.. Attitudes need to change. My cousin is a sheriff's deputy (I know, I still love him, even though I've heard some stories about him) in a very rural county. With some recent Federal grant money, they bought M16A2s and MP5s. Why? They carry them in their cars and they dress in BDUs. Why? In the 60s the model of responsible law enforcement was Andy Griffith who could talk someone into almost anything and always got his man. Today, Andy would carry an MP5 and pistol whip the criminals. And don't argue that things are more dangerous today. Maybe they are, but with all the so-called drug crimes and meth labs that exist in the county where my cousin works, they still average about 5 murders every two years (and half of those are domestic disputes).

Matthius

All I can say is watch the news and read the papers. You'll see stuff all the time. Remember the family in Tennessee who had the family pooch blown away because the father left his wallet on the car after getting gas. Going down the interstate cash was flying out of the wallet. A motorist called the police and told them about it and said "something wasn't right". The police stopped them, (thought they were armed robbers even though none had been reported in the area and it was a man woman and child) had them on the ground and shot the family pooch as it bounded out of the car with its tail wagging (despite the woman's pleas that it was a friendly dog). Would not a simple and careful stop with one officer approaching the car and questioning the occupants with another covering the scene with a shotgun probably have answered all questions and resulted in less trauma. But no, those guys were following their traing which was to take no chances and use maximum force. I could tell you about the woman in Minnesota who called the cops because her teenage son was threatening suicide, only to see the cops shoot him 5 times and kill him when he gestured at them with the steak knife he was holding. This stuff happens all the time. Recently in the town I live, two cops shot and killed a homeless man who was armed with a garden rake. He was shot at a distance of 15 feet. How was he going to hurt them with a garden rake at that distance?

Also, the Germans are no different than any other nationality. I don't see anyone being too rebellious here. I merely see people making excuses for the excesses of authority.

Joe,

You're viewing the past through rose-colored glasses. Andy Griffith was a TV star. Ask the black and hispanic communities what real police work was like in the '60s.

By any sensible measure, we have the kindest and best trained police force in American history. If you disagree, name the time you think it was better.

Joe,
We are indeed being divided have two camps: on one side are the the "Barney's", the wannabes, the kiss @$$e$, and those whose good nature won't let them believe what they see and hear, on the other hand there are people who the "Barney's" say need mental help.

To hear the "Barneys" tell it, it boils down to suck @$$ and take the abuse or see a psych.

Joe...I want to apologize. There is no need for me to be rude to you, even though you have some demented opinions (but then again, that is just my opinion).
Now, about that pooch: Yes, I do remember. I saw the video. I woulda felt threatened by that "pooch" as well. It may not have been the most perfect thing to do, but I think the coppers were well within their rights to do so.
And I agree with you that they should have been less agressive. But is this really all the cops fault? Somebody called it in you said. The dispatcher had to relay it. By the time it got to the cops ear, it was probably a full blown suspected armed robber he was trying to stop. At this point, could you blame them? I am not saying that's what happened, just trying to offer a reasonable explanation.
I agree that this kind of stuff (kid suicide) happens. There need to be serious consequences and continued training in the force.
Reading some of your other posts, it appears that you "despise" all cops. Why is that?
BTW, the Germans really are that way. Very pliable. Very much like sheep. Do as you tell them. Really.

JOG

I know Andy wasn't real, but he was the model. Today the model is some gun toting dude laying waste to everything in sight. Andy represented an idea that was ideal. We no longer make any pretense.

I'll bet the blacks and Hispanics around here wouldn't agree.

One last thing, I submit that much of the attitude about cops has to do with age. I am in my early thirties, white, pretty affluent for my age, good family life forever, professionaly educated, etc.. Most of my friends are as well. To a man, every single male friend of my age or younger has been arrested at least once. Mostly for public intox, ect. while in college. Of those that were arrested, seventy-five percent or so were roughed up in one way or another. Did we deserve it? Arguably, yes, we were drunken assh****. But we were white college kids, so no harm done. What if we had been black or so-called "white trash". Things might be different for some of us today. In any case, getting a close-up view of the power of the "man" has made us all despise cops. In my experience it is a generational thing. All of the kids who became cops were almost to a man, the guys that were picked on in school, the guys who were hazed by the football team or otherwise maladjusted. The one guy in my fraternity who carried a concealed weapon to class and once pulled it on another fraternity guy who had stolen one of our pictures is now a cop. These guys are the ones who are entrusted with keeping order in society. They were losers then, and I suspect they are losers now. An MP in the Army that I made sure got a General Order of Reprimand and was busted a rank for pulling his weapon on another soldier and his mom, is now a cop in a big city police department. He was a loose cannon in the Army, and he is probably a loose cannon now. Only a gutless commander and political correctness kept him from being court-martialed for his stunt.

Listen, the dumba*** yankee comment was mostly a joke, but I consider myself well adjusted. I make a very good living. I have had very little trouble with the police. I know some and they treat me well. One quality cop is in my Sunday school class. However, I read, I see what goes on, and I question. I view cops a little like I do rattlesnakes. I don't hate them, I don't go out of my way to come into contact with them, fear of them doesn't keep me out of the woods, but you can darn well bet I keep a look out for them and avoid them if at all possible. I also understand that they can bite you and sometimes they don't really care who they bite.

Cosatogjoe -

In 20 years I attended 12 funerals - some were colleagues, some were friends and one was my best friend and brother-in-law. It'd be a good time for you to do a post listing all the good things police have done over the years, the heroism under fire, the dying to save a brother officer or the laying down of his live to save a citizen.

I can tell you a case where an officer ran to save a fallen comrad and in the process took a fatal bullet. Had I gotten there a few minutes earlier maybe we could have "deprived some downtrodden citizens of their right to a trial."

I know there are excesses but in general I find the police haters to be unreasonably fearful of lawful authority without which we'd haved anarchy.

Joe, do you believe the Police are responding to a non-existent problem thru arming up?
I do agree that they are getting more and more sophisticated with their weaponry and look like military (the SWAT teams do- not the regulars). But why?

Deputy Norm and others

I know police do good things. However, I do not believe there would be anarchy without them. 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.

I grew up in the country. Police were not a presence in my life. If we needed a police officer, it was going to take him at least 30 minutes to get there. Yet, my house was never robbed, my mother or sister wasn't raped, my dad wasn't murdered. In short, I saw none of the anarchy that is promised by the the law and order at all costs advocates. Frankly, I never thought of cops one way or the other. But if I did, it was generally favorably.

As I grew older and left my sheltered littled world, I began to have more to do with cops. I began to see friends beaten when they were picked up for public intox or some other minor offense. I saw 22 (yes I counted) police cars outside of a bar area frequented by students writing tickets for public intox and jaywalking. The next morning, I read about 3 murders that had occured that night on the gang infested North Side of the city. This total was much above normal, I always wondered if some of those cops down hassling the kids were supposed to be on the North side of town that night. Murderers don't bring in much revenue for the city though. And to top it off, the cops all left before the bars closed and when they could have done a public service by getting drunks off the road.

During law school and during my time as a prosecutor in the Army, I saw how police reports for minor offences would invariably read exactly as the statute was written. I found it strange that every single suspect acted in the exact same manner on every arrest from many different officers.

In short, I have seen and I have paid attention. I have seen much more bad than good. I personally have never needed a cop for anything and I am capable of handling myself. I am not saying they don't do good things, but we need to step back as a country and rethink the criminal system.

All of you law and order types need to read "The Tyranny of Good Intentions".

Joe, the self policing idea works extremely well in small communities with involved citizens. Try that in urban areas and you will have chaos. Times and demographics have changed, old timer. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

"I'll bet the blacks and Hispanics around here wouldn't agree."

And I'll bet the blacks and Hispanics were not even allowed to live in your neighborhood during the '60s.

You're going to have to make up your mind at some point. First you "despise" everything about police officers, and then you "don't hate them". Keep it up and I'll need a scorecard.

It doesn't matter much to me what your experiences are - I have my own to go by. It took me all of two posts to rattle your cage after your plea for a civil debate. For the moment, I have you filed under �hothead�. I was going to file you under �Wealthy White Lawyer�, but some might misinterpret such a glaring generality. That would be most unfair.

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

Haggis,



Seeing that you trust the news so much and that you love to generalize so much I guess that maybe with the raising rate of teachers abusing children then teachers can't be trusted either. Lawdog

Lawdog, they just need to try to live without us and now our successors for a while. Let some bad guy burgle their house, rape their lady or them, stick them up or strong arm them. Then see who they yell for. Let the "whoever" run rampant in the streets looting and pilliging, bet there first thought is "Where the hell are the cops"?
Like that stupid TV show years ago Beretta and song of the Sparrow. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I am now through with this insane trash. Believe what you want, but if you don't give the COP an attiutude, you probably won't get one from them either. If you do, report them, they are accountable!

"I am now through with this insane trash."

Terry, you ALWAYS quit but come back another day. It's a thankless, tireless task, but somebody has to post it. Never quitting must be a "cop thing". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Good on ya.

weellllll, now boys,

i read about the 1st twenty or so posts on this thread and i feel like i might be able to offer perspective...

to start with i didn't hear C-joe say anything bad about cops as individuals..... i heard him say that the system which has led to a lot of mistakes and abuse needs a serious tuneup....... and i'll agree with that... so, i expect, would a lot of cops.....

further more i agree with him about this country becoming more and more like a fascist power all of the time.... throughout the last 3 decades i have despised the politics of the "bleeding heart political left" in this nation..... now i have a fundamentally right wing head of state in the white house who has just raped the constitution.... on television he smiles and waves and speaks of american ideals... the left wing and the right wing met on the dark side of the moon, and our nation may just be forfeit as a result.....

an old cop saying was "blue is thicker than blood"
this means that the cops will stick together, and when the whole community knows who the bad guys are this is fine... when a bad guy is defined as the guy who has a few too many rounds of ammo stockpiled in his house.....

an old prosecuters saying was "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken [bleep]".....
a lot of the things that we put people in prison for in the 60s is barely prosecuteable now.... conversely once minor offenses are felonies today...

on the other hand, i know a lot of cops, most of them pretty good guys with a strong sense of right and wrong. i've known a good few who were involved in shooting situations, and believe me, not a one of them just walked away with it... to the best of my knowledge, EVERY shooting where someone was injured or killed by a police officer, for the last 30 years has gone to a grand jury... this is after the dept makes it's own determination of whether the shooting was justified or not... and yes, mistakes are made by cops but nobody walks away grinning..... john w

I've known a lot of teachers and not many are honest about grades, and more than a few are abusive; very abusive. I'm retiring and that's large part of it, and I tell my own children to teach their kids at home if they care for them.

There are too many teachers who shouldn't be out there; most in fact, but as with the "Barney's", when the applications are turned in the administration has to go through sometimes hundreds of applicants to find their friends and family.

Haggis, yer killin' me. Do you like anybody?

Liking poeple isn't the same as trusting.

I like a lot of people who can't be trusted.

I think a few of you guys ought to turn off your TVs, with your cop show re-runs, and take a walk around the block or something. You Know ? Maybe Get a little fresh air.................10

...needs to look at this. Perhaps it will bring about some understanding of current attitudes.

http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/23/arws082301.htm

Joe -
I worked rural and urban. The rural needed police less often that the urgan but when the rural folks called they really needed the police.

The world of lynch mobs is gone like the days of unlighted streets and horse wagons.

What we need is about 95% fewer lawyers. They are the new robber barons - worse by far than any of the cabals that Teddy R broke up nearly a century ago. With very few exceptions the lawyers I have known (many, many) pretend to be honorable but all they are really doing is grubbing for other people's money.

Cops could be better but regardless are needed. By morality lawyers cannot be better because they are preditory by nature.

Let's get off the good hard working cops and get on to the real source of problems in our society - the legal profession without which we'd all be better off.

Touche Norm, I know some scumy lawyers and I know some scumy cops. The difference is that the lawyers can't break down your door and shoot you.

I'm done, this is my last post on the subject. Obviously, I am not going to change anyone's mind on the deal, or even get anyone to actually consider anything. Hopefully, your closest contact with the oppressive system will be on April 15 every year. Although, someone on this board who "loves the police" and thinks America is the greatest country on Earth "by damn" will have a run-in with the system and have your eyes opened and some "greedy" lawyer will be the only thing between you and that meat grinder.

As to cops the, the shining representatives of the system, you LEOs and their supporters really need to start doing IQ test so that the idiots don't blow your arguments out of the water every day. Opened the newspaper this morning to read a story about a cop who chased down four catholic school teenagers after they threw water on his car. During the highspeed chase, he fired at least four rounds at the nefarious evil-doers. Fortunately for the teenagers, residents came out of their houses and stopped any more mischief after the brave and honorable law officer had these vicious thugs cornered in a residential cul-de-sac. The officer has been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation and charges will probably be filed. The police chief could not ignore this incident as that the officer was OFF DUTY and in his PRIVATE automobile at the time. Folks, I don't make this stuff up. This story followed on the heels of the one last week about a local drug task force cop who was being indicted for stealing over $260,000.00 from a drug money shipment of close to $1,000,000.00. The brave, intelligent, and crafty officer would probably not have been caught or even suspected (after all it would have been his word against a "criminal's") if he hadn't bought a new pick-up, boat, and house within a few days of the stop. There is no better comedy in the world than following the antics of some of our LEOs. But, if one thinks about it, laughter turns to tears. Not all LEOs are stupid and no position in America has greater responsibility and power over the lives of the individuals they meet on a day-to-day basis than an LEO. I would rather all the LEOs be stupid than just one of them be bad. One bad LEO or bad decision by a good LEO can and often does destroy someone's life. What if that cop had hit one of those teenagers? We need to clean house and we need to re-evaluate the role of LEOs in our society and stop the sick hero worship that is being promoted right now. Any human system has flaws as does any human. LEOs are not any braver, smarter, more prone to honesty, or anything else than the average guy. I and many believe they may be worse in some respects because of the temptations of power. In any case, because of their awesome power over the lives of individuals, they need to be held strictly accountable for any screw-up and those showing any disturbing tendacies need to discharged forthwith. And we need to re-evalute our policing policies and police training.

Audios, I have to make some money so that I can give it back to the oppresive government in a few months. Those of you who want to keep on living your blissfully igorant lives, do so by all means. I'm sure our masters will come for you last. Those of you who want to think about things, by all means do so. A warning, however, it is a whole lot easier and more comfortable to continue in ignorance. Hey, that sounds a little like the Matrix and take the blue pill or the red pill doesn't it. Have a nice day and I wish everyone well.

Great article.

I'd hire CossatotJoe as my attorney in a heartbeat, if I needed one, which I hope I don't. Too bad he's in Arkansas....I assume by his handle. You guys may not like the message and it may be slightly overstated, but the theme is extremely accurate.

That cop was off-duty. The article stated he is being investigated. Would you rather have him executed on the spot? So, what would you do? He is now suffering the consequences of his actions.
I get what your point is. I do believe you are exaggerating a bit.
How could you prevent cops doing bad things, like stealing money?
What would you change in this branch of government?
By the way, your oppressive taxes pay for some of the benefits you reap by living where you live.
Yes, they are too high.
Any form of government with elected officials is more than prone to money-induced corruption.
I personally defended myself in court against what I believed unfair traffic tickets. I presented facts and won, every time.
Police officers and not worshipped in my town. They are people like you and me.

