Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Police Watch

Well, just seems a little mousey that's all.

Just to clarify, Barak is a variety of libertarian, while I'm a conservative. The goal in both cases is liberty, but the approaches are very different. The main difference is where we look for solutions to society ills. A conservative looks to the tried and true, i.e., what has been beneficial to, and consistent with, liberty in the past, while a libertarian couldn't generally care less about the past, and seeks solutions in innovation, i.e., new ideas which seem to them most consistent with liberty.

But in this case they lead to the same place, no?



Then why did those who lived in the past under the rules you now advocate, then opt for change?

Generally speaking, they didn't opt for it. Remember what Franklin said to the lady who asked him what kind of government they had given the people? He said "a republic, if you can keep it." He knew that, absent a vigilant and educated populous, it would eventually be taken from them by those who seek individual advantage by way of corrupting government, and that primarily through demagoguery.

How so?

I believe your and Barak's ideas on law enforcement to be the same, doesn't he also advocate private police?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As long as you've been alive LE has performed the duties of patrol. They've even been performing SWAT type duties since the early to mid 70's.

Your not old enough to have lived in a time that LE wasn't performing proactive patrol and other type duties. Please don't tell me how the "good ol'days" were so much better, because you didn't live in them, nor did i.

As far as LE, it has progressed in many ways far better then it has in years past. This in such areas as communication between agencies due to technology. This along with investigative tools such as DNA and other evidence gathering technology.

This has led to the conviction of many cold case murders and other crimes, that couldn't of been solved any other way.

Actually police corruption and brutality is less today across the board, then it was in the 60's and 70's as shown by statistics.

I believe that Barak has advocated the elimination of all authority entirely and completely switching to a private policing system. He opposes even locally elected sheriffs. He also opposes courts that have any real authority.

I believe you are once again making the error of equating with anarchy any degree whatsoever of reversing the current trend towards a police survailance/patrol/nanny state society.

I am reminded of the situation of a doctor who has each of his patients chronically on twenty to thirty different heavy duty oral medications and, when someone points out the superior wisdom of exercising prudence when prescribing medication, the doctor suggests that he must certainly be opposed to all modern medical science and would likely prefer witchcraft or voodoo.

and brutality, corruption, and fourth amendment violations were far more rampant in the nineteenth century than in the twentieth.....this is more of that nostalgia for what never was.

I'm old enough to remember more cops like Andy Taylor and less cops like Sledge Hammer though!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes and citizens understood the general concept of good citizenship. The idea of "thug for life" wasn't a statement of their attitude.

Petty criminals wouldn't kill a cop either. Just because he stopped a veh. they were in, for a minor traffic violation. All back in the good ol'days. Poor Andy would be shot down on the streets of America, as it is today in many locations.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Very true. Thanks for adding that.

Never before have there been so many police in society, bloated budgets, special cars, special equipment, eavesdropping equipment, computer equipment, buildings, education, books, food, (lots of doughnuts), salaries, (payment to cops for the time it takes to put their uniform on, the story of late), uniforms, boots, more boots, fully automatic weapons, automatic pistols, shotguns, ammunition, range time, helicopters, planes, SWAT teams, on occasion a hoor or too, etc. (basically the militarization of police)
Pro-Active LE sounds like a modern euphemism for breaking down your door and using the first victim as a human shield as they scour your home for the rest of the little terorrists:)


I think it was said earlier

THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED OUR POLICE STATE A STANDING ARMY

Well like I said before, ya doing anything about it or are you content to whine on the internet?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's break some of these things down that you've stated.


1. Bloated budgets, the majority of budgets are spent on payroll. This as it is with private industry. What do you think LEO's should work at minimum wage or work for free out of the goodness of our hearts? The second highest expense is operation, LE doesn't get a discount other then not having to pay sales tax on the products that it has to purchase, such as fuel, office supplies etc etc to operate the agency.

2. Special cars? What do you think that LE should be driving Honda Civic's or Mini Cooper's? The biggest supplier of LE veh's is Ford and the veh. is the Crown Vic. Some Chev. Impalia's and Dodge Intrepid's are used. You spend hours in a subcompact, then tell me about it. Besides we need veh's that can be relied upon to stand up. In the rural areas many use Chev. Tahoe's due to having a higher ground clearance and 4x4 all weather capabilities.

