spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 5, 2007 5:19:35 GMT -5
I am a 10 yr police veteran and I am genuinely interested in what people think of the police. Here is your chance to tell a cop what you think of him and all his brothers and sisters in law enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Jan 5, 2007 6:57:39 GMT -5
I believe that America needs police and that they serve a vital role. Of course I am thinking of sheriffs, deputies and constables through the 1700’s and 1800’s and even into the 1950’s. There was a time when police officers actually served the people and protected the people. Yes I know that there has always been bad police officers and corruption through out history and even today. I think the tide turned in the 1960’s. Today police officers serve the Government, protect the Government and are a tool of the Government to be used against the people.
With each new law passed a new criminal is simultaneously created. Innocent law abiding citizen one day and a criminal the next day because a new law was passed. Only the Government passes new laws. Most laws are not for the protection of the people and you have to admit that they are purely revenue based laws and thus against the people. Police officers are no longer CRIME fighters or PEACE officers they are now LAW enforcement. Enforcing Government laws on the people and against the will of the people. This is called oppression. It is a conflict of interest when Judges, prosecuting attorneys and police officers are all on the same payroll from the same source (Government). Basically we have a one sided lynch mob railroading the American people and selling them down the river.
The old mantra about how police officers put their lives on the line every single day. Soldiers put their lives on the line defending our country from enemies. Police officers put their lives on the line defending the Government from enemies. Who is the enemy of the Government and who breaks Government laws? We the people who happen to be an armed citizenry. There is a war out there. Police officers put their lives on the line oppressing a pissed off population. With a small amount of imagination police officers can be construed as traitors of the people.
With para-military SWAT teams becoming the favorite child of the Government the common police officer has been regulated to just a half step above a meter maid. The common police officer is hired simply put for revenues generation and are loosed into society solely to fleece the American people. Police officers say “we’re not here to generate revenue, in fact we don’t get a dime of the revenue”. This is only half true. I pay my employees to generate revenue for me and they don’t see a dime of my income other than their paychecks.
Are police officers CRIME fighters? Ask any attorney and he will tell you this "for there to be a crime there must first be an injured party". If there is nothing lost, nothing stolen, nothing broken and nothing dead then there is no injured party and thus a crime has not been commited. Police officers are LAW enforcement and there are no injured parties when it comes to revenue generation. Are police officers PEACE officers? Not in a war where police officers are soldiers of the Government fighting against the will of the people.
Well there's a start.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 6, 2007 2:56:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your ideas but think that you views of policing in the past are somewhat idealistic. In the past many groups (homosexuals, racial and ethnic minorities) were systematically marginalized by government and law enforcement. This still exists but is less prevalent and certainly is more scrutinized. I think police officers today are more educated, more diverse and more tolerant than those of the past.
Laws are passed by democratically elected Legislators. If the people disagree with the direction of government than they can vote people out of office. I realize that this is a somewhat idealistic view but I believe that it still holds a lot of truth. Police officers some times enforce laws. Statistics have shown that only a small portion of an officer's time is spent with criminal enforcement. The majority of time is spent on service calls i.e. medical aids, building checks, giving directions and generally assisting the public. You state that "common" police officers spend their time generating revenue. I assume that you are referring to traffic enforcement. In my state, by law, management cannot force an officer to write a fine for a civil motor vehicle infraction. Writing a ticket or a warning is always left to the officer's discretion. Ticket quotas are also illegal.
You state that there has to be an injured party for a crime to be committed. What about the following? John Jones is driving down the road drunk. He has not had an accident or hurt anyone. I stop Jones for having a headlight out. I see that Jones is drunk and arrest him for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. There is really no injured party yet. There could be a bus load of children a mile down the street that Jones would have killed if I had not arrested him.
