To Protect and to Serve...

[82_VOL_83]

The better question is how many of the checks that come back positive are for actual crimes to persons and property and how many come back for bs narcotics violations.

Cops, and cop apologists, will often cite the fact that one who is a user or one who drinks and drives is more likely to harm other persons and property. While this is backed by statistics, the very same statistics demonstrate that, non-comparatively, such individuals are still unlikely, all things considered, to do harm to other persons and property.

Yet, in the interest of "society",LE continues to take money out of the pockets of individuals, take them away from their families, and take their freedom. Arguably, LE has never protected and served the citizens, the persons, the individuals; instead, what LE protects and serves is the legitimacy of the state. Ironically, in doing so with such enthusiasm and vigilance, LE often undermines that very legitimacy in the eyes of a scrupulous, and fed up, public.

Wrong, LE doesn't do that. That enforce what they are given to enforce. Change the laws and the LE's will follow.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Can't we say, with this line of thought, that since it is possible that anyone, even those individuals of whom, from all previous interaction and experience, we would never suspect of harming others can, much to our surprise, not only harm others but deliberately harm others, we ought to just lock everyone up in individual cells so that we keep others from being physically harmed/killed?

On what principle ought we avoid instituting a totalitarian society in which all members of society are separated from others, except when the production and procurement of basic goods is absolutely necessary? On what principle ought we avoid instituting a society in which, when individuals must work, they do so as a part of some sort of strictly monitored chain-gang?

If that principle is that we value freedom, liberty, autonomy, personal opportunity and choice, then we value it over absolute security, as the alternative most closely approximates to absolute security. Yet, if we value those things above absolute security, then we must risk situations in which a child is killed by a driver, whether drunk or sober. We must risk the situation in which one uses their individual liberty to deliberately injure and kill others. We can always punish post facto, but punishing individuals merely because, while they have not yet harmed others, statistical analysis suggests they are more likely to harm others is, until they have actually injured another, promoting security above autonomy and liberty.

There is nothing inherently contradictory about valuing security over liberty, but there is something paradoxical in valuing security over liberty yet not supporting totalitarian government and society.

Be that as it may, you come through my single entrance neighborhood at 45 mph, nearly hit me at my mailbox, nearly run over people walking down the street, and be a general nuisance, don't get mad when you get a rock through your windshield.

Doing something like pulling someone over for excess speed in a neighborhood isn't tyrannical, it's just plain common sense. Something that is in short supply these days.

 

[therealUT]

Wrong, LE doesn't do that. That enforce what they are given to enforce. Change the laws and the LE's will follow.

This is verifiably false. You might want to have a look into unenforced laws and deseutude. There are more than a handful of statutes that are still legislatively valid which LE does not enforce.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Yes, all that for doing 39 in a 25 zone. All the while hurting no one, and minding her own business. This whole thing could've been avoided if the copper had been out finding real criminals who are harming persons or property. Instead, he was out collecting revenue for his master the state.

So your line of thinking is that crimes such as attempted murder, attempted fraud, etc. should be pulled from the books. You should only be charged for you actions if you actually do harm to someone in some way.

He was probably being lenient with the 14 over. Could have been that she was going 15+ over and that carries a mandatory ticket and court appearance. He could have been just going to ask her to slow down. Instead, she turned it into a felony assault. We are a country of laws. Most of them are stupid and unnecessary. However, in this particular case. The LEO was justified in what he was doing and well within the law to request ID on her. Go run for office and when you get elected reduce the funding for police departments. That way you can get the officers off the street and let those few left enforce laws as they see fit.....Kinda reminds me of Mexico.

 

[82_VOL_83]

This is verifiably false. You might want to have a look into unenforced laws and deseutude. There are more than a handful of statutes that are still legislatively valid which LE does not enforce.

14 over in a neighborhood isn't one of them.

 

[therealUT]

Be that as it may, you come through my single entrance neighborhood at 45 mph, nearly hit me at my mailbox, nearly run over people walking down the street, and be a general nuisance, don't get mad when you get a rock through your windshield.

Doing something like pulling someone over for excess speed in a neighborhood isn't tyrannical, it's just plain common sense. Something that is in short supply these days.

It is not plain common sense and there are a variety of ways in which one could reduce speed through neighborhoods without arresting and fining anyone. Speed bumps and humps slow traffic as well as designing neighborhood streets to be serpentine. The bottom line, however, is you have not in anyway responded to my argument. Not that I find that surprising.

I also think it is quite telling that you list being "a general nuisance" as meriting property damage and physical injury to others. No wonder you are pro cop.

 

[therealUT]

14 over in a neighborhood isn't one of them.

This response does not support your position, nor Grand Vol's, of "LE are just doing their jobs, the ire ought to be aimed at legislators". LE has wide latitude over which laws they choose to enforce.