Hoo boy! Found these while browsing around for info on some of the more egregious cases of LEO misconduct over recent decades. Turns out its hard to find the more distant cases because of a veritable blizzard of more recent ones. A sampling...

2/01... "Officer.... was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He shot the party host over an argument about an unwelcome guest, according to the Houston Chronicle. Both men are deputies assigned to the Jail Division."

6/01... "Dallas police officer Senior Corporal.... was arrested on April 13 for aggravated sexual assault. He allegedly kidnapped a woman at gunpoint, then sexually assaulted and robbed her before letting her go. DNA samples from her rape kit matched... who has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the case."

6/01... "In particular, officers who extorted sex in exchange for not arresting women have been given only probation, serving no jail time. "

7/01... "A 19-year veteran San Antonio police officer... was convicted last November of sexually molesting a 13-year old girl... ...Three months earlier, Officer... was found guilty of indecency with a child and also given only probation."

7/01..."The chief investigator for the Ector County district attorney's office was indicted in June in Kerr County for stealing paintings from a hotel conference room. "

8/01... "The second consecutive director of the East Texas Police Academy has resigned amid scandal... Academy Director... resigned and relinquished his peace officer's license amid a criminal investigation against him... allegedly purchased child pornography over the Internet.... after serving four years as director of the academy, which is part of Kilgore College. He succeeded former director... who pled guilty to felony theft of handguns. "

9/01... "Fellow officers accused Austin police officer... in August of beating a handcuffed and feet-bound prisoner repeatedly while forcing him into the back seat of a patrol car... Officer... was placed on restricted duty pending the outcome of APD's investigation. Officer... was fired in 1997 for multiple domestic violence incidents involving his wife, including two Hays County arrests and multiple violations of a protective order."

9/01... "More than 200 West Texans crowded a public meeting in late August in Fort Stockton to complain about Department of Public Safety troopers who have followed them, searched their cars and subjected them to harassment." [BW note: "200 West Texans "is a LOT of folks]

9/01... "A 26-year old DPS trooper stationed in Denton has been suspended for taking cash from a man while interpreting for another law enforcement agency at a traffic stop. Videotape from a police car camera captured Trooper... taking $390 from the motorist."

12/01... "Three former Frio County sheriff's deputies face more than 30 counts of civil rights violations... used their positions to commit crimes ranging from stealing weapons to burning down a mobile home... used marked sheriff's vehicles to transport stolen items from the scenes of burglaries and thefts... and initiated unlawful traffic stops of motorists as a pretext to commit unlawful searches and subsequent thefts... Numerous thefts from police property rooms were charged, as well as stealing a camouflage jacket from a dead man. These crimes allegedly took place from May 1996 to February 2000 in Frio County..." [BW note: these clowns were recently convicted]
________________________________________

This a sampling of one year. Further offenses not listed on this ACLU website can be found by browsing on specific Texas cities. Even given that the vast majority of LEO's are principled public servants the litany of crimes committed by those with a badge is chilling.

I'm gonna get off of this topic, it riles up the respectable LEO's on this board, and I think the point has been made.

http://www.aclutx.org/projects/police/copwatchblotter/index.htm

Birdwatcher

Exactly what point has been made???
First off, the ACLU makes me hurl. Nothing but a bunch of inbred America haters.
Some of the quoted incindences were allegations, not convictions.
I find it hard to believe that somebody is convicted of molesting a child, gets probation from his job, and no civil charges are filed. I feel the honorable ACLU is not telling the whole story here. If they are, there is something seriously wrong with the parties involved in that judicial decision.
Again, what does all this prove? Nobody in the force is a saint. There is some pretty rotten eggs there. And how do you propose to prevent that? I don't know. Let me know when you find ANY group of people that are saints. Haven't met anybody yet that walks on water.
Please, I am not trying to excuse the actions of the guilty individuals. They should be hung, where deserved. But I don't believe that has anything to do with the police force itself.
The individuals abused their position of power. Power can lead to corruption. There is no fix for this.Better controls and oversight will catch more of this corruption.
But why paint all of law enforcement with this dark brush?

"Blue is thicker than blood."
"LEO are a brotherhood."
"A brother backs up a brother." <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

I have nothing left to say. You want to generalize, go ahead. Why do you hate the cop around the corner? Why do you hate em all? Why do you hate America?
What is wrong with you?

This being America, you are entitled to your (wrong) opinion. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Joe,
you seem to have a problem with cops protecting themselves on the job (duh).

Tell me then - if the cops all suddenly (or even gradually) adopted your values and chose not to put their own safety first (while daily confronting danger).........where would we find their replacements? Do you understand attrition?

-FreeMe

Logic does not belong here. Especially not as applied to Haggis.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

BTW Haggis, does your handle refer to that awful scottish dish? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Forgive me if this seems out of place, but I've been gone for a couple days and I may have missed something here.

Haggis:



Oh � so you�re a cyberwarrior, and this is your chosen battleground. Wow.
You could do so much more than this, if you would focus on the real problem.





Okay, Haggis � you made me look.
Your paraphrasing of an old Chinese folk saying is interesting. Unfortunately � like many who use verses from the Bible to justify their attitudes, you seem to have used it out of social/historical context, IMO. I'd bet that it's something entirely different than truth that kept this around - just because a phrase refuses to die, doesn't make it true. Just becaues a philosopher said it doesn't make it true either. And for the record, there are several conflicting variations of this phrase floating around through history.

Then you change the original word �soldiers� to �enforcers�. You have substituted apples for oranges, in a most cynical way.

Such regurgitation of the �nail/soldiers� proverb would naturally be propagated by those who would think themselves �good men�, while branding soldiers (or cops) as the opposite. But they have missed the point.

Here�s another Chinese proverb: �civilians give the empire peace, and soldiers give it security�.
Seems to contradict your point, doesn�t it? Why would the same folks who cling to the �nails/soldiers� line also say this? That is�unless they actually respect and appreciate their soldiers.

Oh � and BTW � these proverbs are coming from a society that is comfortable with the term �empire�. One of the byproducts of that is a reduced need of �enforcers�, because the citizens are largely conditioned to obedience to authority (and authority is less inclined to accommodate the rights/desires of the citizenry).

Why on earth should we give any great weight to such proverbs (or any of their various modifications) in our (US) society?

I would prefer... �liberty requires eternal vigilance�.

This is the crux of our problem (yes, with abusive law enforcement). Without a righteous and vigilant society, liberty leads to apathy. Apathy leads to anarchy. Anarchy leads to fascism (nature abhors a vacuum). So where in this continuum do you think we are now? Who�s fault is it when we suffer from abusive laws and abusive enforcement?

The Founding Fathers warned us about this. We haven�t been listening. What gives us the right to blame a few (or even a lot of) bad cops?

-FreeMe

Now Haggis...you're lucky that Birdwatcher is here. Otherwise, I would now be inclined to launch into one of my anti-schoolteacher diatribes. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

-FreeMe

How clever you are..., yes it does. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Go ahead and launch. If the only way to defend the Brotherhood of Barney's is to attack on a tangent, go get 'em big guy.

The problem is that you generalize. So FreeMe tries to hit back at you with generalizing your kind.
Don't generalize. It's wrong. What happens when you generalize?
African Americans are all poor criminals.
Hispanics are all illegal immigrants and wellfare suckers.
Cubans are all coke heads.
East Germans are all communists.

This kind of broad generalizing reveals a simple mind, incapable of some important distinctions. Don't fall into that trap.

This thread is ripe for the mining of history-twisting.



I'm afraid I'm gonna have a beef here with Mr Haggis, if he's the one who taught you world history, Joe. The BULK of human history can be characterized as either fascism or anarchy.



Joe - if you grew up in the US, perhaps (thanks to Haggis's coworkers) you were unaware that IT IS DIFFERENT here and now, than other places and/or times. In world social/historical perspective, the last few hundred years of western culture in general and US culture in particular have been the exception to the rule, on this issue.

BTW - which do you think comes first in our society - anarchy or fascism?



This all explains a lot. Seriously, Joe........thiiiiink. You need to look beyond the end of your nose.

-FreeMe

Soooo, tell me....why that handle? Have you had Haggis before? Or are you just intrigued by the seemingly disgusting nature of Scottish culinary customs?

Well, if I got roughed up by the Coppers for such minor "juvenile" offenses as public intoxication, etc. I'd be mad at'em too! Poor ole Joe probably tried fighting back a little too, being the hothead he is. What are them coppers thinking anyway, trying to arrest him for a little sucking on Grampa's cough syrup...
This is what's wrong with people. "Minor offense" like public intoxication. Nothing minor about it, in MHO. Shows a certain lack of self-control and lack of respect for yourself and others.

Haggis, IF I launched into such a diatribe, it would only be to demonstrate how ignorant your portrait of the law enforcement culture is. I wouldn't paint teachers all the same color - except to make a point. And I would be sure to make that distinction. The "blue blood is thicker.." remark and those that followed can equally apply to teachers. It can also apply to my coworkers. So what? Any profession that faces similar hardship together - in the face of a lack of understanding from the general public - will adopt these attitudes to a certain degree. It's part of the survival instinct.

You expect any group that is attacked so much from in front and behind, above and below, to be any different?

-FreeMe

FreeMe, are you trying that logic thingy again? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yes, it's a vice I can't seem to shake.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

-FreeMe

I�m being told not to generalize, and to use logic. Let�s look at logic and generalizations directed toward me:

1. GENERALIZATION:
Anyone who hates cops is hiding a crime.

LOGIC:
Why wouldn�t people love cops? They�re the good guys.

2. GENERALIZATION:
Anyone who hates cops is a psychopath, a sociopath, or needs to seek mental health help.

LOGIC:
Why wouldn�t people love cops? They�re the good guys.

3. GENERALIZATION:
Anyone who hates cops is Un-American.

LOGIC:
Why wouldn�t people love cops? They�re the good guys.

4. GENERALIZATION:
Anyone who hates cops is paranoid.

LOGIC:
Why wouldn�t people love cops? They�re the good guys.

If logic is being spewed in my direction, the following is its form:

�LOGIC, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with
the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The
basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor
premise and a conclusion -- thus:
_Major Premise_: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as
quickly as one man.
_Minor Premise_: One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds;
therefore --
_Conclusion_: Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second.
This may be called the syllogism arithmetical, in which, by
combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are
twice blessed.�

Haggis: First off, I was not the one to generalize. I am not sure who you were trying to quote, but it sure as hell wasn't me.
I'll be the first to admit that not every cop is a saint, you're not hiding a crime just because you don't like cops (Like my wife), etc.
You generalized, horribly so. When I asked you why you paint all of Law Enforcement with such a dark brush, you replied by stating that they stick together, and cover up for one another. Essentially, you were stating that every last one of them is bad and worthy of hate.
And I have a huge problem with that. That kind of broad generalization makes you seem kinda immature. Or just really upset with the coppers.

The quotes were what cops said themselves"

Well, there is certainly extremes on both sides. I do not worship any group of people. After all, they are people. But there is no reason to villify them, either.

Haggis, we all know that one can take logic and/or math and turn it into nonsense. I can do it even cheaper than you did......

2x2=4.
-2x-2=4
therefore, 2=-2.

So what? Now you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of using false logic? And you are the logic wizard? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Is there any chance at all that you might actually see and admit that there is a greater problem that we ALL are responsible for - and the "cop thing" is just a symptom?

-FreeMe

Nope. Besides, all teachers are that way. Every last one of em.

Matthias, I was careful to cite only the more egregious/proven examples, being well aware of the difference re: indictment vs conviction. In the local child molestation cases I cited, to the best of my knowledge the sentences were as quoted. Perhaps the likely fate of a former LEO sentenced to jail for child molestation had something to do with it. As to subsequent civil actions, I do not believe the offenders committed these offenses in connection to their duties.

To follow Haggis's, here's another truism: "The evil always believe the good to be stupid", to which the corollary might be "The good generally assume that other folks are decent folks like themselves" ...which assumption would probably especially apply to how most regular folks (including myself) regard Peace Officers.

I was browsing around on the web attempting to locate the specifics of a particularly notable recent case in which a local County Sheriff used $12,000 in seized drug funds to take a trip to Vegas or some such. One of his Deputies then informed the FBI. Unable to produce the missing funds, the Sheriff then attempted to raise the money by selling a load of seized marijuana to a drug dealer, who turned out to be an undercover FBI agent (I believe the Sheriff was sentenced to light jail term and is currently walking around free on some legal point of procedure).

Truly a comic case, and unbelievable except that it happened, and well documented in local newspapers and even "Texas Monthly" magazine. To the best of my knowledge it happened in Dimmit County but, short of subscribng to the local newspaper or "Texas Monthly" archives I couldn't find it on a web search.

Oh, its probably there, but its hidden under MULTIPLE accounts of LEO criminal offenses, I ran out of patience searching. This multitude of criminal offenses does not include a number of incidents of the innocent being wounded or killed, usually in SWAT-style drug interdictions.

"The point" that I have gotten out of these recent threads is that a few LEO's do bad things, but these bad things happen much more often than I would have thought (see the above corollary).

If even 1% of LEO's are bad, in my city that would mean 20 bad Patrolmen on the streets, and I think I could dig up incidents of 20 local Cops getting into trouble over the last few years. Including four who were recently nabbed in a FBI sting agreeing to escort a shipment of what they thought was cocaine while on duty, a Patrol Officer unable to account for ninety minutes spent in the company of a teenage runaway, and another recently charged with rape while ostensibly following up on a complaint.

I know that cases such as these understandably anger honest Cops more than anyone, and as I said it is not my intention to portray most Cops that way. The problem is bigger than I thought, and I'm gonna get off the topic.

It is alarming to reflect upon the fact that, given the information gathering facilites available to LEO's, the potential for a few bad Cops to do harm is greater than in years past.

What I also find alarming is the apparent thin line between order and chaos, and how much depends upon the integrity and courage of honest men (and women). Thus far the police in this country seem to be fairly effectively policed, either by their own or by federal agencies like the FBI and by the presence if a free, if irritatingly biased, press.

What scares me is an image of some possible time where the watchers are themselves corrupted (plausible down here close to the border, with so much illegal money around). If that ever happens we'll be just like Mexico.

Birdwatcher

Here's a couple of links that might be of some use in your search...

www.keepandbeararms.com

www.sierratimes.com/03/whackstack.php

Perhaps I can illustrate a point:
I have a nephew who is a policeman for a largess (60-70k) city. He is, in my opinion, a fine young man. Ex-marine, doesn't drink, good family life. Try's to do his job correctly. In this city, officers are expected to supply their own longarms. Most, of course, opt for an AR15 variant. My nephew has a lever action 30-30. Why? Two reasons according to him- one, the weapons are carried in the trunks of their vehicles. A rear end collison doesn't destroy a $1500 weapon. Second, and this is his words, the lever gun is "less intimidating"... Doesn't sound like some of the "black hooded, armed to to the teeth, Nazi types" does it?
So, to the crux of the matter: Would this fine young man bust down a door of a citizen and shoot to kill? You bet your life he would. Why? Because that's the WAY HE HAS BEEN TRAINED! It would not occur to him to question if it was the right thing or not!
So I think Mr Crosstoe has a point. There is a SYSTEM problem. I don't however, think it is the responsibility of the individual officer to question/change/ignore the "system". They have a job to do, and they are going to do it they way they have been trained.
So what's the answer? Other than the generic "we all have to do our job as citizens" I don't know. In the city mentioned above, there is an apartment complex locally known as "Crackville". When the officers get a call for that complex -which happens routinely- they go in armed with longguns, and NEVER singly. The idea is (and this is my nephew speaking) "to intimidate enough so trouble doesn't start". So while the call itself maybe a minor thing, it could escalate...
Personally, I have never run across a "bad cop". I'm sure that's just luck, and the fact I have very little dealings with law enforcement. I'm also sure there are "bad cops" out there. Two recent incidents in Houston, the shooting and killing of a couple of young (12-14) boys seems questionable. Although, the second one might have been an AD, the circumstances seem to be that the cops reacted THE WAY THEY HAD BEEN TRAINED, using overwhelming force, that led to a possible AD....