I believe that most police officers are honest and trustworthy. We do a difficult job very well for the most part. When I go to work, I do my best to follow the rules of the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the Commonwealth where I work and my conscience. I'm proud of what I do. I've never felt like a government lackey or oppressor of the people. When I have to take enforcement action, I do so to the fullest extent of the law and make no apologies for that.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Jan 6, 2007 13:09:18 GMT -5
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your ideas but think that you views of policing in the past are somewhat idealistic. Idealistic or realistic. Maybe just a splitting of hairs. I know that Wyatt Earp for all the hoop-la also conducted criminal activity as well as many other historical law officers. Then again Allen Pinkerton and Eliot Ness were good guys with the general public good in mind. If law officers conducted themselves against the will of the people it was for selfish reasons and not at the direction of the Government (Not withstanding proabition).In the past many groups (homosexuals, racial and ethnic minorities) were systematically marginalized by government and law enforcement. This still exists but is less prevalent and certainly is more scrutinized. True enough. Law officers today are more under a microscope and are far more scrutinized than in the past. Very little elbow room for Government mandates and officers personal prejudicesI think police officers today are more educated, more diverse and more tolerant than those of the past. Again truth. It is no longer quote/unquote “A White mans world”.Laws are passed by democratically elected Legislators. If the people disagree with the direction of government than they can vote people out of office. I realize that this is a somewhat idealistic view but I believe that it still holds a lot of truth. People are taking less and less responsibility for their own lives. Some suggest that the great propaganda machine has brain washed we the masters into thinking that our slave is our dictator that must be obeyed. I kinda see this but I am more inclined to believe that the American people are just lazy. I see a frog in a pot of cold water coming slowly to a boil. Police officers some times enforce laws. ?? Police officers some times don’t enforce laws.Statistics have shown that only a small portion of an officer's time is spent with criminal enforcement. What better place is there for an officer’s time to be spent?The majority of time is spent on service calls i.e. medical aids, building checks, giving directions and generally assisting the public. Now I will be nasty. Charade! Officers need to maintain some semblance of friendliness and unity with the people for their own protection and safety. There are officers who are not ostracized by the public but instead ostracize themselves from the public. They wear gloves and sunglasses and look over you, under you, around you and thru you instead of at you. The disgust is in their voice when you force them to speak to you. They seem to have an “us against them mentality”. You state that "common" police officers spend their time generating revenue. I assume that you are referring to traffic enforcement. In my state, by law, management cannot force an officer to write a fine for a civil motor vehicle infraction. Writing a ticket or a warning is always left to the officer's discretion. Ticket quotas are also illegal. Infractions are more than simple traffic enforcement, i.e. open container while sitting on a park bench, jay walking, etc. I realize that management cannot force an officer to write citations. Aren’t citations and arrests the “report card” of an officer’s performance? There is a difference between good arrests (convictions) and bad arrests (dismissals). An officer’s report card does not distinguish the difference.You state that there has to be an injured party for a crime to be committed. What about the following? John Jones is driving down the road drunk. He has not had an accident or hurt anyone. I stop Jones for having a headlight out. I see that Jones is drunk and arrest him for Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. There is really no injured party yet. There could be a bus load of children a mile down the street that Jones would have killed if I had not arrested him. This is purely pre-crime. My underage son my go out two weeks from now and get drunk. Should I call the police and have him arrested now with-in the hour for what he may or may not do in the near future?I believe that most police officers are honest and trustworthy. We do a difficult job very well for the most part. When I go to work, I do my best to follow the rules of the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the Commonwealth where I work and my conscience. I'm proud of what I do. I've never felt like a government lackey or oppressor of the people. When I have to take enforcement action, I do so to the fullest extent of the law and make no apologies for that. This is commendable. Of course there hundreds of thousands of police officers who are concerned about society and public safety. The police profession itself as a whole seems [by outwards appearance] to be slowly going down the wrong path.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 7, 2007 2:43:29 GMT -5
Once again, thanks for the reply. You state " If law officers conducted themselves against the will of the people it was for selfish reasons and not at the direction of the Government (Not withstanding prohibition)." What about the enforcement of Jim Crow laws in the south from Reconstruction until the end of the Civil Rights movement? The people and the government both supported these unconstitutional laws. Local police and sheriffs enthusiastically took part in denying civil rights to millions with the support of the people, government and state law. Once again, I believe that the "good old days" weren't always so good.