 

[82_VOL_83]

It is not plain common sense and there are a variety of ways in which one could reduce speed through neighborhoods without arresting and fining anyone. Speed bumps and humps slow traffic as well as designing neighborhood streets to be serpentine. The bottom line, however, is you have not in anyway responded to my argument. Not that I find that surprising.

I also think it is quite telling that you list being "a general nuisance" as meriting property damage and physical injury to others. No wonder you are pro cop.

Dude, I have no idea what your argument is. When you figure it out, you let me know. Please use Merican Redneck since I obviously don't understand overedumacated philosophicalese.

 

[82_VOL_83]

This response does not support your position, nor Grand Vol's, of "LE are just doing their jobs, the ire ought to be aimed at legislators". LE has wide latitude over which laws they choose to enforce.

14 over in a neighborhood isn't one of them.

I can do this all day. Off sick today for the first time in about 10 years.

 

[n_huffhines]

Dude, I have no idea what your argument is. When you figure it out, you let me know. Please use Merican Redneck since I obviously don't understand overedumacated philosophicalese.

Self-damning, IMO

 

[therealUT]

I can do this all day. Off sick today for the first time in about 10 years.

Are you honestly trying to assert that somehow LE as a whole has no choose in enforcing traffic laws and, further, the individual LEOs do in fact enforce every single violation of every single traffic law?

I presume your sickness is mental.

 

[Grand Vol]

This response does not support your position, nor Grand Vol's, of "LE are just doing their jobs, the ire ought to be aimed at legislators". LE has wide latitude over which laws they choose to enforce.

No, I said the ire needs to be focused on the segments that can and wild change the policies. Which are the politicians.

Forgive my curt answers today. Busy here in the office and I will respond more in depth when I have the time.

 

[therealUT]

No, I said the ire needs to be focused on the segments that can and wild change the policies. Which are the politicians.

Forgive my curt answers today. Busy here in the office and I will respond more in depth when I have the time.

Do you think that ire cannot be justly aimed at both legislators and law enforcement?

 

[CNCVol88]

Yes, all that for doing 39 in a 25 zone. All the while hurting no one, and minding her own business. This whole thing could've been avoided if the copper had been out finding real criminals who are harming persons or property. Instead, he was out collecting revenue for his master the state.

So are you saying you don't want speed limits? The more and more you advocate for your ideal society, the more I don't want to live in it.

 

[therealUT]

So are you saying you don't want speed limits? The more and more you advocate for your ideal society, the more I don't want to live in it.

The rejection of punishing individuals merely for driving above a certain velocity does not necessarily entail laws which are concerned with driving above certain velocities.

One can easily imagine that speed limit signs are still posted and individuals who exceed such limits and then, in fact, injure persons and/or destroy property are subject charges such as negligent assault, negligent homicide, etc.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

So are you saying you don't want speed limits? The more and more you advocate for your ideal society, the more I don't want to live in it.

As was stated in a post above, there are other ways of checking speed in places where speed needs to be kept to a minimum. Speed bumps, etc.
Having to fork over money for failing to obey a speed limit, even though no one was hurt, and no actual crime was committed, is nothing more than a collection racket for the local government.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

It's really concerning that most people respond to new laws by throwing their hands up and saying "well that's the law, we have to follow it." That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just because some politician writes something down on a piece of paper, and a few of his fellow criminals in government agree with him, that places no moral responsibility upon anyone to follow these arbitrary commands.
What would you say if some politician said "Well now, breathing is now illegal. We will have the police enforce our new measures to limit your breath." I understand that's very hyperbolic and would never happen, but still the point remains. I'm pretty sure the cops would just be following orders then too.

At what point is enough, enough?

We have too many silly laws period. Many of which are just to collect revenue for the state.

 

[davethevol]

It's really concerning that most people respond to new laws by throwing their hands up and saying "well that's the law, we have to follow it." That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just because some politician writes something down on a piece of paper, and a few of his fellow criminals in government agree with him, that places no moral responsibility upon anyone to follow these arbitrary commands.
What would you say if some politician said "Well now, breathing is now illegal. We will have the police enforce our new measures to limit your breath." I understand that's very hyperbolic and would never happen, but still the point remains. I'm pretty sure the cops would just be following orders then too.

At what point is enough, enough?

We have too many silly laws period. Many of which are just to collect revenue for the state.

It's like state of Tennessee now trying to pass a law making it illegal for passengers in a car to drink alcohol. If they aren't driving, then why should it be illegal? There will still be drunk drivers, this is just an excuse to get more money and to have more power.

 

[Grand Vol]

Do you think that ire cannot be justly aimed at both legislators and law enforcement?

I do think ire can be directed at both. And very likely should. However, read through this thread and see exactly how many times anyone has said "maybe I should speak up about this at the city council meeting, our cops are out of control and something needs to be done."

Precisely zero.

They'd rather sit around and *****, whine and complain about anything LE. And furthermore, speak to things which they have no clue about and refuse to accept or listen to an explanation. Or when an explanation is given, take it completely out of context and twist the words into something entirely alien as to the original intent. Or go off into their fantasy world of how things should be in their minds and refuse to accept the reality of life.