Quote: "Perhaps the likely fate of a former LEO sentenced to jail for child molestation had something to do with it."

Huh? I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that the potential danger for the convicted LEO going into jail would convince a judge not to send him there? Any reasonable judge should say: "You make your own bed, you lie in it."
Again, if there was a conviction of child molestation, then certain MINIMUM sentencing has to be followed, which are dictated by law (state law I believe). I am not aware of any state that does not have some jail time as an absolute minimum for the charges discussed here.

Quote: "As to subsequent civil actions, I do not believe the offenders committed these offenses in connection to their duties."
Okay, think about what you said there. The LEO part had nothing to do with the crime. What you have is a person with some poor judgement who happens to be an LEO, not the other way around.
Again, I ask: What would you do to improve the situation? Judging from a lot of responses in this thread, people are upset that not every last LEO in this country is a saint who never does wrong. Please, I am not standing up for the wrong things committed, nor for the perpetrators. All I am saying is that that's how the cookie crumbles, people will make mistakes, be it due to bad character or poor judgement or whatnot.
How do you prevent LEOs from making bad decisions? How do you prevent ANYONE from making bad decisions? You can offer guidance and proper training, but you will still have flukes. What we see here is just a prominent and visible sign of the overall decay of our society.

Birdy, I think your truisms are more current and applicable than the ones that Haggis gave.

If one percent of cops are "proven" lawbreakers, doesn't that fall pretty much in line with society as a whole? This says more to me about the selection process than the officers themselves.

BTW, I have warm feelings for Texas - but you're reminding me how glad I am to be here and not there.

Ahhh.......we're just now having our first snow here. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Anyway - thanks for keeping a cool head about this thread.

-FreeMe

You could probably train the coppers to be a bit more sensitive to the emotional needs of others...
You just have to ask yourself WHY oh why are they "always prepared", "just in case", "armed to the teeth"....
I would like to think that crime has been steadily increasing over the past 50 years, especially gangrelated crime in metropolitan and even urban areas. The cops had to adapt, both to fight crime and to survive, physically and emotionally.
This culture bred a different generation, which is now admitting some of its own into the force.
So, I theorize that the drastic change you see in the force in big cities is due to larger, more complex social and demographic changes in our society. I would also state that you cannot ask the coppers to be more understanding, softer, and all that, while their opponents stay at the same level they were at before. Remember, these cops are trying to fight crime in some very tough areas, and very tough times. Some of you are asking them to drop their guards. I understand the problem of innocents getting killed, harrassed, misjudged by the legal system. And yet, this is a result from increased crime and much lowered moral values in our society. This is a much more complex problem than "ugh! Cops are brutal and all bad!"

Pedestal, I like the way your nephew thinks. Is he a fan of Teddy Roosevelt? ("Speak softly...")

I think you have a firm grasp of this issue.

-FreeMe

So why do these guys carry ARs? Well, one possible explanation is that they grew up with seeing those types of guns, instead of lever actions 30-30s.
Another possible explanation would be that the criminals carry assault guns. I wouldn't want the bad guy to be outgunned if I was the cop, either. I think the LEOs are trying to match what is being thrown at them.

Something else I would like to point out: What are cops to do? Relax, don't be so uptight about things? Don't arrest people for speeding, drug offenses, etc? Don't go try to stop drug dealers, pot growers, etc?
I have seen societies that choose to handle their crime by legalizing criminal actions and being "relaxed". I grew up in Germany.
It is customary with some LEOs there to carry unloaded guns, sometimes no guns at all. Long guns? Nope. Shotguns? Nope. They are very cordial most of the time. Criminals will not get the crap beat out of them. Juveniles don't go to jail. Innocent bystanders do not get shot, not run over by a speeder chase.
What's the trade off?
Drug trafficking is rampant, and so are drug related crimes. The answer: Legalize pot and decriminalize minor drug offenses. Is that really an answer? Me thinks not. I believe it will further aid in the rapid decline of moral values, which in turn will fuel more crime.
Police in Germany do not have near the powers they have here. What's the trade off? Criminals run free. Juveniles committing felonies are set free and NOT (!!!) convicted of anything. If you are under eighteen, you cannot be convicted of crimes. So, there is kids out there that steal cars everyday. Every day they get picked up by the cops. They are taken to the station, their parents are notified, and then they are let go. Hardly a solution to a growing problem.
But hey, at least you don't have newspapers whining about cops harrassing juveniles, right?
Cops overthere do not expect armed conflicts and gunfights. (I admit, this is in large part due to far fewer guns in society. Gun control, anyone? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) But what happens when they do encounter armed criminals? Typically, they are shot dead. But hey, at least they aren't harrassing me, right?
Criminals get away with a lot there, folks. Major felonies are punished by a couple of years in jail. What kind of deterrent is that? I am here to tell you, we are headed that way. What we have here is a decline in moral values. I believe that to be the cause of our problems.
And if you now think Germany is bad (I do), Holland is much worse. To all the folks that are screaming "Legalize Pot"! I have this to say: Legalizing pot and other minor drugs and making them publically commercially available solved absolutely nothing for the Dutch. Go take a walk in Amsterdam. At every street corner, some kid is trying to sell you Coke and worse things. I have never seen a worse drug problem than there. And this includes drug-related crimes and major major drug trafficking. Holland is THE hub for any kind of drug in the western Hemisphere. (I know, it has a little bit to do with Holland's international shipping ports.)
Also, the dependence of individuals on Government-funded social programs and social money is enormous in European countries.
I much prefer the US of A.
Let's work on making it better.
Relaxing on crime is NOT the thing to do. Get tougher, that's what. You gotta be smarter about it, too, though.

Joe, when I first started reading your posts on this subject I thought this guy must be on the outside looking in but the more I read what you had to say the more I realized you weren't some hate monger with with a hard on for the police and I began to see your side. It made me search my memory a little bit and I thought about Waco and how the authorities had to save those followers and their children from David Karesh (whom I believe was mislead and was misleading others) but to kill them all, and for what? And further back I remember the police shoot out with the SLA (simbianese liberation army) in L.A. If anyone can remember the movie the Gauntlet where Clint Eastwood and Sandra Locke were surrounded in the house in Hendersen, Nevada by the police, this is what the house looked like in L.A. when the police got through with it. Every day on the news the police surround a home whose occupant has done nothing but threaten to take his own life or just refuses to go outside so they shoot in the tear gas and flash bang grenades, which in 90% of the cases burns down not only the house of the man whom they are trying to save but half of the neighborhood. And what about the farce at Ruby Ridge? Yeah Joe, I'm willing to see your side and feel your feelings without any name calling and I think you might be right in a lot of what you had to say.

He does have some valid points. Power leads to corruption. An interesting, terrifying, and unpreventable phenomenon.
I think that the instances mentioned (SLA, Waco, Ruby Ridge) could have been handled better at a higher level. I don't think it is fair to blame individual "low-level" LEOs for it.

Matthias I do believe what your saying that these events could have been handled better at a higher level but doesn't there come a point where individual low level officers MUST except at least some of the responsibility? There will come a day when we all must stand before our Redeamer and give an account of those things we have done and there sure won't be any buck passing on that day. If we didn't get fired or sent to prison for our actions we have the mistaken belief that we got away with it.

I partially agree with you.
Here's what I take issue with: It is extremely difficult for an individual - in a group of people - to break free of the collective mind thing. Why did hardly anybody in Hitler's Germany stand up and resist? It would not have taken that many people. Surely there must have been lots and lots of good souls in the SA/SS and Wehrmacht? Breaking out of a group setting like that is very difficult. So, it may be easy to say: Surely these individual LEOs could have refused orders?
But it ain't that easy. Think about it. (Keep in mind, I agree with you)
You brought up the bible and our creator, plus disobeying authority. Is that really in line with the good book? Didn't God teach us to obey the law of the land? To give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's? I can't point my finger on a specific passage, but it seems the bible encourages respect of authorities and compliance, lest we be viewed as unkempt rebels (No offense Haggis <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />).
Again, I agree with you, but had to throw my two cents in there. In the end we will have to explain every unjust action. Personal responsibility my friend. That's the key phrase.

If you compare work-a-day small town and county cops to the JBT's of the Fed that did Waco, Ruby Ridge and some others not mentioned. You are doing a diservive to thousands of Honest, hard working men and women!

The JBT's are still the exception to the rule, it's like saying humanity is rotten to the core and God should wipe it out and start over!

Matthia;
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but all of the problems that you cite as being a result of the decriminalization of drugs are already happening. I grew up in Detroit, where crack was king. In the neighborhood where I lived, you could see the crack houses sprouting up daily. Dealers were everywhere, and pot smokers smoked it like it was legal out in the open. I personally called in several "crimes in progress" and the entire neighborhood went to a community policing meeting to report the addresses of the crack houses, yet nothing was done. Why? Because the cops were on the take. The cruiser would pull up, someone would run out, toss an envelope in the window, and the cruiser would leave. I know this because I saw it.

The war on drugs was never about drugs, it was about circumventing the Constitution to give greater powers to the fledgling police state. The assault weapons used by drug dealers were never intended to be used on the police. Heck, everyone knew that the dealers would be back on the street before the cops were done with their paperwork! The assault weapons were to be used as protection from other drug dealers.

The most frustrating thing is that we already have an historical model for what happens when you outlaw a substance; Prohibition. Prohibition gave rise to organized crime, government and police corruption, and the Kennedys <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> All things that could have been avoided if the temperance nuts had just left well enough alone.

Each generation has a President that declares war on some social ill. The 60's had Johnson declare war on poverty, the 70's had For declare war on inflation, the 80's had Reagan declare war on drugs, the 90's had Clinton declare war on "militia groups" (and common decency), and here at the dawn of the 21st century, we have W declaring war on terrorism. The problem with all of these wars is that whenever the government sought to fight these wars, the problem got worse.

Militarizing the police hasn't done anything but get people on both sides killed. The recent confrontation in South Carolina is but another symptom of the disease. The chasm between the police and the policed is growing wider. If this trend continues, the end result will be a police state where violence is seen as the only recourse for the average individual. The courts aren't upholding the Constitution, judges and bureaucrats invariably are siding with the government that pays them, the politicians have lost sight of the fact that they are our employees not our rulers, so they strut around and enact laws that restrict our freedoms, secure that they, the anointed ones, won't fall subject to those laws, and the LEO's from the local sheriff on up to the Fibbies are being trained to be soldiers for the state. The public has been conditioned to accept the violent death of dissenters and those that the government deems as "fringe".

When the Philadelphia police dropped a satchel charge on MOVE, destroying an entire city block in the process, heads rolled, the public was outraged, and jobs were lost. There was protest, and inquiries made. The end result was a copmplete reorganization of the administration of the Philly Police Dept. 20 years later, 80 men, women, and children are besieged, tormented and eventually immolated in a government sponsored raid, and people barely gave notice. The cover-up that followed was so amateurish and blatant that there should have been rioting in the streets over the insult to our intelligence, but nothing was done. It was smoothed over and forgotten.

It's no wonder, then that Law Enforcement Bureaucrats don't respect the Constitution, why should they when the great body of the American public doesn't?

Matthias it was never my intent to try to have you or anyone else agree with me or believe what I do, the truth has been written on our hearts and it is up to every man to search his own heart for the truth. I was just letting Joe know that he was not alone in some of the things he feels and if I'm alone in some or all of the things I feel then that's quite alright too. If you are satisfied with the status quo then I'm happy for you and anyone else who feels that way. I never meant to start a debate on who is right or wrong. Take care and have a great day and don't forget to get a flu shot.

Flu shots are just a plot from our evil government! They are laced with dog hormones, to make us all obedient and grovel! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

EBD: So what is the answer? Ignore the problem and turn the other way?

What I am telling you is this: Ignoring it or decriminalizing it will not work. Whatever is bad now, will get much worse.

Just because evil seems to have the upper hand doesn't mean that we can quit fighting it and hope it will disappear.

One reason for the failure of prohibition was that alcohol was already widely accepted in society, and then outlawed. Illegal drugs have always been illegal and should stay that way. If you make it legal, or decriminalize it, what are you really saying? "It's okay, it's really not that bad. Go ahead, if it feels good do it." This kind of attitude is exactly what leads to our general decay of good moral values.

It will get us nowhere. I don't know what the correct answer is. I do know what the wrong answer is.

Like I have stated before: This country is on the way down and will not get back up to its past glory. But I will not go down with it. I refuse to quit fighting, and I refuse to believe that there aren't lots of decent people out there.

I said I was done, but I guess I can't resist. I am gratified to see that there are a few people who see what I am saying.

People need to read the great works of literature and study history. Read 1984 or Animal Farm. In 1984 the government was in a constant state of war against an enemy who was characterized by the government as the epitomy of evil. Periodically, a former enemy would become an ally against an enemy who was once an ally. All of this was the backdrop against and the framework for an enormous police state. Does any of this sound familiar? Today we fighting and indefinitely long war against implacably evil terrorist. The leading terrorist was once our ally against the implacably evil Communist Russians. The Russians, lead by a former head of the KGB, are now our allies against the terrorist. Don't get me wrong, I am not a conspiracy theorist. If there were as many conspiracies as some people think there are, I figure I would have gotten to be in on one by now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But what some don't seem to realize is that it doesn't take a conspiracy or a bunch of evil plotters for things to go to hell in a handbasket.

How do LEOs play into all of this. Our government is becoming increasingly distant and authorative. New laws are constantly being made and the penalties are becoming increasingly stiff. Acts that were not crimes a short time ago are now serious felonies. Simultaneously, the Police are trained to become increasingly violent. The so-called "War on Terror" has lead to talks of repealing the Possee Commitatus law and allowing the military to take an increasing role in law enforcement. The lines are already stretched with the military providing training and equipment to the police. The police also have a much more militaristic attitude.

Increasingly, police see lawbreakers as "them" or "scum" or some other unsavory adjective. They are trained to use overwhelming force to intimidate and to protect themselves. Increasingly, the laws they are enforcing are more restrictive and their methods more harsh.

Listen, I don't know about you, but I do not believe that a state that uses its officers to intimidate its citizens into obeying laws is compatible with true freedom. I suspect many of the opinions on this board are based on the fact that the police are not busting into your house and you have no reasonable expectation that they ever will. If they were, then your opinions would be greatly different, I suspect. As gunowners, most of us on the board should be aware of the possibility of becoming instant outlaws. It could just as easily happen with some other law.