You seem to be aghast that at times police officers spend their times doing things other than enforcing laws. I picked a random night on patrol from approximately 1 yr ago. Here is how my night went. I checked the security of 8 public buildings (making sure the buildings the taxpayers pay for were not vandalized or burglarized). I made 3 motor vehicle stops (2 verbals and 1 written warning). I backed up a State Police Officer on a motor vehicle stop. I broke up a loud college party (no arrests or summons needed) I responded to a medical aid of an elderly man that had fallen out of bed and cut his arm. I provided medical attention until an ambulance arrived. While not a particulary exciting night (We have those also) I feel like I earned my money and helped a few people while doing it. I enforced a few laws, I helped an elderly veteran and I checked a few buildings. I was respectful to all, friendly to a few and stern to others. I would not have hesitated to arrest the party goers if they had been underage or not dispersed when requested. I certainly wasn't friendly to this elderly man for my own protection or safety. He was a nice old guy who needed my help. His taxes pay for me to help him and I was nice to him because he was nice to me.
You ask if citations and arrests are the "report card" of a police officer. This is true to some degree. If you are doing your job you will answer calls and stop cars. This leads to citations or warnings and arrests because you uncover crimes (pretty obvious). You then state that " there is a difference between good arrests (convictions) and bad arrests (dismissals)" Just because an arrest results in a dismissal or not guilty verdict does not mean it was a bad arrest. I've had arrests where people were guilty as sin but prosecutors drop charges because victims or witnesses refuse to testify. I've had arrests where people were guilty as sin but have been aquitted because I forgot to put something in my police report, they had a great attorney or the prosecutor sucked. That is the system that we work under and I accept it. Officers who make arrests without probable cause open themselves up to civil liability and face losing their jobs and their houses. Police officers who make good arrests and testify truthfully (regardless if this helps or hurts your case) get a reputation with judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys. Just because an arrest does'nt result in a conviction does'nt mean it's a bad arrest.
Your statement that my example of the drunk driver with the headlight out is "pre-crime" is simply not true. The people of the commonwealth have determined that operating under the influence of alcohol is a crime. This person willfully drank alcoholic beverages to excess and willfully got behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. He took active steps to commit this crime (drinking to excess and operating a motor vehicle on a public way). He was lawfully detained for a civil motor vehicle infraction and his crime was discovered by a police officer who was vigilantly doing his/her job. This is not "pre-crime", it is simply crime. In your example, your son has taken no active steps to commit a crime. In my opinion the difference is crystal clear.
p.s. I wear sunglasses when it's sunny and gloves when my hands are cold just like you do.
Thanks for the dialogue,
spd49
|
|
|
Post by popeels on Jan 7, 2007 2:55:07 GMT -5
I think police are generally good people. I am pursuing a career in criminal justice to help make things better. I live in Vermont where the police are firm, yet fair.
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 7, 2007 3:36:31 GMT -5
I like the style of the German policeing. I was stationed in Germany for six years. The City police force is broken down into very small units with even smaller zones to cover. A large city may have a hundred police buildings or posts in the city. They seldom go on patrols and when they do go on patrol it is usually on foot. When called they can arrive in two to three minutes on foot. The difference between American and German police is that German police carry machine guns and may or may not have a dog with them. Also when a German police officer shouts "Halt" you better halt in your tracks immediatly. He will only say it once and then he shoots. By and large the German police are the most friendly bunch I have ever encountered and the most respected and obeyed. They usually speak perfect English.
Side note a friend of mine got mouthy with a German police officer once and was thrown a flight of stairs. This was due proccess and no arrest was made. All in a nights work.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 7, 2007 4:14:39 GMT -5
Do you think this officer committed misconduct? At 4:45 am after a night of drinking and dancing at a downtown hotel, BLANK was driving with evaline and two friends. He skidded on the ice into the path of an oncoming car. " I got out of my car and went over to the other driver and told him who I was." The driver was a 21 year old machinist named Robert Sims from East Cleavland. BLANK explained that he agreed with Sims to have him follow BLANK to the hospital. When he realized that Sims was not following him, BLANK returned to the accident scene, but another motorist had already taken Sims to the hospital.
" After I got home, I immediately called the hospital and talked to someone. I wanted to make sure the injured man was all right. I said that I would have my insurance adjusters on the job in the morning."
