Militarized Police

[IMJerusha]

The last thing we need is more "us vs. them" among police. That's what drives a lot of resentment against them, and against us.

Anyone who's cranking that up, is harming this country. On either side of the divide.

What I don't understand is the idea some police have that they must support each other regardless of the circumstances.

MIAMI, FL — After a Florida trooper showed integrity and equally applied the law to one of her fellow officers, she experienced months of harassment, invasions of privacy, and situations that felt so “life threatening” to her that she moved to another county. She has filed a lawsuit against over 100 cops named individually and over 200 that remain anonymous for their violations of the law and retributive actions against the honest cop.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/florida-trooper-arrested-a-cop/

Apparently, the many officers who tried to make her life a living hell, got her personal information by using their ability to tap into driving records.

After filing a public records request with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Watts discovered that her personal information had been pulled up by scores of officers from 25 different jurisdictions. Her data had been accessed more than 200 times total.

What the morons didn't realize was that she (or any other citizen) could find out who was accessing her records. And..

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) is a federal law that protects individuals from having their information improperly accessed. Violations can result in a $2,500 fine per incident.

Incredibly, a number of police lobbying groups are trying to get Congress to pass an exemption for police to access your records for any purpose whatever, whenever they like. (Edit: most groups would maintain a ban on anything for profit; personal vendettas would be allowed under the proposed exemptions, however)

Just incredible. And they wonder why they are regarded with contempt by many people. And notice it was a small proportion of of Florida police who harassed this officer for doing her duty. But entire groups of police are asking Congress to protect the bad ones.

I can only surmise that the "us vs. them" has gotten so pervasive that the law or even basic decency is no longer an issue. I wonder if there isn't some sort of groupthink that causes otherwise decent people to do this kind of thing. If someone in law enforcement can explain this behavior otherwise, I would respectfully be interested in hearing it.

Sounds a bit like another Serpico incident. As I posted earlier, a dirty cop is a travesty. No officer worth his/her salt believes they are above the law. There has to be an approved reason for a D/BMV record access and officers can get in a lot of trouble for accessing without just cause. Departments keep track of that and officers know it. If she hadn't caught it, their supers eventually would have. Even upper echelon access is monitored to some extent although much harder to catch and prove abuse.

 

[Christ's Word]

Sounds a bit like another Serpico incident. As I posted earlier, a dirty cop is a travesty. No officer worth his/her salt believes they are above the law. There has to be an approved reason for a D/BMV record access and officers can get in a lot of trouble for accessing without just cause. Departments keep track of that and officers know it. If she hadn't caught it, their supers eventually would have. Even upper echelon access is monitored to some extent although much harder to catch and prove abuse.

Many of those being sued were the supervisors, once again proving you to be blowing smoke. Is anything you say true? Ever?:down::loser:

 

[IMJerusha]

Many of those being sued were the supervisors, once again proving you to be blowing smoke. Is anything you say true? Ever?:down::loser:

For someone with supposed education, you do seem to have difficulty understanding plain English. Nevermind.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sounds a bit like another Serpico incident. As I posted earlier, a dirty cop is a travesty. No officer worth his/her salt believes they are above the law. There has to be an approved reason for a D/BMV record access and officers can get in a lot of trouble for accessing without just cause. Departments keep track of that and officers know it. If she hadn't caught it, their supers eventually would have. Even upper echelon access is monitored to some extent although much harder to catch and prove abuse.

You sound as though you know the system better than I do. But the question remains: why did so many cops think it was safe to do this, and why did several police groups lobby Congress to make such behavior legal for cops to do?

It looks as though there's a subculture of corruption within many police forces with a sense that they are allowed to use their power to get even with anyone they perceive as insufficiently respectful.

 

[The Barbarian]

Many of those being sued were the supervisors,

You have evidence of this?

 

[IMJerusha]

You sound as though you know the system better than I do. But the question remains: why did so many cops think it was safe to do this, and why did several police groups lobby Congress to make such behavior legal for cops to do?
It looks as though there's a subculture of corruption within many police forces with a sense that they are allowed to use their power to get even with anyone they perceive as insufficiently respectful.

It's not a Police problem, it's a human problem.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not a Police problem, it's a human problem.

Of course, but we've entrusted them with a great deal of power. And then we don't put adequate checks on that power.

And then we get outraged when cops turn bad. It's as though we set them up to become corrupt. It's not a remarkable thing that many of them turn bad; it's remarkable that most of them don't.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You're doggone right I go against pro-corruption Police officers. A dirty cop is a travesty! Call that loony but I'm particular about traitors.