Now, I will address the individual attitudes of the police themselves. Many police are fine individuals. But as I stated earlier, many of the SS and the Polezei in Nazi Germany were as well. In the Nazi system, they defined the Jews and the criminals as "Untermenschen" or sub-human scum. These characterizations allowed them to commit these horrible crimes because the scum "deserved", if not for their acts, then for what they were. I see the same kinds of adjectives being applied to drug criminals and others today. By dehumanizing the criminals and other enemies, it allows LEOs or others to treat them with extreme force, because, after all, they are scum. Am I saying our LEOs are like Nazis? No, of course not, but I see some of the same trends occurring now that occurred then.

Now comes the definition of criminals. We all admit that many things are crimes that didn't used to be and that there are new crimes created every day. Pair this with the attitude that all criminals are scum and it becomes very clear that there is a widening gulf between the LEO and the average guy. What if there is a major terrorist strike here (WMD or something) and some sort of marshall law is imposed and (for instance) it becomes a crime to be outside of you home after dark in some areas. Do you think that LEOs with their training in the use of force, and their attitudes towards criminals will give you a chance to explain that your car broke down before you could get home and stranded you out in the city after curfew before they break your skull. All of this seems increasingly less far fetched.

One last story I forgot to relate earlier. When I was in law school a fellow student related that his father was on the FBI HRT and that he had been at Waco. This student thought it was just hilarious that after the fire, the HRT guys had T-shirts made that said something to the effect that, "I was at the great Waco Weenie-roast". I have no way of knowing if he was telling the truth, but if he was, the fact that Federal agents would joke about the deaths of over 80 women and children in a cauldron of fire... well... I think all hope is gone anyway.

These are my fears. Laugh if you want, but everything I see shows us going deeper into the abyss. If we are to become a police state, then the LEOs will be our keepers. I see it heading that way and I see a divided system developing with our masters, the LEOs, doing what they please,from driving 90 down the interstate but giving you a ticket if you do, to much more serious corruption.

As a Christian and someone who believes in individual accountability, I absolutely reject the notion that LEOs are not responsible for their training or their enforcement of current laws. We hung concentration camp guards who were just following their training and were following orders and the laws in force. Remember, Hitler was elected. Everyone must take a stand and be on the side of right and wrong and good and evil. If an LEO shoots someone wrongly because he was trained to act overly aggressively, he will answer to God for his crime in the end. If he shoots someone whose only crime was to have joint or something else, he will answer to God in the end. Most LEOs are not bad people but the system is bad and is getting worse. In the end, you will be held accountable for being part of an increasingly bad (if not evil) system. We all have freewill and individual choice.

Well, no. Hitler was not elected. He was nearly elected, but not quite. He was very close. He seized power.
I am splitting hairs here, sorry about that.
Joe, I think we are somewhat in agreement. I agree with your dark vision of the future. What I don't agree with is your statement that you "despise all LEOs" and they are all the scum of the earth. I have an even bigger problem with Haggis' statements. At least you are open to some reasoning.
I think we can both walk away from this argument in good faith.

Actually, no, Hitler's party won a plural majority in the Reichstag and he was appointed Chancellor according to Parlimentary rules. Therefore, he was elected. He later seized complete power when he named himself Fuehrer for life.

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. And if you share my dark vision for the future, then you need to reexamine you belief in the basic goodness of someone who voluntarily chooses to become part of that system. And for the good LEOs out there, I ask that you reexamine your part in the increasingly evil, corrupt, and distant system with the sure and certain knowledge that someday you will be held accountable, if not by man, then by God.

So far some folks have insulted my nickname, of which I am very proud, my ethnicity, of which I am very proud, called me a �sociopath�, called me, a veteran, a hater of America, and a score of other personal insults; but hey, if that�s all you�ve got�, go with it.

The cops say they have taken an oath to defend the laws of the land, and then turn around and say they are a brotherhood and have to stick together, and while some of the cops are bad guys, not all are. Okay, if you are in a brotherhood with bad guys and backing them up; you�re a bad guy. If a cop is enforcing the laws of the land, then enforce them on everyone. If the cop is only enforcing them on people who are not part of the brotherhood, then the cop is saying his group is above the law and violating his first oath.

As long as the cops consider themselves a brotherhood and allow bad guys into their group they are supporting breaking the law. This makes them all party to any crime committed by any of their club members. This makes them all villains.

None of the LEOs on this board will back those bad guys up.
There are unfortunate examples of this happening in the real world. I still refuse to generalize every last cop out there into an evil puppet of the evil system.
What do you propose? Shoot em or just get rid of em?
Who will do their work? I hear a lot of complaining from you guys. What I don't hear is solutions.

Um, no. Hitler never had plural majority. Check your facts.

Here's some history:

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.

Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.



Summary

Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him was generally quite strong. Hitler therefore would have never seen the light of day had the German Republic been truly democratic. Unfortunately, its otherwise sound constitution contained a few fatal flaws. The German leaders also had a weak devotion to democracy, and some were actively plotting to overthrow it. Hitler furthermore enjoyed an almost unbroken string of luck in coming to power. He benefited greatly from the Great Depression, the half-senility of the president, the incompetence of his opposition, and the appearance of an unnecessary backroom deal just as the Nazis were starting to lose popular appeal and votes.



Argument

Critics of democracy often claim that Hitler was democratically elected to power. This is untrue. Hitler never had the popular votes to become Chancellor of Germany, and the only reason he got the job was because the German leaders entered into a series of back-room deals. Some claim that Hitler's rise was nonetheless legal under the German system. The problem is that what was "legal" under the German system would not be considered legal under a truer and better-working democracy. In a democracy along the lines of the United States or Great Britain, Hitler could have never risen to power.

The background to Hitler's rise to power

The German Weimar Republic was doomed from the start. (1) Germany had no democratic tradition, and in fact many parties were deeply opposed to the creation of a democracy. These included old monarchists, the Army, the industrialists, the Nationalists and several other conservative parties. Many, like the Nazis to come, were not so much members of the Republic as they were conspirators to overthrow it. When it came time to create the Republic, the conservative parties took no part in the process. They left that responsibility to the Social Democrats, who were not enthusiastic about building a Republic either, but did so anyway, by themselves.

Yet this would allow the conservative parties to blame the Republic and the Social Democrats for all of Germany's future problems. The new government, led by the liberal parties, inevitably had to sign Germany's surrender documents and terms of peace. Unfortunately, the punitive Treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany before the entire world. This event was really beyond Germany's control, but conservative parties would blame liberals and the Republic forever afterwards, calling it a "stab in the back" by the "November criminals." To be loyal to the Fatherland, conservatives often said, one had to be disloyal to the Republic. Hitler himself would rely heavily on this very rhetoric.

The constitution of the new Republic was also doomed from the start. On paper, it seemed like one of the most liberal and democratic constitutions of Europe at the time. It called for the government to be led by a president with limited but sometimes strong constitutional powers. The Reichstag, or parliament, would be filled with a varying number of elected representatives (usually about 600). These representatives would in turn elect the Reichstag's chancellor and cabinet, which would remain in power only as long as they commanded majority approval in the Reichstag. In the event that no single party or candidate commanded a majority, then coalitions would have to be forged.

Unfortunately, the constitution also contained several fatal flaws. One of the worst was Article 48 of the constitution, which granted dictatorial powers to the president in times of national emergency. Unfortunately, the president would frequently evoke this clause, and it ultimately proved the downfall of the Republic.

Another flaw was an elaborate and complex system of proportional voting and voting by list, intended to give minorities the fairest possible representation. This is a laudable goal, of course, but other democracies use different methods to achieve it. Germany's approach had the practical effect of splintering the parties; by 1930, there were no less than 28 parties competing for election. This made it virtually impossible to establish a majority in the Reichstag, and led to instability and frequent changes in the government. What made this worse is that Germany's middle class was too small, and there were too few middle-class parties to stabilize German politics. With Communists on one side, and Nazis on the other, there was little room for compromise and coalition-building.

Finally, the constitution created a government that was not sufficiently centralized. Many of the German states retained a high degree of autonomy under the new government. This was not the original intention of Professor Hugo Preuss, the constitution's chief architect. He had called for states like Prussia to be turned into provinces under a unified German state. But his suggestion was rejected, creating a situation where strong German states would endlessly squabble for power.

In addition to these constitutional defects, there were two other problems that weakened democracy in Weimar Germany. One was the advanced age of its president, Paul von Hindenburg, a strong-willed field marshal and war hero. Unfortunately, Hindenburg would be in his middle 80s and partly senile by the time Hitler started achieving real power. Although he personally detested Hitler, he made many costly blunders and miscalculations about him, thinking he could easily control him. But by then the aged field marshal had lost much of his competence.

The second problem was that the Army was not subordinated to the government, but was a strong political player in its own right. By the time Hitler started his final rise to power, the Army's most influential political figure would be Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, who was a close personal friend of Hindenburg and other government leaders. He would emerge as a major power broker -- and an undemocratic one -- in the power struggles that erupted in the early 30s. Of course, Hitler had long made sure to cultivate his alliances with the Army.

These were the conditions under which Hitler began his political career.

Hitler's rise to power

Like all mass movements, Nazism only thrived in times of great national distress. However, it is important to note the significant limits of Nazi popularity even then. After World War I, Germany lay defeated, humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles, its industrial regions occupied by foreign powers, saddled with enormous war reparations, and with no military to defend itself. Yet throughout the 1920s, Hitler could not exploit these setbacks to achieve political power. As late as May 1928, the Nazis had obtained only 12 seats in the Reichstag.

It took the Great Depression -- which hit Germany harder than any than any other nation -- to turn Nazism into a true mass movement. But even then, the Nazis never gained a majority of the people's vote. Nazism generally appealed to only a third of the German people, and these came from its lower classes, armed forces and war industries. Nearly two-thirds of Germany were opposed to Hitler, and adamantly so. There was never any hope that Hitler could have won their support. It goes without saying that if the German Republic had been truly democratic, it would have survived even the test of a depression.

Still, the Great Depression gave Hitler a chance to blame the status quo, and he expertly exploited the people's misery to increase his political power. In elections held on September 14, 1930, the Nazis won 18 percent of the vote, increasing their seats in the Reichstag to 107. Overnight they went from the ninth to second largest political party in Germany.

Between 1931 and 1933, vicious power struggles would break out between rival political parties. The power brokers in these struggles were Hindenburg and Schleicher. The problem during this period was that no party even came close to achieving the majority required to elect its leader Chancellor. Coalitions were either impossible to build, or were so transient that they dissolved as quickly as they formed. Ambitious leaders from every party began maneuvering for power, striking deals, double-crossing each other, and trying to find the most advantageous alliances. Hitler himself would ally the Nazis to the Nationalist Party. "The chess game for power begins," Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary. "The chief thing is that we remain strong and make no compromises." (2)

In 1932, hoping to establish a clear government by majority rule, Hindenburg held two presidential elections. Hitler, among others, ran against him. A vote for Hindenburg was a vote to continue the German Republic, while a vote for Hitler was a vote against it. The Nazi party made the most clever use of propaganda, as well as the most extensive use of violence. Bloody street battles erupted between Communists and Nazis thugs, and many political figures were murdered.

In the first election, held on March 13, 1932, Hitler received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg's 49.6 percent. But because Hindenburg had just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won, this time with a decisive 53 percent. A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a democratic republic.

However, the balance of power in the Reichstag was still unstable, lacking a majority party or coalition to rule the government. All too frequently, Hindenburg had to evoke the dictatorial powers available to him under Article 48 of the constitution to break up the political stalemate. In an attempt to resolve this crisis, he called for more elections. On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making them its largest party. Still, they did not command the majority needed to elect Hitler Chancellor.

In another election on November 6, 1932, the Nazis lost 34 seats in the Reichstag, reducing their total to 196. And for the first time it looked as if the Nazi threat would fade. This was for several reasons. First, the Nazis' violence and rhetoric had hardened opposition against Hitler, and it was becoming obvious that he would never achieve power democratically. Even worse, the Nazi party was running very low on money, and it could no longer afford to operate its expensive propaganda machine. Furthermore, the party was beginning to splinter and rebel under the stress of so many elections. Hitler discovered that Gregor Strasser, one of the Nazis' highest officials, had been disloyal, attempting to negotiate power for himself behind Hitler's back. The shock was so great that Hitler threatened to shoot himself.

But at the lowest ebb of the Nazis' fortunes, the backroom deal presented itself as the solution to all their problems. Deal-making, intrigues and double-crosses had been going on for years now. Schleicher, who had managed to make himself the last German Chancellor before Hitler, would eventually say: "I stayed in power only 57 days, and on each of those days I was betrayed 57 times." (3) It's not worth tracking the ins and outs of all these schemes, but the one that got Hitler into power is worth noting.

Hitler's unexpected savior was Franz von Papen, one of the former Chancellors, a remarkably incompetent man who owed his political career to a personal friendship with Hindenburg. He had been thrown out of power by the much more capable Schleicher, who personally replaced him. To get even, Papen approached Hitler and offered to become "co-chancellors," if only Hitler would join him in a coalition to overthrow Schleicher. Hitler responded that only he could be the head of government, while Papen's supporters could be given important cabinet positions. The two reached a tentative agreement to pursue such an alliance, even though secretly they were planning to double-cross each other.

Meanwhile Schleicher was failing spectacularly in his attempts to form a coalition government, so Hindenburg forced his resignation. But by now, Hindenburg was exhausted by all the intrigue and crisis, and the prospect of civil war had moved the steely field marshal to tears. As much as he hated to do so, he seemed resigned to offering Hitler a high government position. Many people were urging him to do so: the industrialists who were financing Hitler, the military whose connections Hitler had cultivated, even Hindenburg's son, whom some historians believe the Nazis had blackmailed. The last straw came when an unfounded rumor swept through Berlin that Schleicher was about to attempt a military coup, arrest Hindenburg, and establish a military dictatorship. Alarmed, Hindenburg wasted no time offering Hitler the Chancellorship, thinking it was a last resort to save the Republic.

On January 30, 1933, Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor. As Hitler historian Alan Bullock put it:

"Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the 'Old Gang' whom he had been attacking for months� Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue." (4)
Hitler's deal did not even give him a majority in the Reichstag. His coalition of Nazis and Nationalists had only 247 out of 583 seats in the Reichstag, still not a majority. But Hitler wasted no time using his newfound powers to start eliminating his competition. New elections were scheduled for March 5, 1933. Goebbels was completely confident now of success. "Now it will be easy to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal. We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda. And this time, naturally, there is no lack of money." (5)

Hitler's opponents had brought him to power thinking that they could control "the Austrian corporal." Papen even boasted: "Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak." But they fatally underestimated him. On February 27, 1993, a fire engulfed the Reichstag -- Germany's symbol, if not actual center, of democracy. Hitler blamed it on the Communists, and used it as an excuse to begin a brutal crackdown. This he accomplished by drawing up an emergency decree "for the Protection of the people and the State." It read:
"Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." (6)
And Hitler got the distraught and half-senile Hindenburg to sign it. Almost immediately, the Nazis initiated a wave of terror, murder and torture that effectively cowed thousands of their political rivals, almost all of them Communists, Social Democrats and other liberals. Herman Goering, now in charge of the police, replaced senior police officers with his own S.A. or S.S. leaders. He ordered them:
"Police officers who make use of fire-arms in the execution of their duties will, without regard to the consequences of such use, benefit from my protection; those who� fail in their duty will be punished�" (7)
The combination of political terror and state-run propaganda gave the Nazis their best election result yet. On March 5, 1933, the Nazis won 44 percent of the vote -- but still not a majority. The Nazis also secured 288 seats in the makeshift parliament -- again, still not a majority. Along with the 52 seats of the Nationalists, however, their coalition had obtained a majority of 16 seats. Yet Hitler now had a new goal: to obtain the two-thirds majority required to alter the constitution and give him dictatorial powers. He needed only 31 non-Nazi votes to get it.