The accident did serious injury to BLANK's reputation. The newspapers had characterized it as a "hit-skip" accident and focused on the fact that BLANK had been drinking. (info provided by http://www.crimelibrary.com)
SUBSTITUTE BLANK with Elliot Ness then Director of Public Safety in Cleavland. This goes to show that even heroes have feet of clay. What would be done today if this happened? Once again, the good old days weren't perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Jan 8, 2007 2:52:08 GMT -5
Once again, thanks for the reply. You state " If law officers conducted themselves against the will of the people it was for selfish reasons and not at the direction of the Government (Not withstanding prohibition)." What about the enforcement of Jim Crow laws in the south from Reconstruction until the end of the Civil Rights movement? The people and the government both supported these unconstitutional laws. Local police and sheriffs enthusiastically took part in denying civil rights to millions with the support of the people, government and state law. Once again, I believe that the "good old days" weren't always so good. You’re right I stand corrected.You seem to be aghast that at times police officers spend their times doing things other than enforcing laws. Aghast? No. Baffled many times. I picked a random night on patrol from approximately 1 yr ago. Here is how my night went. I checked the security of 8 public buildings (making sure the buildings the taxpayers pay for were not vandalized or burglarized). I made 3 motor vehicle stops (2 verbals and 1 written warning). I backed up a State Police Officer on a motor vehicle stop. I broke up a loud college party (no arrests or summons needed) I responded to a medical aid of an elderly man that had fallen out of bed and cut his arm. I provided medical attention until an ambulance arrived. While not a particulary exciting night (We have those also) I feel like I earned my money and helped a few people while doing it. I enforced a few laws, I helped an elderly veteran and I checked a few buildings. I was respectful to all, friendly to a few and stern to others. I would not have hesitated to arrest the party goers if they had been underage or not dispersed when requested. I certainly wasn't friendly to this elderly man for my own protection or safety. He was a nice old guy who needed my help. His taxes pay for me to help him and I was nice to him because he was nice to me. Some officers state that they also pay taxes so therefore they are either working for free or they are paying themselves to work. I was drinking at a bar six years ago. Instead of driving I decided to stay in the parking lot and sleep it off. County sheriff picked me up and drove me home. He then took my wife back to my car so that she could drive it home. Another time I was stranded on some back country road after my car broke down and a county sheriff drove me home and dropped me off. I have some good experiences with LE. I also remember being given a speeding ticket on a rock gravel road at 1:00 A.M. in the middle of ? cattle country (there was no posted speed limit on this road, a gravel road at that). 25 years ago I got a flat tire. Having no spare I parked the car in the parking lot of an office building and walked ¾ of a mile to a friend’s house and begged him for help. We spent the afternoon drinking beer and playing video games. Eventually we meandered out to get my tire fixed. There was a police officer present at the car and I was given a DUI because “if you are drunk now then you were drunk when you parked the car”, “You have a flat tire and that is considered an accident”, “don’t talk to me because you’re drunk and I don’t talk to drunks” . Your statement that my example of the drunk driver with the headlight out is "pre-crime" is simply not true. The people of the commonwealth have determined that operating under the influence of alcohol is a crime. This person willfully drank alcoholic beverages to excess and willfully got behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. He took active steps to commit this crime (drinking to excess and operating a motor vehicle on a public way). He was lawfully detained for a civil motor vehicle infraction and his crime was discovered by a police officer who was vigilantly doing his/her job. This is not "pre-crime", it is simply crime. In your example, your son has taken no active steps to commit a crime. In my opinion the difference is crystal clear. Under habeas corpus I have the right to face my accusers and refute their allegations of injury. If there is no injured party then there is no crime and no allegations of injury to refute? You may be talking about ordinances and statutes and these are not laws nor crimes. An ordinance is “spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking, foul language in public, open container, etc. An ordinance can be violated even though it is not a law nor a crime. A statute is usually from the State. Rape is a crime because there is an injured party. Statutory rape has no injured party because the sex was consensual therefore it is not a crime but it is a violation of a statute. Speed limits, seat belts and driving with no insurance are a violation of a statute and DUI is a violation of a statute. Violations of statutes have no injured parties and are not crimes. Therefore the term “pre-crime is indeed true”. Thus a moving violation is not a moving crime. As a Law Enforcement official you are not enforceing laws, you are enforceing Government regulations that the commonwealth or we the people did not ask for.