FYI to equip a patrol unit is expensive, radio's costs, lights cost money, audio/video camera's cost money, etc etc. Again the suppliers are in business to make money, no discounts there.

You have no idea as to the amount of things that are carried in an LE veh. many are life saving med. equipment and investigatory equipment needed at the location of the call. This along with such things spike strips, that can be used to stop a dangerous situation before the public is put at a high risk.

3. Special equipment? Well i've already mentioned some such as med. equipment like AED's that cost in the thousands and saves lives. I've been to 911 calls of patients who've gone into cardiac arrest and used an AED, long before EMT's were ever on the scene. Things such as spike strips, can stop a pursuit or a dangerous driver before it endangers the citizens.

4.Eavesdropping equipment? It has it's place, and is used within the constraints of a warrant.

5.Computer equipment? Used as it is in private industry, to lessen the amount of paperwork and cuts down on time preparing reports and increases quality.

6. Buildings? Should we work out of a tent? If your talking about such things as Jails the standard of square footage is set by the Fed. Govt.

7. Education and books? Continual LE training is set by the state in which you reside. What issues do you have with LEO's getting additional training? I can't even believe that you complained about this.

8. Food? I've never seen an LE agency pay for the food of it's employee's. Food for the detainees in a jail, is a big cost of operating an SO. The suppliers don't give LE agencies a discount, just like your neighborhood grocery store doesn't either.

9. Salaries? Do you think LEO's should make minimum wage? Do you feel they should work for free out of the goodness of their hearts? A lot of the reasons we don't have some of the corruption and other issues in LE is that the pay is better then it was many years ago. It's still not good in some places, i know folks in LE who're only making about ten dollars per hour for sworn and certified patrolmen.

10. Uniforms and boots? What do you want LE to wear blue jeans and flip flops? These items cost money, again the suppliers don't cut LE agencies a break on these. Many LEO's have to buy them out of their salary. Another i can't believe you asked that question.

11. Weapons in general? They have there uses, it's better to have it and not need it. Then to need it and not have it. Other then a handgun, shotgun, and possibly a patrol rifle. That's about all Joe Patrolman has with him. Less then lethal weapons can consist of pepper spray, collapsible baton and possibly a Taser.

12. Range time and training ammunition is normally set by the State POST Commission and the agency as to how much training is conducted. This is another, i can't believe you asked this question.

13. Helicopters? There is a place in large metro. areas, that they are useful.

14. SWAT/SRT? There is a need and usefulness under certain situations.

Lastly, proactive LE is catching the criminal before the criminal preys upon the citizen.

Another good cop doing a good job.....!

We need more like him.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2009/05/25/9563836.html

At the end of a New Year's Eve traffic stop on Interstate 94 in St. Paul, State Patrol Sgt. Carrie Rindal rammed Salter's 2001 Toyota Sienna van, causing $1,500 damage to his vehicle, and arrested him at gunpoint while his three children, ages 2, 3 and 6, sat in the van. His wife had to pick up the kids as he was taken to jail.

Rindal said Salter was attempting to flee. He said he was merely looking for a safe place to pull over.

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/38980869.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsl

Domestic Violence and Your Gun Rights
by Paul Velte, Attorney-at-law

After decades of trying to ban guns, and failing (for the most part); Gunbanners have now changed tactics in the past decade from simply banning guns to banning broad classes of people from possessing them. Persons subject to a "protective order" and persons convicted of an assault involving "domestic violence," are two such groups. The argument made for these laws from the gun-hating crowd is, "Wife beaters and child abusers should not be allowed to have guns."

Traditionally in American law, conviction of a felony resulted in the loss of a whole host of civil rights; but not for misdemeanors. Felonies were considered heinous, misdemeanors were not. In the old days, all felonies were heinous, there were far fewer laws, and far fewer felonies back then, than there are today. Today, the lawbooks are full of felonies declared for all sorts of activities. Unless you wish to blur the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors, why would you support stripping a basic human and Consitutional right (what can be more basic than the right to preserve one's very existence?) upon conviction of a mere misdemeanor? Such is true for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. But the matter does not stop there. We now have laws stripping gun rights from people who have never been convicted of any crime--much less a felony. These people are subject to a "protective order." Protective orders are issued in any case where someone claims domestic violence occurred to them.