Hitler planned on doing this by passing a bill entitled the "Enabling Act." It would transfer power from the Reichstag to the Reich cabinet for four years, including the power of legislation, budget, approval of treaties and initiation of constitutional amendments. The laws enacted by the cabinet would be drafted by the Chancellor and "might deviate from the constitution." In voting for it, the Reichstag would essentially be dissolving itself and making Hitler dictator.

In attempting to secure the votes, the Nazis made heavy use of terror, blackmail and empty promises. The Social Democrats adamantly refused to vote for the Enabling Act, but Hitler was able to win crucial support from the Catholic Center party, by lying to them about future concessions. On March 23, 1933, the Enabling Act came up for a vote. Nazi storm troopers encircled the Reichstag, and legislators had to pass through a ring of tough-looking, black-shirted Nazi thugs to enter the building. While legislators considered the vote, they could hear the storm troopers outside chanting:
"Full powers -- or else! We want the bill -- or fire and murder!"
Only one party went down fighting. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats, told Hitler:
"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."
Hitler exploded with rage, shouting:
"You are no longer needed! -- The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!" (8)
When the Reichstag voted on the Enabling Act, it passed 441 to 84. All 84 dissenting votes were Social Democrats. Not one member of the Catholic Center party voted against it. (9)

Conclusion

Can democracy be blamed for Hitler's rise? No. Other democratic nations around the world were also devastated by the Great Depression, but none converted to dictatorships as a result. Germany was the oddball among these nations, and an examination of its republic reveals its democratic and constitutional weaknesses clearly enough.

History reminds us that there is actually a spectrum of democracies, with strong democracies on one end, and weak democracies on the other. To the extent that democracies fail, it is because the will of the people is not being carried out. The U.S. offers this lesson itself. Blacks were forbidden to vote until 1870; women until 1920; poll-tax debtors until 1964; illiterates until 1965, young people until 1971. And how the U.S. treats its minorities today, as compared to 200 years ago, is like night and day. One remarkable fact remains: where there is a failure of democracy, there is usually a lack of democracy.

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.

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

Matthias,

I can't resist posting again. I guess whatever this thread has proved, it has proved I don't know when to quit.

Let me understand you correctly, you are seriously posting that the reason for having restrictive drug laws is so that children will not use them? Think about that for a minute and ask if you really mean that. When on the face of God's green earth in the course of human history has a law or the words of a parent ever kept a child or teenager from doing something they wanted to do? In many cases kids are drawn to things simply because they are forbidden. You know this, yet you propose to limit someones freedom because of what might happen to the children.

Well, Matthias, you know and I know that there are more alcoholics out there than there are drug addicts. You and I know that there are children out there who will become alcoholics after the first beer. Their addiction will result in deaths, broken homes, and all kinds of mischief, yet I don't see you advocating a return to Prohibition. My guess is that you like to have a beer or two yourself. Therefore, it is better to regulate your neighbor who likes a little cocaine every now and then. Remember you advocate a total ban, not age limits or any other restrictions, a total ban because your evil cocaine using neighbor might hook some children in the neighborhood on the drug. I personally don't drink, smoke, or use drugs. I think they are all bad and I would personally not like my children to be exposed to them. I should be in favor of banning them all, and were to use your logic, I would be. However, I feel that whatever someone does to themselves or in the privacy of their home is none of my business. My children, like anyone else, will have to take their chances. Some will make good decisions and some will make bad decisions.

Your argument is flawed because it can be used to support the banning of anything that is potentially harmful. I am not saying that is your position, I am just saying that the same logic can be used to ban almost anything. If someone takes your position using your logic, then he really can't object to someone else using the same logic for banning something else. It is all a matter of degree, not a matter of philosophy, since you readily assert that banning some things is good and should be done to protect others from themselves.

When someone says some restrictive action is for the children, hold on to your hat. Like many in America today you hold human life above all else when you wish to regulate certain behavior on the chance that it might be harmful to some. I, on the other hand, know with certainty that there are more important things than human life and that liberty is one of them. Freedom has ever been sacrificed in the name of security and human life.

Ohhh, Haggis - if you are going to quote the Bible, you should first at least understand it. This is exactly what I have spoken of before in this thread. "Before the law, there was no sin" does not mean the law caused sin. If it did, then Jesus would be saying, in effect, that God caused sin. If you believe this to be the case, then the whole Bible will be senseless to you, and there is no point in quoting it. The truth is exactly the opposite. The law was brought BECAUSE of the sin. Even the Ten Commandments themselves were a response to the EXISTING sin.

The big picture that you are missing is that - generally speaking - laws do not cause criminals - CRIMINALS CAUSE LAWS. Do not play word games with me and claim that crime is defined by law. Just as there is such a thing as "natural law". there is also "natural crime". If it were not so, then it would be moral for me to do whatever comes to mind at any given instant. A lack of written code does not eliminate or excuse crime in any moral sense. It is the criminal actions of man that has caused the need for law. The fact that we have allowed laws to get too immense and complicated does not change this reality.

-FreeMe

Haggis: At least Joe makes some sense. What you post just reeks of pure BS.
I guess the way to get rid of high murder statistics is to decriminalize murder.

Joe, it is indeed a matter of degree - just as you say.



I can tell you that alcohol and cocaine differ by degree. They are as different as apples and oranges. One can use alcohol responsibley and NOT become intoxicated. The whole POINT of using cocaine is to be intoxicated. And it is virtually impossible to do so without being intoxicated.



Pot has been used in these kinds of discussions as well. Not only is pot virtually always intoxicating (show me someone who smokes it and does not get intoxicated - those who *think* they are not intoxicated do not count), but very often the user believes he is more competent under the influence of pot. Not only that, but the mind disabling effects of pot in regular users is somewhat constant and lasting even when they are not ingesting it (up to three months after use has stopped).



Meth cannot even begin to be rationally compared to alcohol. I know some meth addicts, and even THEY will tell you this. It is vastly more dangerous and has more devastating permanent affects.



I could go on and on...



Then there's the issue of certain drugs that are ingested unknowingly, because someone ELSE put them in food, drinks, etc. At least you KNOW when you are or may be drinking alcohol.



And BTW, Joe - thanks for this quote "...you know and I know that there are more alcoholics out there than there are drug addicts." This FACT is so commonly ignored by those who would legalize drugs - EVEN WHILE THEY CLAIM THAT LEGALIZATION WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ADDICTS! You're not gonna go THERE, are you?



-FreeMe



edited for typo

How fortunate I and others are to have people like you and Mathias around who know and completely understand everything from the history of the world, to modern cultural psychology, to theology with such clarity that you can explain it simply by saying that anything that is in opposes to your perspective is BS <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />.

Joe...hey, at least we got something in common. I too cannot resist posting on this topic time after time. Hey, we both feel passionately about the issue, that's good. Only difference is, I'm right! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Quote : "Let me understand you correctly, you are seriously posting that the reason for having restrictive drug laws is so that children will not use them?"

I was merely using what you tossed at me in an earlier post. Here's the quote:

"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 are absolutely right in that I cannot keep my son from doing what he wants to do. If he wants to get to the kitchen knives, he will. However, I will not make things easier for him by leaving them laying around easily accessible. Plus, they are in a drawer he knows not to touch. Therefore, in order to get to the forbidden knife, he is trespassing in forbidden territory. Double barrier, so to speak. (I hope I am not confusing you with Parent talk). It would be irresponsible of me to give him easy access to things that could hurt him, especially since he does not know better himself.

Why do we not allow children to purchase firearms, but allow adults to do the same? Because it is a graded approach.

Like I stated earlier, it doesn't take a lot of brains to know most illegal drugs are pretty bad for you. With alcohol, there is a lot of "in-between" between non-drinkers and alcoholics. With most illegal drugs, that space is much more narrow. I know because I've been there. The "occasional" user of cocaine and heroine is extremely rare.
So, the extremely negative effects of those drugs are well known. Addicts are a burden on our society.
Additionally, our laws do not only exist to criminalize people. They are there to establish a moral framework within which our society functions.
Our society, with its drug laws, says that the trade and usage of those drugs are not okay. What good could come of it?
Society enacts these laws to protect itself from the negative effects of the drugs. Unproductive members of society, drug crime, etc. Even if drugs were legal, addicts would commit crime to finance their habit. Prevention is not the only function a law has. It should also establish a reasonable punishment for what society feels is unacceptable behavior.
If this potential for punishment is gone (through legalization) you will (for sure) have more people acting on their desires, thus creating problems for society.
You cannot apply the same logic to guns.

Haggis...take a good look at what you posted. You were saying that without laws there is no crime. And then you expect to be taken seriously. Do you see any flaws in your logic, or do I really need to go into it?
Like I said, maybe the way to reduce the high murder statistics in this country would be to decriminalize murder. This is your logic applied to the real world.

I am I hearing that my B.A. in History and French has taught me nothing? I graduated Magna Cum Laude with a 3.89 grade point average on a 4 point scale. I was inducted into five Honor Societies including Phi Kappa Phi. I was chosen History Student of the Year two years in a row, but I�m being told that I know nothing of history.

Apparently my Master�s in History with heavy emphasis on psychology, anthropology, government, and sociology had little impact on my knowledge of those subjects; though I graduated 4.0 on a 4 point scale.

I was raised in a Pentecostal home with my Great-Grandfather, Great-Grandmother, my Grandfather, and my Mother all preachers; my Mother was an evangelist for 50 years before being killed by a truck driver asleep at the wheel. Yet to hear it I know nothing of the Bible or scripture.

Apparently everything that I have learned in school, college, graduate study, and a lifetime of scriptural related activities, as well as personal experiences have taught me nothing but BS.

That being the case, I will abandon the field to those two fountains of perfect knowledge and understanding whose logical conclusions have so stunned and amazed us.

Alright, Enlightened One. Please explain to my lowly self how you have no crime without laws? Sigh...did you really get rid of the criminal action, or did you just quit calling it criminal?
Please, Haggis, reason with me here.
Please explain to me how there is no crime without law.

Who told you that you know nothing of History?
I think Joe made a post about Hitler being elected into power, which I felt called to correct. But that was Joe, not you.

One more, very general thing here: Education does not equal wisdom. The bible is very clear on this.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."

Proverbs 1:7

And Matthias, I corrected your correction about Hitler.

Joe...did you see my correction to the correction to the correction? ( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />)

Here, I'll quote myself:
"Um, no. Hitler never had plural majority. Check your facts.

Here's some history:

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.

Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.



Summary

Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him was generally quite strong. Hitler therefore would have never seen the light of day had the German Republic been truly democratic. Unfortunately, its otherwise sound constitution contained a few fatal flaws. The German leaders also had a weak devotion to democracy, and some were actively plotting to overthrow it. Hitler furthermore enjoyed an almost unbroken string of luck in coming to power. He benefited greatly from the Great Depression, the half-senility of the president, the incompetence of his opposition, and the appearance of an unnecessary backroom deal just as the Nazis were starting to lose popular appeal and votes. "

There was a lot more detail to the post, but this is the summary. If you'd like to know more, just go back and read the whole thing.

Again, Hitler was not elected to the power he had.

This just goes to show that we can argue about anything. Hitler was lawfully elected according to the rules of the German democracy at that time. Thirty-seven percent was enough to give the Nazis a plurality in the Reichstag and have Hitler appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. It matters not what he did later, he was initially elected.

The fact that Hitler only had 37 percent means little and really 37 percent is only 6 percent different than 43 percent. Forty-three percent being, of course, the amount of the popular vote received by Bill Clinton in 1992. Both are far short of a majority, yet, enough to get both Hitler and Bill Clinton elected in their respective systems. Wow, yet another way the modern American "republic" is beginning to resemble Nazi Germany. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Joe....

Quote:

"Forty-three percent being, of course, the amount of the popular vote received by Bill Clinton in 1992."

You should know that nobody gives a rat's ass about popular vote in this country, it being a representative republic, and not a democracy and all. Important difference, as the last elections showed once again.

Yes, we can argue.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
I maintain that Hitler was not elected into the position that he later took. He sweet-talked Hindenburg into giving him the powers of Chancellor. Before that, the position in that extent did not exist. People did not vote for that. Hitler cheated his way into that position. There is a very important difference there. Barely one third of Germans voted for him.
So, Chancellor Hitler was not elected. I will give you this: His party was elected to represent 37% of germans. This partie's front man was hitler. BUT....Chancellor Hitler was NOT elected.
After all, a somewhat close analogy would be Al Gore seizing the presidency and then claiming he was elected. After all, he won the popular vote, and the Democrats represent about half of the US population! Which is far more than Hitler could claim. Hitler simply did not win the Chancellorship, he seized it. Which has nothing democratic about it.
But, then again, one third of Germans DID vote for him.
OTOH, he was acting out a position nobody elected him for.
I could argue with myself for hours and hours.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

How do you have no crime with no laws? Simple, just repeal every law.

Of course the same low lifes will be commiting the same acts, but it will no longer be illegal.

I don't have the education to write these high sounding essays, but I have enough sense to recognize that as being stupid no matter how many guys with masters degrees dreamed it up

Those were kinda my thoughts...but then again, I don't have three advanced degrees in Sociology either.

Just ask Haggis, he can explain it all away. If he ever does lower himself to my level and explains it to me, that is.

Well, gosh. If we have to present acreditted credentials for this discussion, then I guess I'm out.

I guess I wasted all that time studying government, history, and human psychology on my own time since graduating high school (25 years ago), if I can't produce a sheepskin to validate it. I woulda loved to attend, but I had to pay bills instead - woe is me. It's a real shame too - since that means I also missed out on the official indoctrination that sheepskin requires. Dang.

And it appears that I am twice cursed, because there were no preachers or evangelists in my family. Just Bible studying and believing Christians.

I guess I had to learn everything the hard way. (whimper)



Didn't all that schoolin' teach you how to debate without pulling rank?

-FreeMe

Seems to me like you have more common sense to show for it.


Once again, Haggis: Please show me the logic in your argument that no laws produce less crime (or no crime, whatever)

Oh heck, to put things in parlance probably familiar to FreeMe... gentlemen, we have a runaway train here... this makes post #158 unless someone else is typing as I speak...

OK Joe, you can let your neighbor sell cocaine to your kids, which he won't of course because in a free society we are all responsible individuals, and your kids won't ask him anyway 'cause you taught 'em not to, in which case they will of course and if he does sell 'em cocaine you can just shoot him in defense of your family, and maybe shoot his buddies when they come to shoot you because they didn't think that cocaine dealing ought to be a capitol offense because after all your responsible kids asked him, all of which might involve car chases which will be hard to spot on account of everyone drives like they're in Mexico anyway... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sorry Joe, no actual disrespect intended, must be my ethnicity acting up again <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Which brings us to a more interesting debate than ol' Hitler... How about one on a comparison of the Federal Govt vs. the Confederacy with respect to individual rights within both during the Civil War...

Which of course brings up History. Please no one EVER start spouting off college degrees as evidence for intelligence or whatever, unless you actually invented something useful. I have two such degrees myself, and hence know that college mostly involves reading books and then writing stuff about what other people wrote, which can be done at home far more cheaply (here, for instance), except of course there prob'ly ain't several thousand co-eds living in immediate proximity to your house.