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
I’m not going to bog you down with more of this. Suffice it to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse and is no defense, even for police officrs.p.s. I wear sunglasses when it's sunny and gloves when my hands are cold just like you do. Sounds like you would sit down at a kitchen table and have coffee with me and shake my hand. Many officers won’t do this with us civilians or citizens.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 10, 2007 6:59:42 GMT -5
Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of Massachusetts
Article V-All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and offices of government vested with authority, wether legislative, executive or judicial are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.
Article XX-The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derivied from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for
The way I see it, people choose to live in a state i.e. Massachusetts. The people came together to provide for mutual safety and prosperity. They adopted a state Constitution to further enumerate their rights, privledges and duties. They empowered the Leglislature to enact laws i.e. Chapter 90 Section 24-Operating under the Influence of Alcohol. This does not violate the principle of common right or common reason. Driving under the influence is an inherently dangerous activity that infringes on the rights of others to safely use the roadway. In the case of the drunk driver with the headlight out, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the aggrieved party. The arresting officer is your accuser as the duly authorized representative of the people. You can confront, cross examine and refute all accusations in front of a jury of your peers. (Believe me, I have been on the business end of some spirited and well executed cross examinations by skilled attorneys.) If the people wanted to repeal the Operating Under the Influence law they could petition the legislature to do so. This has not happened. You say (by some of the cases you cite) that driving (travel) is a right under the US Constitution. By driving under the influence and creating a danger on the road aren't you infringing on my right to free travel. I won't even touch your statutory rape comment. The issue is INFORMED CONSENT. A sexual relationship is a mutual agreement to engage in relations. If a child is not able to make this agreement due to lack of maturity then the child is a victim and a crime has been committed.(Rape) Can a 4 yr old consent? An 8 yr old? When is a child a victim in your mind? I hope you can explain because I was enjoying our discussion until you came out with the statutory rape comment.
spd49
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Jan 10, 2007 10:46:53 GMT -5
I am not an advocate of drunk drivers nor do I back up or support child molesters. I am making an attempt, maybe poorly, to be an objective observer of the black and white of the law.
English was not my best subject in school. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. In the comment about statutory rape the “subject” is in the wrong place. I was expressing a difference between a law that can be broken (crime) and a statute which can be violated. I chose statutory rape as an example because the word “statute’” is in the charge.
I’ll step off the legal soapbox and into the arena of personnel opinion in order to answer the rest of your question. Historically and even today who is an adult? Delving into culture. The Jewish people for thousands of years have considered twelve year olds adults. The bar mitzvah or the transformation from childhood into adulthood. The Arab countries marry each other off at twelve years old and sometimes younger. Asians for thousands of years and even today have pre-arranged marriages at twelve-fourteen years old. Today in Europe the age of consent is sixteen years old. Kings and Queens have taken the throne at twelve years old or so. The American revolutionary war and civil war was fought largely by fourteen-seventeen year old boys. Only in America are what other countries consider adults titled children until the age of twenty-one. The age of adulthood in America has been dropped down to eighteen years old and I’m sure that other countries are still laughing at us. If an adult that America considers to be a child is immature it is because we Americans have raised and groomed these supposed children to be immature. As an American I am perfectly willing to live by the American standards although I believe that America would be a better country if we raised our children to be better adults earlier. Currently we are in the quagmire of “the dummying down of America” as it is.
Alcohol. There is a Constitutional right to purchase alcohol and a Constitutional right to indulge in alcohol. A Constitutional right to purchase private property (vehicle) and a Constitutional right to utilize private property hover ever we see fit. If I wish to hang my lawn mower from my living room ceiling using fish hooks I can. We have two Constitutional rights in conjunction with each other. Do I like drunk drivers on the road? OH HELL NO. Is my Constitutional right to free travel infringed upon by a drunk driver? Not until I become an injured party, personal or property, and then the law steps in. It is the drunkard’s responsibility to stay out of my way and my responsibility to stay out of his way. I will not infringe upon his Constitutional rights and he had better not infringe upon my Constitutional rights. After the two individuals clash, and not before, does the law step in. One of our founding fathers stated “those who give up Constitutional rights in exchange for security deserves neither” or words to that effect. I do not enjoy the reality of a drunk driver on the road but then again I am not willing to chip away at our Constitutional rights for my safety either. We can interject “gun ownership” in lieu of alcohol and use the same argument. LOL, HUI hunting under the influence. No I’m talking about those who want to deny our Constitutional right to own and bear arms for the supposed security they believe it would bring. This all falls under the heading of pre-crime which upon self reflection I’ve noticed that I seem to have a problem with. Side note. Once a Constitutional right is given up it"s history, it will never be returned to the people by the powers that be. Our children will have fewer Constitutional rights then we do.
Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of Massachusetts
Article V-All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and offices of government vested with authority, wether legislative, executive or judicial are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.
Common law or as some call it the “supreme law” of the land. Common law is the very foundation that the brick and mortar of the Constitution in built upon. This is a concept that fewer and fewer people remember or understand. I appreciate the fact that you are one of the decreasing members of society who know this.
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 11, 2007 4:21:39 GMT -5
Shuftin,
I guess I'm having a problem understanding your concept that their must be an injury to an individual before a crime is committed. Can the "State"ever be the victim? I'll give an example.
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states- Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Treason is one of the fundamental crimes under common law and is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Here is a scenario.
I am a German American citizen of the United States during WWII living in Massachusetts. My cousin from Berlin shows up on my door step one day. He tells me that he is a Nazi spy. I feed him, clothe him and house him for a week. I do not inform the authorities he is here. He leaves my house and is immediately arrested for espionage. The FBI has been tracking him for a month. They watched him in my home. Am I guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemy? All I did was take care of my dear cousin. I did not hurt or injure anyone. 2 FBI agents saw him at my dinner table and sleep in my house. Am I guilty of Treason? Who is the victim of Treason?
Thanks for the dialogue. spd49
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Jan 11, 2007 9:27:04 GMT -5
NO INJURY NO COURT CASE.
Attachment to the complaint
Those four heroic JURORS knew, that only when actual injury, to
someone's person or property takes place is there a real crime. No law is
broken when no injury can be shown. Thus there can be no loss or
termination of rights unless actual damage is proven. Many imposter
laws were repealed as a result of this case.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
The year was 1670, and the case Bushnell sat on was that of William
Penn, who was on trial for violation of the "Conventicle Act." This was an
elaborate Act, which made the Church of England the only legal church.
The Act was struck down by their not guilty vote. Freedom of Religion was
established and became part of the England Bill of Rights and later it
became the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In addition, Right to
peaceful assembly was founded, Freedom of Speech, and also habeas
corpus. The first such writ of habeas corps ever issued by the Court of
Common Pleas was used to free Edward Bushnell. Later this trial gave birth
to concept of Freedom of the press. Had Bushnell and his colleagues
yielded to the guilty verdict sought by the judge and prosecutor,
William Penn most likely would have been executed as he clearly broke
the law.
HE BROKE THE LAW!
Then there would have been no Liberty Bell, no Independence Hall, no
City of Philadelphia and no state called Pennsylvania, for young William
Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and leader of the Quakers, was on trial for
his life. His alleged crime was preaching and teaching a different view of
the Bible than that of the Church of England. This appears innocent today,
but then, one could be executed for such actions. He believed in freedom
of religion, freedom of speech and the right peaceful assembly. He had
broken government's law, but he had injured no one. Those four
heroic JURORS knew that only when actual injury to someone's
person or property takes place is there a real crime. No law is broken
when no injury can be shown. Thus there can be no loss or termination of
rights unless actual damage is proven. Many imposter laws were
repealed as a result of this case.
District Court Clerk's Manual
The U.S. Supreme Courts states
Overton v. Ohio, 151 L. Ed 3d 317 (October 2001):
IF THERE IS NO VICTIM, THERE IS NO CRIME
Title 18 section 666. Anything which interferes with land use is Racketeering.
Salinas v. United State, 118 S. Ct. 469 (1997)
The county is liable for its employees intent (conspiracy) to conduct city
and county business as a racketeering enterprise.
U.S. v. Hotel, 143 F. 3d 1223 (9th Cir 1998)
The County is liable for its agents/employees stealing anything without
probable cause on a tainted warrant that fails to narrowly list things with
particularity that are connected with a crime, and that fails to have
an attached affidavit from a victims injured in his or her business or
property.
State and federal law protects the unalienable rights to own property /
livestock, so the county is liable for its employees fabricated charges and
pre-textual search without probable cause.
Sierra Club v. Motin, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)
The United State Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the
Club lacked standing and had not shown irreparable injury. Held: A person
has standing to seek judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act
only if he can show that he himself has suffered or will suffer injury,
whether economic or otherwise.