I happen to think all cops are "dirty" to some extent, but if there are any cops worth respecting for their jobs (as opposed to personal reasons) it is the Oathkeepers.

 

[IMJerusha]

Of course, but we've entrusted them with a great deal of power. And then we don't put adequate checks on that power.

And then we get outraged when cops turn bad. It's as though we set them up to become corrupt. It's not a remarkable thing that many of them turn bad; it's remarkable that most of them don't.

Have you ever heard the saying "evil always finds a way?" I hate that saying because I hate the Enemy but there is some truth in it that can not be ignored. In other words, pretty much any system of checks and balances can be circumvented if one is Hell bent on it, has the time, the knowledge and the support. That's another reason why organizations such as Oathkeepers aren't good. They want to circumvent the current system. Improving the current system is one thing. Circumventing it is not good and undermines the authority of the Constitution.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Have you ever heard the saying "evil always finds a way?" I hate that saying because I hate the Enemy but there is some truth in it that can not be ignored. In other words, pretty much any system of checks and balances can be circumvented if one is Hell bent on it, has the time, the knowledge and the support. That's another reason why organizations such as Oathkeepers aren't good. They want to circumvent the current system. Improving the current system is one thing. Circumventing it is not good and undermines the authority of the Constitution.

The point of Oathkeepers is to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. That's an additional check and balance on government power. I don't see how any freedom lover could possibly say that's a bad thing, unless it was to say that its bad to become a cop in the first place (which I would agree with) since cops are required to initiate force against the innocent in order to do their jobs.

 

[IMJerusha]

The point of Oathkeepers is to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. That's an additional check and balance on government power. I don't see how any freedom lover could possibly say that's a bad thing, unless it was to say that its bad to become a cop in the first place (which I would agree with) since cops are required to initiate force against the innocent in order to do their jobs.

One can not use un-Constitutional means/ideologies to support the Constitution. There's a huge difference between loving freedom and loving lawlessness.

Police Officers are not required to initiate force against the innocent in order to do their jobs. Gosh, CL, what have you been involved in in your short life that you would take such a stance or are you just sucking up the pablum liberal educators have been feeding you?

 

[Christian Liberty]

One can not use un-Constitutional means/ideologies to support the Constitution. There's a huge difference between loving freedom and loving lawlessness.

Police Officers are not required to initiate force against the innocent in order to do their jobs. Gosh, CL, what have you been involved in in your short life that you would take such a stance or are you just sucking up the pablum liberal educators have been feeding you?

I am attending one of the most conservative colleges in the nation, if not the most.

When I say "innocent" I mean, "non-aggressive." People who own automatic weapons, use drugs, don't wear seat belts, gamble, violate many of the frivolous economic regulations, and so forth are not actually acting in an aggressive fashion. Thus, for a police officer to "do his job", he must use force against that innocent person, or at least threaten to.

Liberals hate when I point this out even more passionately than most conservatives do. Some may have a reflexive dislike of police because they are a "right wing institution" or something like that, but they don't have principled reasons.

I don't see how failing to enforce unconstitutional laws is itself unconstitutional, but then, I'm not a legal positivist anyway, and there are constitutional laws that are still morally and ethically wrong.

 

[journey]

I am attending one of the most conservative colleges in the nation, if not the most.

When I say "innocent" I mean, "non-aggressive." People who own automatic weapons, use drugs, don't wear seat belts, gamble, violate many of the frivolous economic regulations, and so forth are not actually acting in an aggressive fashion. Thus, for a police officer to "do his job", he must use force against that innocent person, or at least threaten to.

Liberals hate when I point this out even more passionately than most conservatives do. Some may have a reflexive dislike of police because they are a "right wing institution" or something like that, but they don't have principled reasons.

I don't see how failing to enforce unconstitutional laws is itself unconstitutional, but then, I'm not a legal positivist anyway, and there are constitutional laws that are still morally and ethically wrong.

You are very young, extremely naive, and gullible. You don't decide what's Constitutional or Unconstitutional, and I doubt the courts are interested in your opinions. Thankfully we have courts to determine such things based on the rule of law. Your agreement or disagreement with court decisions just doesn't matter. I would be deeply worried about the future of our country if you were in charge of such decisions.

 

[IMJerusha]

I am attending one of the most conservative colleges in the nation, if not the most.

Then you are a fish out of water there.