See y'all on some OTHER thread <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Birdwatcher

Wimp! Are you quitting early? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Seriously, this ain't nuttin compared to the garbage on AR political forum.

Hell, I've allays been one to make a tired dog hunt. I reckin' I'm proof positive thet it don't take brains to make a good argument. An my 3rd grade educashun got me to where I am today, so don't nobody go badmouthin' schoolin'. I don't really unnerstand what some of y'all are sayin', but it sounds like you want to live in the wild west, with the reach of the law bein' only as far as the range of yer gun. Sounds fair to me. You got a problem with somebody, you take a vote an' shoot the sucker. Course, I been accused of wantin' to bring back the great buffler herds and scalping as a means of settling civil disputes.

""""""""I am I hearing that my B.A. in History and French has taught me nothing? I graduated Magna Cum Laude with a 3.89 grade point average on a 4 point scale. I was inducted into five Honor Societies including Phi Kappa Phi. I was chosen History Student of the Year two years in a row, but I�m being told that I know nothing of history."""""""""""

Hey baby, you can be anyone you want to be on this thing. Throw in a few more impressive stats so's we'll "really" be impressed, instead of "just a bit". Its always been fascinateing to me anyway how so many , so-called educated people, can spend so much time walking around with their heads between their legs, looking up, and trying to figure out if they are punched or drilled.

Most of all I love the Internet tough guys, in these gun forumns, that somehow think that as long as they have that pop gun in their hands they are safe from criminals, will never need help, and all the police have to do is show up late and haul off the evil-doer's bodies after the I-net hero has slayed them in rightous indignation.

To the rest of you, the majority that has some common sense, trust me when I say when you are hip deep in [bleep] there is no more welcome a sound then those sirens coming closer. And thats from the lips of someone who really is a tough street cop, and knows theres always someone tougher, better armed, and more of them, standing around the next corner. Ive had the be-jeezuz scared out of me enough to know "I" aint so tough. And if "I" aint so tough, then certainly the "haggis's" out there aint so tough.

""""""""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.
""""""""""

Its really hard to believe theres actually an adult thats behind such a post. I just wish some of you guys could actually stare into the eyes of some of the offenders I regularly put into prison. Theres no "soul" inside them, no humanity, and absolutly no morals. The media creation of the "honorable criminal" is just that, a movie creation.

But tell me again how, once armed, you will never need the help of LE . I get a kick out of that one...............10

10Point: Thanks for showing up. Thanks for some sound reason.
I am still waiting on Haggis to explain to me exactly how the no laws/no crime thing works.

Birdy..."...except of course there prob'ly ain't several thousand co-eds living in immediate proximity to your house."


<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Now I REALLY feel cheated!


"... gentlemen, we have a runaway train here... "

Yes indeedy, I do believe we've pissed away our air... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

-FreeMe

FreeMe

I hope you're not including me in the diploma dropping group. I've mentioned going to law school but only as a context for my experiences. I don't need a diploma to know that I am smarter than just about anybody. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Birdwatcher:

I would be glad to discuss the War of Northern Aggression with you sometime. The Confederacy was right and the Federal Government was oppressive and invaded a soveriegn people in an illegal war. The American Republic died at Appamattox.

10point:

Your attitude is exactly the attitude that I despise. Don't tell me I need protection and that the "tough old street cop is there to protect me". It is one more example of Government knows best. I don't want you or need you to protect me. And no, I do not go around habitually armed and do not feel the need to do so. I have never been the victim of violent crime and I KNOW that the police have had nothing to do with that fact. Yes, I know there are some bad hombres out there, but I would rather take my chances with criminals operating outside the law than thugs operating within the auspices of the law. If I want around the clock personal protection, I'll hire a bodyguard. If I want someone to show up too late to do any good and then tell me that there is little that can probably be done, then I'll call a cop.

I am sorry but the attitude that we are unable to fend for ourselves is part of the erosion of our liberties. Police are there to apprehend offenders, not to protect me or anyone else. In fact, courts have consistently ruled that a policeman is under no obligation to come to someone's aid in a time of distress.

Now the whole point of this thread, was not that all police are bad, or even a significant majority of them are dishonest. It was that the system is becoming increasingly oppressive, police training needs to be revised, we have runaway government, there are too many laws, and that the police are in danger of becoming merely the tools of the this system and will be used to keep the people in line. I believe in many cases that this has already happened. None of this precludes the fact that there are a great many good police that do good things or that even "bad police" may do as much good as harm on many occasions. The point is that good people can become parts of bad things and that they can be held accountable for those things if they do not engage in a little self-examination.

At least, I may have started the longest thread in the history of this board.

Joe...It's amazing how we agree on quite a few points. Here's the strongest one: I don't hold anybody responsible for protecting me other than myself. A task so personal is best left up to me. I think I may have already stated that earlier.
I do, however appreciate cops enforcing certain traffic laws (for protection of others) and apprehending offenders.

By the way, this is not the longest thread by a very very long shot. Search for a 30-06 thread in the classifieds. I don't recall how long it was, but it seems 20-35 pages or something like it. Very entertaining reading, seriously.

Joe I dont much care what you think of my attitude. Ive always said, from my begining in LE, that each person should take responsability for their own safety. And I dont need you to lecture me about "courts" "liberties" or much of anything.

The whole point I was makeing was that I think characters like you are fools, and comical ones at that. I dont know how many lives Ive saved "out there" but its way to many to have to listen to someone like you seriously. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Just another Internet tough guy , gee while your at it tell me about all the gunfights you been in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />............10

Wasn't Hitler elected to power? He was Chancellor Hitler before he appointed himself Der Furer, wasn't he?

Anyway, that's besides the point. I think Haggis may have overstated it a little, but the point he is making is a valid one. We are being wrapped tightly in such a web of laws and regulations that at any given time each one of us is probably in violation of a couple of them, and subject, consequently, to be harrassed by some level of government, or even shot if we resist, at the discretion of government. There was a time when any common Joe knew what was legal and what was not. Generally, if you did something bad to someone, that was illegal. Otherwise it was not. As the situation is now, and it's getting more so every day, government can almost literally act arbitrarily to destroy any American at a whim, because they can almost always find some obscure law that you are in violation of. Laws should only punish wrong action, not the mere potentiality of wrong actions. This is what Joe is saying. Yeah, if your neighbor is shooting his air gun onto your property, whether he hurts anyone or not, that's an actionable thing. You can take them to court for that, and always have been able to. Reckless conduct is actionable, but the mere fact that he is shooting in his backyard is not de facto reckless. There's a bigger point in there somewhere. Just think about it.

Hawkeye...no, Hitler was not elected chancellor. I've explained it in two earlier posts. His party got 37 percent of the votes. Hitler then sweet-talked Reichspresident Hindenburg into appointing him Chancellor, then he sweet-talked him into giving him more powers. He also used the Reichstag Fire (Which he was most likely responsible for) to blame his liberal opponents and seized even more power to effectively "combat" this terrorism. Geez...sounds familiar.

I generally agree with the jist of what you're saying. I just don't think it to be of the extent you do.

Let me correct myself: Hitler did not sweet-talk senile Hindenburg into a political appointment. He used blackmail and terror, as well as shady backroom deals to make Hindenburg appoint him. He then used the Reichstag fire incident to draw upon extraordinary powers, including Article 48 of the German constitution.
He did, however, sweet-talk Hindeburg into signing his terror bill.
Democracy had not much to do with Hitler's rise to power. In fact, the majority of Germans made it clear that they wanted to continue the Weimar Republic, and NOT have Hitler has Fuhrer.

I am sorry I keep correcting folks on this Hitler deal. I feel that if you want to change your government, and you cite historical examples, it would be beneficial to actually understand the cited history. Otherwise, you build your visions for the future on flawed history.
Not a very solid foundation.

10point

Thanks for proving my point. When you brag about how many lives you have saved and how many gunfights you have experienced, you sound like one of those fat, BDU wearing (bootstrings flying all over the place of course), donut eating slobs who thinks he is "hero" because he is an LEO.

Gunfights? I want my LEOs to avoid gunfights. Hell, even Wyatt Earp admitted that he had only been involved in one or two actual gunfights his entire career as a lawman.

Lives saved? If you pulled someone out of a burning car, then great and thank you. If your bragging about the lives you saved by taking "criminals" off the street, then you're a joke.

When you brag about gunfights and lives saved, you're a joke. Unfortunately, not a funny joke. Now, look straight down at your chest and your rather large gut, wipe away the donut crumbs, and step away from the computer, slowly, with your hands in the air or I will be forced to flame you some more. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Harsh, yes, but then again, I am just an Internet "fool" according to you and my opinions are nothing compared to those of a "real live LEO". Oh please, noble and brave LEO, save me from myself and my foolish opinions.

Matthius

I am going to disagree with you again on this. Germany had a parlimentary system before Hitler. Now, Hitler's party got the largest single percentage of the vote of any party in the Reichstag elections that year. In a Parlimentary system that means as leader of his party, he was entitled to a position of leadership in the government. Everyone knew this going in before the election and those voting for Hitler knew that Hitler could come to power if he got enough of the vote. Yes, Hitler was supposed to be at the head of a coalition government and he soon ignored the rest of the coalition and made himself dictator. But the fact remains, that as head of the party receiving the most votes in the Reichstag, he was entitled to a position of power under the Parlimentary system.

The point of the whole comparison to Hitler being elected is that just because an official is initially elected does not mean that he is incorruptible or incapable of using that position for personal gain. I did not wish to discuss the intricacies of pre-war German politics.

Here is what I beleive we can agree on. Hitler's party received the largest single amount of votes in the 1933 elections. He used this seeming legitimacy as a springboard to greater power. He used this greater power to the detrimate of many people. We must be vigilent that something similar does not happen here. It could happen here as that the natural tendency of all governments is to grasp power. A terrible situation in this country, similiar to the problems faced by the Weimar Republic, could make us vunerable to unscrupulous men or women. These persons will almost assuredly be elected to some position before they make any outright grab for power. We must also be vigilent against creeping government power and understand that just because we vote, it does not always mean that we can undo any harm by means of another vote.

Quotes:

In the first election, held on March 13, 1932, Hitler received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg's 49.6 percent. But because Hindenburg had just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won, this time with a decisive 53 percent. A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a democratic republic.

On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making them its largest party. Still, they did not command the majority needed to elect Hitler Chancellor.

In another election on November 6, 1932, the Nazis lost 34 seats in the Reichstag, reducing their total to 196. And for the first time it looked as if the Nazi threat would fade.

As much as he hated to do so, he seemed resigned to offering Hitler a high government position. Many people were urging him to do so: the industrialists who were financing Hitler, the military whose connections Hitler had cultivated, even Hindenburg's son, whom some historians believe the Nazis had blackmailed. The last straw came when an unfounded rumor swept through Berlin that Schleicher was about to attempt a military coup, arrest Hindenburg, and establish a military dictatorship. Alarmed, Hindenburg wasted no time offering Hitler the Chancellorship, thinking it was a last resort to save the Republic.


"Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the 'Old Gang' whom he had been attacking for months� Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue." (4)
Hitler's deal did not even give him a majority in the Reichstag. His coalition of Nazis and Nationalists had only 247 out of 583 seats in the Reichstag, still not a majority.

End Quotes

He was not elected. His party was elected, and had was the strongest party in the parliament. Without Hitlers backroom deals - which were out of voters hands - he could never have risen to his infamous position.

I will agree that we have slightly differing views on this.

I also agree with most of your conclusion.
Remember: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I mean that.

Nevertheless, Hitler would never have been in position to effect a backroom deal if his party had not received 37 percent of the vote. As to your contention that Hitler himself received no votes, true enought. Neither did Tony Blair, at least not for the position of Prime Minister. He was appointed to position by the Queen because his party got a majority of seats in Parliment. England has a two party system so they don't have to deal with the problems of no party receiving a majority of the votes.

I wouldn't call the fact that the Nazis did not receive a majority of the votes as a ringing majority for democracy in Weimar. The communists and other extreme right wing nationalist parties also received votes and seats in the Reichstag.

Quote:

"I wouldn't call the fact that the Nazis did not receive a majority of the votes as a ringing majority for democracy in Weimar."

Quote:

"In 1932, hoping to establish a clear government by majority rule, Hindenburg held two presidential elections. Hitler, among others, ran against him. A vote for Hindenburg was a vote to continue the German Republic, while a vote for Hitler was a vote against it. The Nazi party made the most clever use of propaganda, as well as the most extensive use of violence. Bloody street battles erupted between Communists and Nazis thugs, and many political figures were murdered.

In the first election, held on March 13, 1932, Hitler received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg's 49.6 percent. But because Hindenburg had just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won, this time with a decisive 53 percent. A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a democratic republic."

Pay attention to the last sentence in the quote. Not a victory for democracy?



Quote:
"Neither did Tony Blair, at least not for the position of Prime Minister. He was appointed to position by the Queen because his party got a majority of seats in Parliment."

True enough. However, Hitler did not have the required number of votes to be appointed Chancellor.
A backroom deal got him there, not a legitimate appointment.

Has anyone here ever seen Barak and Joe in the same place at the same time? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Naw....don't think so. OTOH, I haven't heard from Barak in a while now....oh Clark?

Back to it, went to police station today, police captains step-son ran into my van last month. Been having problems with State Farm Insurance, both of us are insured by them. Wanted to see if we could help each other and told him so as I introduced myself. Got that attitude us against them right off, he said,"what do you want from me". Hell, I just wanted to help him and me. I saw right off I was in wrong place and excused myself. Yes, cops of today are trained like we are their enemy. This country is getting in deep trouble. -- no <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I maintain that this behavior cannot be generalized. Individual community departments are responsible for their own training.

However, this type of behavior is worrysome. I do not know whether it is more prevalent now than it was 30 years ago. We as voters need to remain vigilant.

I don't believe Barak would ever resort to posting under a sock puppet.

-FreeMe

Not at all, Joe.



I agree with that premise. I just disagree with some of the more extreme views posted here.

-FreeMe

Sounds like we are closing in on something close to an agreement... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I think that we are in agreement that most of us disagree with and dismiss the other's point of view as childish and or dangerous.

Well, I have to disagree with you there. On top of that, I think what you're stating is childish and dangerous.

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

You don't mean in Mineola- by-god- Texas? I guess I'm lucky. The city and county of Kaufman are manned by people who actually want to help the residents if they can. We do have good leaders in both depts. Good luck to you. Bob

I know this thread has been pretty cold for a week now and
should be left well enough alone, but a couple of days ago
I had my first meeting with a policeman that kind of bothered
me. Very arrogant, treated everyone in my place of business
like we were dirt beneath his feet, felt like telling him to leave
but he did spend a small chunk of money. He wasnt in uniform
and didnt present his badge, but made it known that he had
been in law enforcement for a number of years. After he left
another customer told us that he had encountered this individual in the past and he was pretty mean when he wanted
to be. Im not badmouthing the PD, but this guy just gave me
a overall bad feeling, and Ive dealt with quite a few police in
the past few years and never had a problem, most have been
friendly, talkative, etc. Id hate to get pulled over by this guy
when he's in a bad mood. I have always respected LEOs and
this hasnt changed my views at all, but I guess I just dont get
out of the house enough to encounter cops like this guy.
It very much reminded me of some of the NCOs I new in the
Army who once they made E-5, that thought they were gods and could
say and do whatever they wanted to and get away it. These were
guys that I stayed away from because they were just trouble.