Hertado v. California, 110 US 516,
The United State Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot
diminish rights of the people."
Steagald v. United States, 68 L. 2d 38 held: 2.
In any event, whatever practical problems there are in requiring search
warrant they cannot outweigh the constitutional interest
U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
See v. City of Seattle, 387 US 541, 18 L.Ed.2d 943, 87 S>Ct. 1737
Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F .3d, 232 (9th Cir. 1995):
TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW-FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODES:
Title 18 USC Chapter 113B TERRORISM, Section 2331
Larry L. Fairchild v. Buena Vista Charter Township
Docket # 190810 L.C. # 95-7000 CZ Exhibit "A"
federal law enforcement officers who generally enjoy absolute immunity
from tort liability may nonetheless be held liable for damages for the tort
of trespass.
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Jan 11, 2007 11:02:00 GMT -5
Do you think this officer committed misconduct? At 4:45 am after a night of drinking and dancing at a downtown hotel, BLANK was driving with evaline and two friends. He skidded on the ice into the path of an oncoming car. " I got out of my car and went over to the other driver and told him who I was." The driver was a 21 year old machinist named Robert Sims from East Cleavland. BLANK explained that he agreed with Sims to have him follow BLANK to the hospital. When he realized that Sims was not following him, BLANK returned to the accident scene, but another motorist had already taken Sims to the hospital. " After I got home, I immediately called the hospital and talked to someone. I wanted to make sure the injured man was all right. I said that I would have my insurance adjusters on the job in the morning." The accident did serious injury to BLANK's reputation. The newspapers had characterized it as a "hit-skip" accident and focused on the fact that BLANK had been drinking. (info provided by http://www.crimelibrary.com) SUBSTITUTE BLANK with Elliot Ness then Director of Public Safety in Cleavland. This goes to show that even heroes have feet of clay. What would be done today if this happened? Once again, the good old days weren't perfect. Do you think this officer committed misconduct?Misconduct -- wrongdoing violations of departmental procedures. Different types of misconduct are as follows: Malfeasance -- intentional commission of a prohibited act or intentional unjust performance of some act of which the party had no right (e.g., gratuity, perjury, use of police resources for personal use) Misfeasance -- performance of a duty or act that one is obligated or permitted to do in a manner which is improper, sloppy, or negligent (e.g., report writing, unsafe operation of motor vehicle, aggressively "reprimanding" a citizen, improper searching of suspect) Nonfeasance -- failure to perform an act which one is obligated to do either by law or directive due to omission or failure to recognize the obligation (e.g., failure to file report, improper stop & frisk, security breach) The answer to your questionin yes BLANK did committed misconduct
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 11, 2007 14:10:44 GMT -5
I am a 10 yr police veteran and I am genuinely interested in what people think of the police. Here is your chance to tell a cop what you think of him and all his brothers and sisters in law enforcement. B A A......B A A......BAA
|
|
|
Post by Critique on Jan 11, 2007 15:16:03 GMT -5
The name of this web site is Police Crimes. When a police officer commits a crime there is always an injured party. When a civilian violates a City Ordinance (littering) or a State Statute (expired tags) there is no injured party. Don't worry I'm not going to gang up on you but here is some meat for Shuftin's point. www.jail4judges.org/BlakColrLog/index.htmA trial jury that is free from harassment and control by the court is one of the principles on which the United States was founded. In fact, this principle was so important to those who founded this country that one of the 13 original states (Pennsylvania) was named after a defendant (William Penn) education.yahoo.com/search/be?lb=t&p=url%3Ap/penn__williamin an old English case in 1670 www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/penntrial.htmwhere the court kept the jury imprisoned for about 2 weeks in order to force the jury to return the "guilty" verdict that the court wanted. However, the jury held out with its "not guilty" verdict and the court eventually released the jurors. The results of that case caused the courts in England at that time to recognize the independence of trial juries and were later made a part of the United States Constitution as its Sixth Amendment when the United States was founded. Now, we have the courts in the United States today doing exactly what that court in England did in 1670...