So yes, both can and likely should be questioned. Yet how many of the mouth breathers that consistently post in this thread and whine about things that don't affect them in the least actually do that?

You want to have a conversation and reasonable debate about LE and the politics behind it, I'm all ears. But we set the ground rules with speaking from a point of reality and not some fantasy world of leprechauns and unicorns where everyone makes up their own rules.

 

[AirVol]

The rejection of punishing individuals merely for driving above a certain velocity does not necessarily entail laws which are concerned with driving above certain velocities.



One can easily imagine that speed limit signs are still posted and individuals who exceed such limits and then, in fact, injure persons and/or destroy property are subject charges such as negligent assault, negligent homicide, etc.

This sounds like European laws, especially Germany where on the autobahn there are no limits unless you're driving through a town. If you cause a wreck and someone dies, you go to jail for a long time

 

[82_VOL_83]

Are you honestly trying to assert that somehow LE as a whole has no choose in enforcing traffic laws and, further, the individual LEOs do in fact enforce every single violation of every single traffic law?

I presume your sickness is mental.

Yes much like you and your sycophants. Got any good drugs?

 

[82_VOL_83]

The rejection of punishing individuals merely for driving above a certain velocity does not necessarily entail laws which are concerned with driving above certain velocities.

One can easily imagine that speed limit signs are still posted and individuals who exceed such limits and then, in fact, injure persons and/or destroy property are subject charges such as negligent assault, negligent homicide, etc.

Yes because every parent of a kid that gets run over will be just fine with the driver paying a fine or doing jail time.

 

[therealUT]

Yes because every parent of a kid that gets run over will be just fine with the driver paying a fine or doing jail time.

I don't care what those parents think.

 

[Grand Vol]

How does this not address what you said? You are merely trying to pass the buck to the politicians, but the politicians do not enforce the absurd laws, the police do, and they either do because they want to, in which part they are no better than the politicians, or they do so merely because they are told to, in which part they are no better than children.

I'm trying to pass the buck? Really? You think I would continue to attempt to defend any actions and be subjected to the idiocy that is rampant in this thread if I thought I was passing the buck?

There are two sides to this coin. You either ignore the greater problem (the politicians) and continue the ignorance of blaming LE on everything wrong. Or you see the greater problem is the fact the powers that LE have are derived from politicians. And by proxy, the people in the end. And if the people aren't demanding answers or reform from the politicians, what will change?

Exactly nothing. So you think I'm passing the buck onto the politicians? The buck stops right at the people my friend. The people that continue to elect those same politicians and judges that reduce their Constitutional Rights. The people allow their elected officials that in turn allow the local LE to get away with some of the things they do. You think I'm passing the buck? You're just as guilty as you think I am in the end. I'm a child? You're also a child that allows it to happen in the first place by continuing to elect officials and judges that perpetuate the problem.

Next you'll say I'm complicit with the behavior since I must agree with it. And like it or not, LE are duty bound to enforce the law. And the vast majority do so justly and without incident. Does that make me agree with a vast many things that go on? No. I really don't like a lot of the laws on the books today. Unfortunately, when I signed up I took the good with the bad. And as each situation was different, my response to each situation was different. And I do know an illegal order or law and when not to enforce it. Sadly the perception around here is all LE are little more than jack booted thugs waiting to stomp on the necks of the citizen and tear away their Rights. And nothing could be further from the truth.

So you just sit there and blame the sword for the hand that wields it and continue to be blind to the greater problem. Sure LE has the discretion to warn for minor violations of the law as you pointed out. Minor violations only. The way you make it sound is LE can just let someone go if they have ten kilos of coke in their trunk. Because "they probably won't do anyone harm here." And you know what that kind of attitude gets them? A pink slip as a minimum. Jail time if someone wanted to press the matter. They cannot pick and choose what laws they want to enforce even as archaic as some truly are. If the public demands they enforce the right of way for a horse and buggy, LE has no choice in the matter. Now for the most part the laws that are still on the books that are overtaken by modern events are not enforced. Mainly because it's ignorant to do so. When you were an officer, you had no control over violations of the UCMJ you could let slip if someone wanted to press the matter. Dereliction of duty for example. Like it or not, archaic or not, it was still the law and you were duty bound to correct instances if brought to your attention. Now you could use your own authority to warn or correct the behavior. But you also had the authority and duty to bring it to a higher level if the instance was severe enough.

And this made you different from LE how?

 

[Grand Vol]

This response does not support your position, nor Grand Vol's, of "LE are just doing their jobs, the ire ought to be aimed at legislators". LE has wide latitude over which laws they choose to enforce.

And I'd appreciate it if you gave me the opportunity to actually form a proper response before putting words in my mouth.

You sure as hell don't like it when others do it to you so I'd expect the same courtesy in return.