Unfortunately this happens. Fortunately, however, there is some legal recourse.
I have had to fight off bogus traffic tickets before, successfully. I don't think there was malicious intent involved on the part of the cop. It was part incompetence, and part "People are looking at me to do something".

Amen to this...

We must educate those few left who have ears to hear that our Republic is ruled by laws, not the whim of 51%, and all of those laws must be subservient to "the laws of nature and nature's God..."

You have reanimated a 13.5 year old thread.

I have a daughter in middle school younger than that.

Well met.

11 years ago Cossatojoe seems to have had insight as to the future of our nation... with L.E. militarized all over the land with fed dollars. I visited some friends in Maryland several months ago and we saw a MD state trooper giving a ticket out in green combat fatigues... seemed kinda weird honestly; but certainly an inconsequential aesthetic.

Seems like things have gotten worse in the last 11 years.

OOPS, I was a victim of the "decaf" coffee substitution issue.

It's only 10+ years.

"You have attended school haven't you? Laws are made by elected officials that YOU(by you I mean people) help put in office. You don't like a law, go out and work to change the law. Don't blame the ones sworn to enforce them."

I admire my friend for starting this thread and I'm sure he anticipated the insults he would receive because of it.

It seems plain to me that his central question is; "What sort of person would swear to enforce unfair laws?"

You dodged it and I doubt it will be answered by anyone else. But I ain't reading the whole thread to determine that.

Excellent!

I've been trying to get that point across for years, Joe. They cannot (or will not) hear it.

The same thread started today, would see lots of those people who hurled insults agreeing with the premise of the original post. You can see the evolution of it all here on this board.

Eyes are opening all over the country. Is it too late? I suppose time will tell. But don't kid yourself, lots of those "decent" guys who have families and kids and give you a friendly nod when you see them in their yards, would round you up and send you wherever they were directed if it was covered under the color of law and if their salaries and pensions depended on it.

The role of law enforcement within society is to prevent chaos. Why do we have LEO's? Because citizens want them.

I've been to places off the world where there are no LEO's and I'd take what we have here a million times over compared to what was there.

In the absence of police, thugs rule.

The rule of law itself can only exist when the law is protected and enforced.

That just isn't true. I grew up in a town with no police and in a county of 600 square miles and sheriff's department of about five guys. For all intents and purposes, there were no police at all most of the time. And before fifty years before that, there was one sheriff and one or two deputies for the entire county. And no, thugs did not rule. People were quite capable of handling themselves and the rule of law without constant supervision by government agents.

Welcome, Robert. You sure found a great old thread. Didn't realize it was old at first. I thought, at first, that Joe had returned to the Fire. Oh well.

Absolutely.

Right, because the law empowered all decent folks to maintain the peace, even through force if need be, and the law would support their actions, thus few got far out of line.

Lawdog appears to have left the 'Fire back in '05. I don't think you're going to get a response from him any time soon.

This is awesome....A ten year old thread and TRH responded to it five times in less than an hour.

seems like only yesterdecade.

Is that a word?

Robert White, I'm glad you bumped this thread because it'll probably distract people from starting a new one just like for a couple of hours.

But how did you find it?

Oh, they hear it and knew it even before you made the point.

They just like the power, profit, and privilege of the improper role in society that they have seized better than their proper role; and they mean to hold onto it no matter the cost in our blood and treasure.

It's easy to pick out the ones with back up time and on probation amongst us.

Pinkeye simply retaliates because of the reality check he lacked the skillset. If he can't join them, think of HS to beat on them, sort of thing.

It is amusing to read these posts from urban folks who have all this experience with LE. I live in a area with over 2000 cops and I never see them accept for a occasional traffic stop or in court.

One has to be a special type of character to have all this insight into LE. Well, that and dumb assed websites for the dumb asses of this world.

Isaac, once again, I implore you to open up with us and tell us if psychopaths like yourself suffer the slightest twinge of conscience when you tell malicious lies about folks. Or does it just slip by without friction? I'm telling you, you'd be contributing massively to the field of clinical psychology. The inner workings of the minds of confirmed psychopaths is a very hot issue right now.

Look within. The answers should be obvious.

TFF. You really don't think for one second anyone believed your dumb ass as to why you were tossed, do you?

An unqualified black man got my spot because of affirmative action...what a crock of schit.

And, after all your professional setbacks, with countless professions, black teenaged boys still want to print tire tracks on your spandex covered fat ass.

You must be greatly misunderstood.

Viciousness is most of the time an indication of lack of intelligence and imagination.

Perpetual dumb [bleep] are also a indication of a lack of intelligence.

You have just been duped by the teleprompters and sharp uniforms.



You can not hear and see past them to recognize that the spit and polish is the only thing that separates the current syndicate of politicians and police here and the village headman and his thugs in whichever of the many Zimongostans of which you write.

Apparently, you would know.

How exactly would you know that your spot was taken because of affirmative action?

Do you just start off with the assumption that you're better and smarter than black people and go from there?

The police are now the thugs.

The OP was pretty prophetic, I have been seeing this since the mid to late nineties, some people are just now coming around.

Eyes and ears are usually more than enough.

If it's been around for twenty years, shouldn't the cops have taken over Earth by now?

Well, apparently we must be because the government thinks they need special prerogatives in order to get hired. It really doesn't matter what he thinks, it is official government policy that assumes blacks couldn't get hired if standards weren't lowered.

Yes, I do know.I make a very comfortable living off of them.Much like the defense lawyers and courts in your area likely know you.

Let me help you JoeBobBoy...why don't you tell us of your personal experiences with law enforcement and what takes you to the grandiose blather you've posted the past couple of days.

Try and not respond by stating you read the blogs and watch videos.

===========

Don't give him clues and help him with his HS. You've taken away what was going to be an easy set-up.

Your story, like most of what you spew, doesn't even pass the smell test, Bob.

I've made many of them to be liars on the witness stand. It is usually pretty easy to do since the average cop statement will have at least three or four lies in it. It might be more difficult if they were intelligent enough to lie well, but alas, it is only trade I know of with an actual court decision that says that they can discriminate against applicants who are too smart.

By the way,...your avatar is a homo,...and a scientolgist.

You must know Bob (Isaac) personally.

I've made many of them to be liars on the witness stand. It is usually pretty easy to do since the average cop statement will have at least three or four lies in it.
================

Before I laugh, I'll let you tell us how so.

You can laugh all you like. I suspect you're having a giggling fit already since you appear to be off your meds today.

===================

Funny you mentioned that. If you flip it, you'd be the closest to being accurate and honest as you've ever been.

===========

That was a knee-slapper, JimBobBoy. Now, why don't you answer the question. It's clear from your writing style you're not an attorney. Tell us more about your examination of cops on the witness stand. You have me intrigued.

========

Just what I thought.

Now you have me intrigued. How is if from my writing style that you think you can tell that I am not an attorney? Is yours the example for which I should strive. I see nothing but gratuitous insults. Does that work in your area? Do you start with a couple of knee slappers during voir dire...maybe even before that in a motion hearing? Perhaps, during a direct, you'll throw it out there that you think someone is moron. Maybe on cross, you'll get in there. Could it be that you'll respond to an objection by saying, "Your honor, it isn't hearsay because it isn't offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show the state of mind of the witness...i.e. that he is a complete moron." Maybe, on argument, you'll get a wild eyed look and cast aspersions on someone's intelligence or lack thereof in broken English.

Translation...yeah,I'm full of schitt.

Unless it's you Coss picking up where you left off.

Seriously, I think you are. If you really are an attorney, I implore you to come practice in my area. You would make a useful foil. I could generally charge more if you were on the other side, because I'm sure you would be a pain in the ass, but almost always come out looking like a hero because you would be easy to beat. You're simplistic "Nanny nanny boo boo" form of argument is absolutely hilarious.

What? I couldn't hear you Drunk Cat.

Dammit, I want to hate Tom Cruise, but honestly, I like damned near every single one of his movies. I even liked "Oblivion".

Most of the idiots posting here have never been victims of crime.

They believe that men are angels, or that they will shape up because a community wants them to play along with others.

Step into any city on the planet and the people living there can tell you otherwise.

Newsflash, men are not angels...




Bring back the local lynch mobs! Because they were arbiters of justice!.... TFF...

TFF. Scary to think a so called professional would make such outrageous libelous comments thinking he's protected by some initial anonymity. Foolish and reckless,at a minimum.

If that's how you play your game, and if it's not the crock of schitt I suspect it is, I'd send a first year associate to make short,easy work of you... if the judge hadn't done so already.

Whatever do you do since there are no longer any phone booths in which you can change clothes?

Libelous? Really, you are the one who has accused people on this board, in this very thread, of being probationers. You do realize that false imputation of a crime is defamation per se in many jurisdictions don't you? Perhaps, you should back away slowly an quit making an ass out of yourself. You started this and no one will think less of you when you slink back to your corner office.

First off, I was never in police academy. Furthermore, after scoring 98th percentile on the entrance exam shortly after high school, and after being informed that my score put me in the first hiring slot, and that I should expect to be contacted in the next week or two about coming in for the physical, I was sent a letter informing me about the stay on the hiring process because a civil rights group sued the police department claiming the test was racist since no blacks made it into the first or second hiring slots based on their test scores.

Anything you've heard different has been the product of the fevered imaginations of the likes of Bob, who have ulterior motives for discrediting people with whom they cannot hold their own in honest debate.

PS This originally came up in the context of a thread about affirmative action.

I wish Rick would close the door. The party is full. All the cool kids are already here. Anybody worth having arrived a while ago.

Says the one that wants to do away with cops so that he can be the one in his neighborhood to determine justice. You're cracking me up!

BTW, I'm no LEO, nor have I ever been. So, nice try...

I never thought you were in police academy.

So the story is that you decided you didn't want to get into that sort of work environment and didn't pursue the follow up process, correct?

I don't want to do away with cops. But I'm not silly enough to think that our civilization would end if there weren't any, or a lot fewer of them anyway. Police as we know them are an invention of the last 100 years. Prior to that Anglo-Saxon civilization existed for 1,500 years with more or less no law enforcement that we would recognize.

Again...TFF. Bring it,lightweight. I'd love to expose the HS of you simpletons during the Discovery process.

In fact, instead of hiding behind your anonymity, man up and let us know where it is you practice,Perry. I'll be happy to educate your ass.

He didn't say you were a cop HAJ, he let in that you're a super hero, which we both know is true.

So the story is
==========

Good luck with that.

You must be a better attorney than me. When I was doing criminal defense I had a hell of a time proving the cops were lying on the stand.

So, let us get this straight. The biggest bomb thrower on the board. The guy who throws out childish insults right and left, is taking offense? Were you the guy who insisted on fighting after school and then wanted to call the cops after you got your eye dotted? Is that you?

It depends doesn't it? DWIs are the easiest because the statements all say the same thing, but there is always a DVD. So the jury can see that you're client wasn't swaying and wasn't slurring his words and so on and so forth. That is why DWIs only have a about a fifty percent conviction rate for those that actually go to trial.

"Immediately upon the subject rolling down his window, I noticed the strong odor of alcohol. The subject exhibited red bloodshot and glassy eyes, while slurring his words, and fumbling for his documents...."

Offense? You must be kidding. I said bring it on. I'm actually begging you.

You're full of schitt.

Bring what? You're the one threatening the lawsuits here.

No story about it. They eventually contacted hiring slot III, which is where I ended up after the court-ordered random jumble (placing candidates randomly, rather than by test score, in the three hiring slots was how the supposed racism in the test design was supposedly remedied). By then, however (about two years later) I was focused on matriculating college and applying to grad schools.

If I wanted to mischaracterize you I wouldn't ask you a question.

And psychopath, really? At least be creative Chris.

Thats rich. Ive never herd a cop tgat has been out of the academy more than two weeks say that he smelled alcohol

Sometimes instead of alcohol they'll say "intoxicants". Make you feel better now?

And, it's closer to a 68% conviction rate with forensics,rather than PC, being the major reason for not guilty findings or acquittals;for those very rare cases that go to trial by jury.

I'll look forward to you having evidence to the contrary, cossatojoe.

I would assume jurisdictions vary, but in mine, the last statistics I saw were 54%. And forensics are always an issue at DWI trials. Who claimed otherwise?

If when at the zoo the monkeys begin flinging poo, you step briskly away from their cage you will get none on you and they will eventually exhaust their current supply.

I suspect, too, that - If when at the 'Campfire' the police begin flinging personal insults, you step briskly away from their personalizations and back to real issues you will get none on you and they will eventually exhaust their current supply.

"The real issues"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHGAHAHA

Whoa, step back from the cage...monkey poo incoming.

But of course, with the administrative hearings, PC is generally the only issue. And surprisingly, they screw that up a lot too. In my area, they'll commonly screw that up where a local makes the stop and calls a DPS to actually administer the tests and make the arrest. Then they'll fail to document the PC properly. I had one last week where the arresting officer wrote everything in the third person so that his entire statement sounded like it was hearsay within hearsay and then he failed to even sign it. I simply said who I was and what I was there for and before I could even get out another word, the DPS attorney said, "We're dismissing that one. You can go and I'll send you an order."

First off, I was never in police academy. Furthermore, after scoring 98th percentile on the entrance exam shortly after high school, and after being informed that my score put me in the first hiring slot, and that I should expect to be contacted in the next week or two about coming in for the physical, I was sent a letter informing me about the stay on the hiring process because a civil rights group sued the police department claiming the test was racist since no blacks made it into the first or second hiring slots based on their test scores.

Anything you've heard different has been the product of the fevered imaginations of the likes of Bob, who have ulterior motives for discrediting people with whom they cannot hold their own in honest debate.
=============

Then tell us more about your personal knowledge as to how police officers are trained. Did you read a book?

I get it. This is your twisted way of suggesting that unless someone is a cop, or been to academy, they cannot have anything to say about the police, right? But wait a minute, Copernicus. Don't you criticize US Senators and Representatives? Please fill us all in with the details of your personal experiences serving in either of those offices.

Nice try,bullshitt artist. I'm not surprised at the grossly illogical comparison,however. No one is, actually. However, you professed to know a great deal of how police officers are trained. Spoke many times about it, in fact.

What premised all that blather? What facts did you reply upon since you didn't have such training?

It's ok to finally admit you were just running your mouth. We're all used to that.

Yes, in this age of information, facts about police training are simply beyond accessing for mere mortals. Right Copernicus?

Chris, i think what he is saying is without the experience of the training how can you make a statement on the content or structure of the training.

Which police are flinging insults?

Yes, especially about how they attain their vastly superior marksmanship skills.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. ~ Frederic Bastiat

When peace and order are the focus a few police chase a few criminals around, and ordinary citizens hardly ever have to risk interaction with either police or criminals.

When power and plunder are the focus many police chase many ordinary citizens around, and ordinary citizens must constantly risk interaction with both police and criminals - if he can any longer tell them apart.

Are you an expert in police training too,nurse?

Yes, in this age of information, facts about police training are simply beyond accessing for mere mortals.
============

Having not ever been there or a participant, upon what do you premise the HS you blather? Are you saying you read about it?

Games up, tard.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. ~ Frederic Bastiat

This is boring. Where's Dink?

I don't know, kind of amusing watching lawyers attack each other. I'd put money on Bob, but I'm guessing he thinks he'll win so that makes JoeBob a certainty.