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 12, 2007 2:39:49 GMT -5
Critique,
Thanks for the picture. I think it captures my policing style perfectly. This would be gentle as a lamb with victims and good citizens and a prowling wolf for the criminals of the world. Don't feel like you are ganging up on me. I've been punched, kicked, spit on, cursed at and abused for 10 yrs. If I can take that, I certainly can take the "wolf in sheeps clothing" jab. I posted on this site to get some honest opinions. Keep them coming!
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 12, 2007 3:35:26 GMT -5
Shuftin,
I still don't get it. Treason is a crime that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution AND common law. The scenario that I gave you certainly fits the elements of that crime yet you say " NO INJURY, NO COURT CASE" You then quote a court case from 1670 Colonial America. You accuse the police of violating the Constitution, yet in this case it seems that your opinion would be a violation of the right of the people to try treasonous activity. I haven't had time to look at all of the cases that you cited but I will try.
ps If you are getting tired of the dialogue, just tell me and I'll stop posting. I find that debate makes me sharper and more effective in my life and job.
spd49
|
|
|
Post by Shuftin on Jan 12, 2007 14:43:19 GMT -5
In my first post on this subject I suggested that quote/unquote "With a small amount of imagination police officers can be construed as traitors of the people." Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) Example: We grew up together. We ran together. We played together. We scraped our knees together. We went to school together. We played sports together. We chased women together. We drank beer together. We smoked pot together. We backed and supported each other. We were best friends. One day you became a turncoat. You became my enemy when you aliened yourself with and are on the payroll of the common enemy which is the oppressive dictatorial Government. Now I fear you and I cannot trust you nor can I turn my back on you. Does this mean that you are committing treason against my country? No, of course not. Police officers Serve and Protect the Government. Police officers DO NOT Serve and Protect the people. This is a conflicting interest as you cannot serve two masters especially when the two masters are pitted against each other. Matthew 6:24 NIV. If you straddle the fence you will be fired by one master and mistrusted/hated by the other master. I have never accused police officers of violating the Constitution as they are merely minimum wage (paddy flipping) employees of the Government. Shit rolls down hill. First Government, then Judges, then prosecuting attorneys, then police officers. My heart goes out to police officers. Police officers are sworn to uphold the Constitution yet few of them actually know the Constitution. Your original question was " Can the "State"ever be the victim"? If there is no injured party then there is no crime. The example given was treason. I never suggested treason although I understand where you're coming from. If there is treason it is against the people, not the State. The State is the people, for the people, and by the people. To suggest that the State is an injured party separate from the people is purely wrong unless you believe that the State is dictatorial and is thus a victim of the people demanding their Constitutional rights. In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "... citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavor.
More on this later as I have to go to work
|
|
spd49
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by spd49 on Jan 22, 2007 5:37:43 GMT -5
Sorry I haven't posted in awhile, I was tied up in court for a few days. (Guilty verdict on an Operating Under the Influence arrest and a motion to suppress on a possesion with intent to distribute cocaine-no ruling yet)
I don't know where you got the idea that police officers are minimum wage burger flippers. I work in a police department that includes graduates of the following Universities: Georgetown University, Boston University, Syracuse University,Northeastern University,Norwich University, Boston College, UMASS Amherst and many other fine schools. Out of 34 officers 9 have Masters Degrees,16 have Bachelors Degrees, and 7 have Associates Degrees. I certainly make a comfortable living that I believe I earn. We did not take this job to get rich. We took the job to make a living and to help a few people on the way.
Police officers are forced to make complex legal decisions in the blink of an eye. I think we do a pretty good job. If we make a mistake then Lawyers, Courts and Juries tell us we were wrong. That's the system of Justice in the U.S. and I think it's pretty good.
I want to share a quote with you that I have on my locker. I read this every night as I prepare for work. " It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust, sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at least knows the triumph of high achievment; and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat"-Theodore Roosevelt-President and one time Police Commissioner of New York City.
I feel that Police Officers step into the arena every day. We know high achievment when we protect the innocent by putting away a criminal, save a life with CPR, or help a kid who is going down the wrong path. This is truly a worthy cause. We fail quite a bit also. (as this site is quick and quite correct to point out) I guess I just see most cops as good men and women who are trying to make a difference. I don't see us as the armed agents of a repressive "Government". The Preamble of the Constitution states "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for The United States of America." I feel that I protect this legacy every day.
spd49
|
|