When you consider that the definition of "domestic violence" has been expanded to include anyone you ever lived with or dated romantically, and that "violence" itself is defined to include mere threats alone, you can begin to see the huge scope of this law. At this point in time, it is possible for you to lose all your rights to possess firearms (and even ammunition) if someone you lived with, or dated, many years ago pops up tomorrow and says, "he threatened me." Warrants can issue and arrests made all upon the accusation of someone who wants revenge. If you have the time and money to fight it in court (few do), and you have good legal defense counsel (few do), you might be able to win a court fight, and keep your guns. But why should anyone's rights be subjected to such a whimsical process? How often and how extensively these cases are prosecuted depends entirely upon your local DA. Gun owners need to pay strict attention to the persons they elect as criminal prosecutors. Common sense candidates will not waste the taxpayers' resources trying to strip people of their gun rights. Gun haters will.

In the 1995 session of the Texas Legislature, a bill was passed (SB 130 by Royce West, Dallas) that made it illegal to "transfer" (e.g., give, loan, sell) a handgun to a person who is subject to a "protective order." This bill passed and is now law. It mirrors federal law on the same topic. It was promoted by the same anti-gun advocates who introduce anti-gun legislation every session. They used the argument that this law would reduce family violence. This law made it a crime to transfer a handgun to a person who is subject to a "protective order" that was granted under chapter 71 of the Family Code.

Here is what is wrong with this kind of law:

First, it impacts on people who have not been convicted of anything. The Brady Law prevents sales to felons. Why? Because felons cannot legally own firearms. Why do felons lose the right to own firearms? Because under American legal tradition, conviction of a felony is considered serious enough to result in the loss of your civil rights. Thus, a judge's protective order strips you of your right to possess guns, without any proof you committed any crime. Since the right to keep guns is a basic right enumerated in both our Federal and State Constitutions, that it can be so easily annihilated establishes a dangerous legal precedent.

Before one can be convicted of a crime, our Constitution requires in all cases: 1) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) the right to the assistance of legal counsel, and 3) the right to have a jury decide the case. Compare a protective order hearing: A judge decides your case; you have no right to a jury. If you cannot afford a lawyer, too bad, you have to represent yourself. The only proof needed meets our lowest legal standard: "preponderance of the evidence." There is no conviction for any crime. There is no jury trial; no right to a lawyer. And in Texas, there is no right to appeal.

Protective orders are often the product of vengeful motives by ex-lovers. These orders are frequently used for revenge against former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends. This law creates yet another incentive to abuse family legal proceedings--which are already rife with perjury in battles over custody and property. Indeed, most protective orders are entered by agreement, because few people object to being ordered to leave each other alone. For such an "agreed" order to be entered, **proof that any violence occurred is not necessary.

The protective order cases that do end up being fought in court frequently amount to little more than swearing matches between former lovers, where one party says "he hit me" and the other says "I did not," with no other proof available. As a result, many judges err on the side of caution and enter an order even in questionable cases so that the people are forced to avoid each other. And remember, you have no right to appeal the judge's order. It is outrageous that a basic, Constitutional right is made conditional upon these protective order proceedings, which afford none of the due process protections seen in criminal prosecutions. But hey, if you're a gun hater, any law that strips someone of their gun rights is a good thing, right?

Consider the effectiveness of these laws in protecting anyone against a person who is really intent on killing his ex-lover. Is the only way to kill an ex-lover with a newly purchased gun? If so, then this law would indeed be effective. Of course, these restrictions cannot stop one from obtaining a gun secondhand, or by illegal, black market means. If one is willing to commit the crime of murder, why would anyone think he's going to obey the law that makes possession of the murder weapon illegal? Clearly, this law is not intended to save lives, but to thwart, and diminish, gun ownership by the law abiding segment of the public. Its only purpose is to further curtail the right of gun ownership in this nation, and to establish a precedent that the "right" to bear arms, can be taken away for the most trivial of reasons.