Love the internet...

I'm not a nurse, azzwipe. I'm a retired Special Forces Medic, you know, that job that a lot of MD's have often fantasized about doing. I much prefer nurses to low-life esquires though, and so does everyone else.

How many people do you carry around in your pocket, Copernicus? You sure like to speak for more than just yourself a lot. Do you think if you didn't include a whole bunch of people you imagine are all in your corner no one would take you seriously?

Dink? Hell wheres Pat

Did you read about the Senators you criticize? Checkmate, tard.

Actually, seeing how most politicians are lawyers, it probably wouldn't be difficult for Bob to speak on their training and behavior

Why don't you coach Bob from behind the scenes rather than embarrassing him by coming to his rescue whenever he's in trouble?

Pat is funny but he's also full of logic and reason.

What this thread needs is some gasoline and bottle rockets.

Because this is more fun.

BTW i can soeak to that corrolation between bob and politicians because like all of the pokiticians I have contacted, Bob doesn't return my phone calls either

Are you really trying to equate speeches and voting records to actual police training, retard. That spin from the actual HS is even way below you, scrambler.

Come on, Poindexter, it's really not that hard to admit the only way you know about police training is by how you perceived things you've read. You've never had the training although you clearly tried to suggest you did.

IOW, you were completely full of schit. From here on out, you need to leave the police training specifics to the doers instead of the failed wannabes, such as yourself.

I'd ask you to show a shred of integrity by providing a link, but I know you too well.

I never not return calls. If you're not in my contacts,please PM me the contact info and I'll happily include it.

I apologize if it seems as though I didn't return one of your calls.

Chris, are you going to apologize for calling me a psychopath

Just bustin your azz Bob, i called to wish you all a good weekend at the hog hunt. Pm incoming

=============

You're denying it? How laughable. Someone will quickly find it. It's hard enough to read the HS you write each day, much less over the past 7 years.

No.

Yes, let's see where I indicated I had police training. And when it doesn't manifest, what then birdbrain?

I don't think that's fair Chris he may be short, egotistical and a fraudulant pilot...but he isn't a paychopath

That's a matter of opinion.

So now you fully admit you've had no police training but you blathered on incessantly about how police are trained.

They also didn't have populations like we do today. They didn't have cities like we do today.

Group people together and you'll have somebody trying to take advantage of somebody else. How do you prevent that? Laws. Laws have no power if they are not enforced.

That goes without saying.

No, that's a diagnosis, of which you are not qualified to give.

Save your breath HAJ. You're trying to talk sense to somone who believes cops should not carry lethal weapons for "everyday" contacts with citizens....because no cop has ever been killed on a "routine trafic stop"

Chris, if I were a psychopath I wouldn't have cared to tell you when I found that your PB account showed your full name.

He knows about police training though. Apparently,it's the same as Senators and politicians or some back-pedaling HS like that.

As usual, your "logic" leaves much to be desired.

And this tactic isn't psychopathic?

HAJ is speaking of Rovering. That fella whom it seems can't put together an original thought, but sure is a pro at cut and paste quotes

==========

Laffin...did the dumbschit open some doors posting his shower mate, blow up doll pics of yesterday. I'll give you credit you even cared to look. The potential chance of seeing weird chicken pics stopped me cold. I'm thinking if it wasn't for that chicken, the black boy wouldn't have had a chance to get a truck shot at him across the road.

You diagnosed me before this tactic, it isn't admissible.

Need more popcorn and maybe a HUGE glass of tea.

Wow! That's clever.

===========

No, it's not. Leave the medical terminology to the pros,lightweight. Oh wait...I'm sorry, you watch House reruns. I want to know more about police training. What books or TV shows did you read or watch again?

I'm still waiting for the link where I indicated I had police training. When it doesn't show, what then?

You indicated familiarity with how police are trained,as you well know, or do you deny that, as well?

Please tell me the materials, TV shows, magazines,books or Senators you consulted in forming the HS police training blather you incessantly post.

I can't believe you dumb sh*ts think that police training is such a great piece of intellectual education, do you watch what these dumb ph*ckers do on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure the IQ average of most police officers is below the average of a lot of ordinary jobs out there. I'm not saying all of them are dumb schits, but I've met my fair share.

No doubt they couldn't be as intelligent as you seem to be.

How'd you meet your fair share, by the way?

You mean someone with an IQ. high enough to spout Bravado about how far he could kick a dog?

I'm on a first name basis with every single LEO in my city and county, including the Sherriff, granted it is a small county and every one knows every one, they're a bunch of pretty good sh*ts as a whole, but none of em are gonna be starring on Wheel Of Fortune or Jeopardy any time soon.

IW ????

How many times have you let them little football dogs chase you back to your car? . . . . . . .lmao

LMAO!

I rarely have problems with dogs. I find it much easier to just keep a box of dog treats in mu patrol bag and ask the owners if it's ok to hive their dogs one.

And although it is pretty tactical, me holding the trump card was never intended to be a tactic.

I thought TRH wouldn't want his personal info readily available and so I warned him about his name being available on PB. And I kept my mouth shut about it until today, when I needed evidence that I wasn't a psychopath.

The only thing keeping me from revealing the information is my genuine concern for his well being and to save him from any potential hassle. And then he calls me a psychopath.

Your auto-correct is messing with you, John.

Don't work them up too much folks or they'll take it out on the aged and disabled on their next shift.

Aged:

Cop Charged in Death of 95-Year-Old Nursing Home Resident

The events leading up to John Wrana's death read more like the treatment for a zany cop comedy than the makings of a real life tragedy. Cook County, Illinois, police were called to Wrana's nursing home last year when the 95-year-old World War II veteran resisted being taken to the hospital. When then cops arrived, Wrana was brandishing his cane and a shoehorn as weapons.

That's when things turned surreal and tragic. Wrana picked up a kitchen knife, which officers ordered him to put down. Any reasonable person would know better than to use much physical force on an extremely elderly man defending himself with a shoehorn and a kitchen knife. But Officer Craig Taylor�who later said he thought the shoehorn was a machete�responded by shocking Wrana with a stun gun and pelting him with five rounds of bean bags fired from a shotgun.

Taylor's totally unreasonable and inappropriate use of force caused Wrana internal bleeding, from which he later died.

Prosecutors said Taylor fired the beanbag rounds from somewhere between six and eight feet away, when the proper distance is 15 feet away at minimum. He also refused to allow nursing home staff to help, according to Wrana's family's attorney.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/02/cop-charged-in-95-year-old-vets-death

Disabled:

BRUTAL St. Louis Police Beat & Bludgeon Mentally Disabled Man in his Own Home

This was brutal.
St. Louis police officers were caught on tape beating Mario Crump, a mentally disabled man, in his own home.

�I don`t think that you take a man that`s sitting in a chair in his living room, and use a club on them or, or your fists,� said Mike Keller, Executive Director.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/caught-on-tape%E2%86%92-st-louis-police-beat-bludgeon-mentally-disabled-man-in-his-own-home-video/

You in between pizza deliveries, Jason?

Care to decode that please ?

Must be the IW quotient when factored in.

Denny.

How do you explain Obama being elected TWICE!

Fuggin Iphone keys

Supposed to say. I keep a bag of dog treats in my patrol bag, and ask permission from the owner if it's ok for the dog to have a treat

Nah, stubby fingers !!!

Denny.

If you're practicing in a jurisdiction where there's always a DVD of a DUI investigation, then that means the majority of your DUI clients are pleading out. No wonder you've got a 50% win rate for those that go to trial.

That too, and multi tasking.

Doughnuts.

I've never lost a DUI case, not that it matters to me either way. I did have one thrown out, but that was because our witness, who signed the statement giving us the PC to gwt a warrant for blood work on the suspect refused to testify.

Police Union Votes

Gitem:

I think there are some departments that do a better job with DUI investigations than others. I think there are counties where the jury pool is heavily represented by functioning alcoholics.

Where I've practiced, the win rate for the prosecution in DUI cases is a lot higher than what Joe Bob is describing. Notice he hasn't - so far - given us the stats on his dipso clients who take one look at their DVD and sink into his office floor in embarrassment.

Well, perhaps you're a psychopath with integrity. OK, that's good evidence against you being one. So I apologize.

You are smarter than you look.

It's well higher here, as well. I wish I won 54% of the DWI cases I took to a bench trial.

I wouldn't even think of taking a DWI case to a jury here. I can keep them out of jail with only a judge. Can't imagine letting a jury have a shot at giving a client 12 months on my watch.

That would shake me, badly.

I knew what you were saying, and I agree. My standard approach to a DUI stop is, after determinging enough cause to perform FSTs is to do four tests, including an PBT. Next, if enough cause to arrest we are required by law to get a blood sample. The entire stop is recorded by dash cam.

A DUI conviction in a bench trial here would lead to the same sentence as a conviction by jury.

I've seen many a DUI conviction without any video at all. Just the breathalyzer and the word of an honest police officer.

I said 54% of the ones that went to trial, not all of them. Of course, I find the limiting factor on DUIs going to trial is more cost than anything else. Few people want to shell out $7,500 or $10,000 for a misdemeanor DWI trial. But those who do...I get good results for in a nice percentage of the cases. My main jurisdiction allows no dismissals, pleas to lesser charges or anything like that. You will plea guilty or go to trial. You get a bench trial at the lower level and a de novo appeal. It is like free discovery and an opportunity to get the po po under oath. The next level is a mandatory jury trial. Well, it isn't mandatory but none of the judges will do a bench trial on a DWI at that level. The last two I've tried, I've won at the lower level, including one where my client admitted to drinking eight beers.

Yea, me too. I got the camera when I was doing dedicated DUI enforcement. Then all of the cars started getting them. Ours only record when the overhead lights are activated

You're really lucky to have a retarded judge.

I found it is easier to get an acquittal with the video. The cops just can't help themselves but jazz up their reports a little. Most of the time the jury is looking at the reports and the video and wondering if the cop is talking about the same person.

He can look at a video and tell if a guy is drunk or not. He clearly wasn't and he refused all the tests. There was no evidence.

Do you turn the camera on them for the ride to jail? I had a few clients where I thought they did pretty good on the field sobriety exercises, then they're so pissed off about being arrested, they go ape-[bleep] in the back seat and there's 20 minutes of the most god-awful cussing and swearing.

Not something you want the jury to see.

The regional differences are interesting to read. In my county, folks have to place a intoxilizer in their vehicles for 6 months on a first time conviction. 1 year restricted permit, ASAP and around 300-400 in fines and court costs. For the vets, fees are 5-10K but many of us get tagged by the new guys and upstarts taking them on for a grand or two. They then call us for advice and to ask how to issue a subpoena to the forensic lab.

Except for the admission to drinking eight beers. The testimony about the driving pattern, the odor of an alcoholic beverage, etc.

I do the cheap ones too, but they know what they are paying for up front. And if they want a trial, they are going to pay. Some people just can't have a DWI and they have to pay whatever it is they have to pay.

The police report will say that the subject failed the walk and turn by not placing heel to toe. Then you'll get the DVD and the guy did it perfectly as far as you can tell on the DVD but the cop will explain that he placed one his heels an inch and a half in front of his toe instead of putting it exactly on his toe. You can literally see the jury roll its eyes. Then he'll say that the guy failed the one legged stand and you get the DVD and see that the guy swayed and caught his balance a bit at 22 seconds but otherwise did not put his foot down and did fine.

The biggest thing is you pull out their book. The book they are taught how to do field sobriety tests at the State Police Academy. You pull that out and you go step by step through it and you show all the ways they deviated from the standard taught exactly in the book, and they almost all get some shortcuts. They are mostly inconsequential but the jury doesn't know that. So, you go step by step through the book and then you come to the end where it says that if any one of or part of the tests are performed improperly then all the results are invalid. You do that, and if your guy isn't falling down slobbering drunk, you'll win.

Eight beers over the course of a day does not mean he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest. And he was stopped for speeding, nothing else. Speeding is not a cue for a DWI, merely probable cause for a stop.

It was a good win, then. Only the close cases should go to trial.

So police union votes put Obama in office?

Seems to me there are about 500,000 +/- police in the U.S.A,so how did that happen?

Joe Bob:

What's the DL consequence for refusing chemical tests in your state? With no conviction.

Automatic suspension for 90 days. But, hey, that is better than a DWI and a suspension. And it is pretty toothless at that because you can get an intoxilyzer installed for about $165.

Sarcasm my friend, Sarcasm

Gotcha!

If he had refused all the tests here thats enough to get a suspended license automatically, and will get us a court order to draw blood

laffin'

An administrative suspension is not a conviction for DWI and we don't draw blood on a refusal. In fact, I tell my clients to refuse all the tests and but request a blood test. The cops will always write it up as a refusal and never take them to get the blood test, but they can truthfully say in front of a jury, and the cop will have to admit, that they asked for a blood test. Then you can force the cop to admit that they didn't actually refuse to take a sobriety test, they just refused the tests that the cop wanted to give. And if you are really lucky, you might even get the cop to admit that he simply didn't want to take the time to take them down to the emergency room for a blood test. Juries love that. They've all watched CSI and know that all those sobriety tests are hocus pocus and the only way to be sure is with a blood test. And, of course, the only reason we don't have one is because the cop couldn't be bothered to take my cooperative client to get one.

All of our results are by blood here, breathalyzers arent admissable here. They can refuse, we wake up anjudge and get an order.

DWIs are the easiest criminal case out there to try. When a cop investigates a robbery or a murder, or really anything else. He knows it is going to trial and he knows his crap needs to be straight.

With a DWI that isn't the case. In fact, 95 out of a hundred DWIs will probably plea. And lots of those that plea were bad arrests where the cop made all kinds of mistakes. And with so few going to trial, some of those mistakes will become ingrained and habitual. So, the cop will get careless and when there is a trial, he is apt to look bad on the stand.

After the trial, the cop will straighten up and do everything by the book again, but it might be a year or more before he has another trial and being human and subject to human nature, he'll slack off again and go back to his old habit.

Cant speak for every cop, but i i'm confident in the way I handle my investigations. I've had somewhere around 3-400 DUI cases, and maybe 25 went to a trial. They were all convicted. One case thrown out

I clicked on Cossatajoe's name and clicked on his posts and perused them. I used to read his posts years ago and I always liked his way of thinking and his southern frankness. There was a north south debate playing out once and he really got me laughing and I wish I could find the quote; something like- "what you yankees don't understand is that we just plain flat hate you..." LOL... something like that except he put it more eloquent.

Who were you back then?

Many people read the Fire for years before joining it.

I thought he was Dixie Freedom, same thought process, but better vocabulary.

Dixie used to forget his password once in a while and have to change his Username.

Sycamore

You need to find a better community to live in.

Since that is, very unfortunately, the POTUS and LEOs from various departments across America collaborating against 'We the People'; I take it that you have both another nation to suggest for all of us to move to and a plan for how you police, bureaucrats, politicians, and your new Obamerika are going to survive without us to feed upon.

No one I know or care to know is in that picture of your savior.

"When peace and order are the focus a few police chase a few criminals around, and ordinary citizens hardly ever have to risk interaction with either police or criminals." This is what it's like where I live and work.

Sucks that you live here:
"When power and plunder are the focus many police chase many ordinary citizens around, and ordinary citizens must constantly risk interaction with both police and criminals - if he can any longer tell them apart."