When I say "innocent" I mean, "non-aggressive."

You are mixing apples and oranges.

People who own automatic weapons, use drugs, don't wear seat belts, gamble, violate many of the frivolous economic regulations, and so forth are not actually acting in an aggressive fashion. Thus, for a police officer to "do his job", he must use force against that innocent person, or at least threaten to.

What you're trying to do is claim that Police Officers use force or threaten to use force in the face of non-aggressive behavior. That's not true. The catalyst for the use of force by Police Officers is aggressive behavior and non-compliance coupled with perceived threat. In states with assault weapon bans, no innocent person would carry assault weapons. That's called non-compliance coupled with perceived threat. No innocent person uses illegal drugs....non-compliance with possible perceived threat depending on the situation. No innocent person drives without using his/her seatbelt...non-compliance. Gambling is illegal in many states. Violation of that law is non-compliance.

Liberals hate when I point this out even more passionately than most conservatives do. Some may have a reflexive dislike of police because they are a "right wing institution" or something like that, but they don't have principled reasons.

Here's a principle you don't seem to have grasped. If you break the law, you're not innocent.

I don't see how failing to enforce unconstitutional laws is itself unconstitutional, but then, I'm not a legal positivist anyway, and there are constitutional laws that are still morally and ethically wrong.

Upholding the law is the primary objective of every law enforcement officer. No law enforcement officer has the right to decide for him/herself what laws they can or should enforce or, as Barbarian pointed out, what laws they have to obey.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Then you are a fish out of water there.

Absolutely, though I'm not the only one. But this is definitely true. I wasn't insinuating that my school agrees with me, just that it isn't liberal.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

This is a fair criticism. I'll stick with "non-aggressive" and prove how it applies.

What you're trying to do is claim that Police Officers use force or threaten to use force in the face of non-aggressive behavior. That's not true. The catalyst for the use of force by Police Officers is aggressive behavior and non-compliance coupled with perceived threat.

Except this isn't really true. When a cop pulls you over for not wearing a seatbelt (say: it can apply to any of the other examples I presented) they are threatening violence against you. If you refuse to pull over or try to escape the encounter, they will escalate. In any other situation, we would consider such a situation to be a threat. But since its a police officer, most people just accept it. But its still morally wrong. The cop is the aggressor in the scenario, he has threatened aggressive force first.

In states with assault weapon bans, no innocent person would carry assault weapons. That's called non-compliance coupled with perceived threat. No innocent person uses illegal drugs....non-compliance with possible perceived threat depending on the situation. No innocent person drives without using his/her seatbelt...non-compliance. Gambling is illegal in many states. Violation of that law is non-compliance.

Non-compliance is not aggression, and thus, using violence against non-compliance is in fact aggression. Cops who enforce these unjust laws are themselves unjust, however upright they may be otherwise. You're operating based on a theory of legal positivism, while I'm operating based on the idea of objective rights. Were slaves who fled from their masters in the 1800's "non-compliant"? Of course they were. Were they lawbreakers? Duh. Does that mean that the jackbooted thugs who returned them to their masters were acting justly? Of course not.

Here's a principle you don't seem to have grasped. If you break the law, you're not innocent.

Breaking laws isn't intrinsically immoral. Per Acts 5:29. Morality doesn't change based on physical location. There is some room for debate regarding what circumstances precisely its immoral to break the law. But it doesn't really matter for this discussion. The bottom line is that initiating aggressive force is immoral, and that to do so for mere "non-compliance", even with the legal right, is not moral.

Upholding the law is the primary objective of every law enforcement officer. No law enforcement officer has the right to decide for him/herself what laws they can or should enforce or, as Barbarian pointed out, what laws they have to obey.

This is an assertion. I object to the assertion. I think that if you see someone breaking a law, yet causing no harm to anyone, it would be morally disgusting to harass him. And this is why I despise cops (as a career, not necessarily as individuals), because that is precisely what they are paid to do.

I value freedom more than "the law".

 

[Christ's Word]

For someone with supposed education, you do seem to have difficulty understanding plain English. Nevermind.

Actually you are the one having a problem understanding that the Federal Government is breaking our laws, and asking everyone, INCLUDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ABIDE BY OUR LAWS, IS NOT LAWLESSNESS, IT IS THE ESSENCE OF RESPECTING THE LAW.

 

[The Barbarian]

The point of Oathkeepers is to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.

And the Constitution gives them the right to overrule the Supreme Court in determining what is Constitutional?

How so?