This set of laws is useless for doing what their proponents claimed--saving lives. But it will serve to trip up unwary citizens with another technical legal rule, and to the extent some portion of the public is dissuaded from becoming firearm owners, that is a good result, in the minds of the gun haters. To them, guns are the evil; not the persons using them. So anything restricting their use, is favored. Never mind that technical gun laws like this are ignored by the criminal element as they go about committing their crimes.

Maybe this is not much of an infringement, but it is an infringement. Another bite at the apple by the gun-hating faction which will pave the way for further restrictions in the years to come. Besides denying gun ownership to as many people as they can, gun-haters have another goal they hope to achieve with this type of legislation: to establish a new legal precedent in American law: That gun rights can be taken away for lesser crimes than felonies. Once they establish that this can be done, there is no limit to the reasons why gun rights can be infringed. Up to now, you had to have committed a felony before you lost your rights. If domestic violence is horrible enough to warrant loss of gun rights, then it is horrible enough to be prosecuted as felony crime. And if you feel that is too harsh, you are right. Perhaps we should not punish misdemeanors as if they were felonies, and perhaps we should re-examine the entire domestic violence dogma, so that we punish it only as the rather trivial matter that is usually is.

With these "misdemeanor gun bans" in place, you can expect to hear the anti-gun crowd call for additional bans for other misdemeanors. Does it make any sense at all that you can lose your gun rights forever for tussling with your own family, yet not if you regularly attack strangers on the street? Clearly, this is the next step for the gun haters. If these laws are not repealed soon, this will be the next target to expand them.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Prepared for

Peaceable Texans for Firearm Rights


http://www.io.com/~velte/po-crit.htm

You probably never thought of yourself as an activist, but since Napolitano/BATF stated in a memo "gun owners might pose a terrorist threat."
As staunch activists for Constitutional rights, especially the 2nd amendment I present this lesson in how to handle the inevitable harrassment, detention and arrests that are taking place now in our country, and are sure ti increase-



Dealing with Police Page 1
Dealing With the Police:
General Guidelines for Activists
I. In General.
When dealing with the police, park rangers, health officers, or other law enforcement officers (collectively referred to as �police�), keep your hands in view and don't make
sudden movements. Avoid walking behind the police. Never touch the police or their equipment (vehicles, flashlights, animals, etc.).
II. Police Encounters.
There are three basic types of encounters with the police: Conversation, Detention, and Arrest.
Conversation: When the police are trying to get information, but don't have enough evidence to detain or arrest you, they'll try to get the information from you. They may call
this a �casual encounter� or a �friendly conversation.� If you talk to them, you may give them the information they need to arrest you or your friends. In most situations, it's better
and safer to refuse to talk to police.
Detention: Police can detain you only if they have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. (A �reasonable suspicion� occurs when an officer can point to
specific facts that provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity.) Detention means that, though you aren't arrested, you can't
leave. Detention is supposed to last a short time and they aren't supposed to move you. During detention, the police can pat you down and may be able to look into your bag to
make sure you don't have any weapons. They aren't supposed to go into your pockets unless they first feel a weapon through your clothing. If the police are asking questions, ask if you are being detained. If not, leave and say nothing else to them. If you are being detained, you may want to ask why. Then you
should say: �I am going to remain silent. I want a lawyer,� and nothing else. A detention can easily turn into arrest. If the police are detaining you and they get information that you are involved in a crime, they will arrest you, even if it has nothing to do with your detention. The purpose of many detentions to to try to obtain enough information to arrest you.
Arrest: Police can arrest you only if they have probable cause that you are involved in a crime. (�Probable cause� exists when the police are aware of facts that would lead an
ordinary person to suspect that the person arrested has committed a crime.) When you are arrested, the cops can search you and go through any belongings.
III. The Miranda Warnings.
The police do not necessarily have to read you your rights (also known as the Miranda warnings). Miranda applies when there is (a) an interrogation (b) by a police officer (c) while the suspect is in police custody. (Please note that you do not have to be formally arrested to be �in custody.�) Even when all these conditions are met, the police intentionally violate Miranda. And though your rights have been violated, what you say can
be used against you. For this reason, it is better not to wait for the cops � you know what your rights are, so you can invoke them by saying �I am going to remain silent. I want to
see a lawyer.�

Some excellent advice.