I can respect civil disobedience, so long as the person breaking the law is willing to take the consequences.

These guys just want to overturn the Constitution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Imagine what would happen if we just deleted law enforcement.

That experiment has actually been tried...

There is nothing worse than a corrupt police officer -- just look at the comment section under any taser video on YouTube. Unfortunately for the citizens of the country of Georgia, that was pretty much the only flavor their traffic cops came in. In 2004, things had gotten so bad that the newly elected President Mikheil Saakashvili made it his mission to stop the police from harassing his people.

Saakashvili didn't mess around, either. He fired all the heads of law enforcement and threatened that any traffic cop caught harassing civilians, taking bribes or generally behaving all uppity would be fired or arrested. The police force scoffed at the attempts of this puny "president" person and behaved exactly like they always had, confident that Saakashvili wouldn't touch them. So, the very next day after this announcement, when a whopping 15,000 cops were caught taking bribes, Saakashvili fired every single one of them.

Then, a couple of weeks later, another 15,000 police officers were caught participating in shenanigans. So he fired them, too. With 30,000 corrupt officers freshly in the unemployment line, Saakashvili had finally succeeded. The police department was finally clean! Huzzah! Only, there was one little problem. There were no traffic cops left...

Instead of indulging in a nationwide game of bumper cars, everything went just fine -- in fact, even better than normal. And we don't mean that the citizens held themselves together for a couple of days until new cops could be hired. They were without police for three freaking months. And it was fine.

Saakashvili's administration quickly realized this was because it had been the cops causing most of the trouble all along. A remnant from the Soviet era, they'd treated the roads as their personal piggy bank, administering their very own brand of expensive justice at will and causing mob-style chaos as they did. When they were taken out of the equation, not even a hint of disorder was left because they had been the disorder.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19489_5-terrible-ideas-that-solved-huge-global-problems.html

O.K. so we don't have that level of omerta among cops in our country. But I notice, for example, that in Omaha, Nebraska, large number of cops went on a rampage in a black neighborhood, beating civilians entering a house with no warrant, and seeking out cell phones to destroy the evidence.

Not all of them, of course, but not one of the "good cops" turned in the criminals. Unfortuately for the criminals, there was another camera in the house across the street that caught the whole thing.

And of course because of that video, the crooks were indicted instead of their intended victims. But apparently, not one of the police who stood by and later declined to turn in the crooked cops, were disciplined at all. The chief more or less concluded "that's what they do, and I can't do anything about it."

 

[IMJerusha]

Actually you are the one having a problem understanding that the Federal Government is breaking our laws, and asking everyone, INCLUDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ABIDE BY OUR LAWS, IS NOT LAWLESSNESS, IT IS THE ESSENCE OF RESPECTING THE LAW.

And yet that is not what you and THall and Christian Liberty or Oathkeepers have been espousing. If you want to change our government, do it within the parameters of our system of government. Don't use the Constitution against the government it protects, that is a government by the people and for the people. Additionally, I've never once stated that law enforcement is not subject to the law.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You are very young, extremely naive, and gullible. You don't decide what's Constitutional or Unconstitutional, and I doubt the courts are interested in your opinions. Thankfully we have courts to determine such things based on the rule of law. Your agreement or disagreement with court decisions just doesn't matter. I would be deeply worried about the future of our country if you were in charge of such decisions.

Yeah, because Roe v Wade just shows how much of a better judge of the Constitution SCOTUS is than me.

I don't care if the courts are interested or not. They are packed with thieves and liars. You should go read Judge Napolitano.

And the Constitution gives them the right to overrule the Supreme Court in determining what is Constitutional?

How so?

I can respect civil disobedience, so long as the person breaking the law is willing to take the consequences.

These guys just want to overturn the Constitution.

I can respect civil disobedience, taking the consequences or attempting to flee them (as the Apostle Paul did) way more than I can respect anyone who decides to become a cop.

I respect the Oathkeepers more than I do any other cops.

And yet that is not what you and THall and Christian Liberty or Oathkeepers have been espousing. If you want to change our government, do it within the parameters of our system of government. Don't use the Constitution against the government it protects, that is a government by the people and for the people. Additionally, I've never once stated that law enforcement is not subject to the law.

You shouldn't lump me in with the rest of them. Christ's Word is a moderate compared to me (No offense CW). She (and I assume THall and Oathkeepers as well) just want to go back to the Constitution. They still believe that there is such thing as a "good cop." I want to abolish the State entirely, and I think cops are evil by definition.