To Protect and to Serve II

#10,102
#10,102
Rasputin_Vol said:
It is the very first amendment and these police were out here enforcing executive orders that violated the 1st Amendment.



This is where protesting comes into play. Because what they did was not a law, but an executive order. Laws are created by the legislature. You do realize this, right? None of these shutdowns were legal because they were not based on law.




So the very people that we entrust with having a gun and a badge, we shouldn't entrust in knowing the Constitution? Something that they take an oath to uphold?

Make sense of that.
Click to expand...

I disagree; you don't have the right to assemble anywhere, anytime, or in whatever number you wish unless you're on private property. Even then, you can't unduly disturb or interfere with the rights of others around/adjacent to you.

Being a law passes the prima facie test of constitutionality, but may not meet it in substance, and courts are as subjective in decisions of constitutionality as laymen. For example we see some lower level courts deciding for the plaintiff against the state re: business openings and religious gatherings, but others - most recently SCOTUS - going against. But we're going to expect cops to be their constitutional superiors and decide which laws to enforce? I don't think so.

Executives are granted the power of issuing orders by legislatures and constitutions, and those powers are pretty broad in emergencies. Such orders have force of law. If the legislature or executive dictated that religious gatherings were simply no longer allowed, not related to a temporary emergency, I'd agree cops should not enforce it. But this isn't that. *I* think the restrictions are well past their prime and though lawful, no longer serve a legitimate state interest. People could take back that right today by simply disobeying en masse.

The fact is, from clergyman to congregation, there's not yet the will do so and much of that is rooted in denominations being compromised by secular leftism. I'm not going to blame LEOs for something the religious themselves don't care enough to challenge.
 
#10,103
#10,103
Orangeslice13 said:
Edit:
If you think skin color makes a difference then you’re a ****ing moron.
Let’s see your table on how black people are investigated, charged, and sentenced compared to others.
DNA proves there’s no difference in us.
Click to expand...

If you can't make an argument when facts are slapping you in the face without resorting to "racism!", I submit you are "a ****ing moron". It's the unthinking defense of the intellectually debased.

Cultural and societal norms - or lack of - proves there's a grave difference. That they're pigmented is irrelevant.

Are you aware that headed into the 1960s, blacks married and had children in marriage at rates quite similar to whites? That illegitimacy rates were in the low 20-percentile range but since has flipped and there's barely a 25% legitimacy rate today? Tell me, what destroyed the black family that several hundred years of slavery and discrimination couldn't?

Gee, I don't find that amidst the NAACP's webpage musings, either.
With all the climate and fat injustice that's killing blacks, I guess they've no time for it.
 
#10,104
#10,104
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#10,107
#10,107
Orangeslice13 said:
Just before all this corona crap started I’m having lunch at Applebee’s with an employee a sub contractor and his employee. A police officer approached the table and said that someone had called the police because he had “misplaced” his wallet and thought he had maybe dropped it in the bathroom. I spoke up and said nobody at our table had been to the restroom. The officer said that the person had said he saw Nate (the black guy) go to the restroom. I again said “he’s mistaken, nobody here has been to the restroom”. The officer said to Nate “will you allow me to search you?” I told Nate “don’t do it, I’m calling the lawyer “ who I have on retainer. The police officer said to me “would you like to be arrested for disrupting the peace?” I said “hold on, when he answers and tells me how to answer you I’ll let you know”. 25 minutes later the officer left us alone and Nate remained un-searched. The only thing Nate did wrong was being a black business owner and my friend. The experience of Being around my black friends has taught me to be glad I’m Jewish so everyone thinks I’m white.
Click to expand...

And if they'd said the guy with the yarmulke went into the restroom, he'd have asked to search you. See, no racism there.

I do notice you don't allow your black friend to speak for himself during the encounter; do you gauge him as incapable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blake25p and Rickyvol77
#10,108
#10,108
NCFisher said:
The problem is with governors, mayors, and political police chiefs, not line officers.
Click to expand...
You’re half right.

There is a significant problem with legislative bloat, particularly in terms of overly broad criminal statutes. Some of which has been advocated by police and prosecution lobbyists.

That doesn’t entirely absolve the police of the frat house/good ole boy/paramilitary occupying force culture that has developed among some departments or some officers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepe_Silvia
#10,110
#10,110
NCFisher said:
*I* think the restrictions are well past their prime and though lawful, no longer serve a legitimate state interest. People could take back that right today by simply disobeying en masse.
Click to expand...
And see here is the danger and concern I have. It is very hard to put that genie back in the bottle. After all of this is said and done with China Virus, how easy will it be to bring things back to normal?

Look at how much we lost after 9/11?
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#10,111
#10,111
Government/systemic Issues:
Overbroad criminal statutes.
Excessive number of criminal statutes.
Too little delegation of discretion to officers.
Underpaid officers.
Officer’s unions.
Lack of accountability for officers who misuse discretion.
Improper training that includes teaching officers their lives are always in danger and that they should be quick to resort to brutal measures to force compliance.
Hidden quotas.
Poor feedback/evaluation structure.


Individual Officer issues:
Power trip requiring absolute immediate compliance during every citizen encounter.
Dishonesty in sworn pleadings and testimony.
Lack of courtesy and professionalism.
Sense of Self-righteousness that justifies breaking the rules and lying about it.
Willingness to cover for or not speak out against co-workers.

Societal issues:
Increasingly common violence towards police officers.
Willingness to sacrifice other people’s liberty for personal security.
Criminal behavior, including manipulative dishonesty.

These are not exhaustive lists, I’m sure, but I think most of the more potent exacerbating factors are on there.
 
#10,112
#10,112
NCFisher said:
If you can't make an argument when facts are slapping you in the face without resorting to "racism!", I submit you are "a ****ing moron". It's the unthinking defense of the intellectually debased.

Cultural and societal norms - or lack of - proves there's a grave difference. That they're pigmented is irrelevant.

Are you aware that headed into the 1960s, blacks married and had children in marriage at rates quite similar to whites? That illegitimacy rates were in the low 20-percentile range but since has flipped and there's barely a 25% legitimacy rate today? Tell me, what destroyed the black family that several hundred years of slavery and discrimination couldn't?


Gee, I don't find that amidst the NAACP's webpage musings, either.
With all the climate and fat injustice that's killing blacks, I guess they've no time for it.
Click to expand...

I have read anything you posted in the last few posts beyond the first sentence.
You’re just not worth reading and barely worth responding too.

Get a black friend (no you don’t have any) and go around with them. See how they’re treated by law enforcement and then get back too me.
It’s possible that their crime rate would fall dramatically if the police left them alone. Check the status of crime rates when the cops go on strike
 
Last edited:
#10,114
#10,114
RockyTop85 said:
You’re half right.

There is a significant problem with legislative bloat, particularly in terms of overly broad criminal statutes. Some of which has been advocated by police and prosecution lobbyists.

That doesn’t entirely absolve the police of the frat house/good ole boy/paramilitary occupying force culture that has developed among some departments or some officers.
Click to expand...

I referred to the specific post of police not stopping widespread looting, but being deployed to keep them closed; a bureaucratic problem.

In the broader sense, though, I agree and have criticized the paramilitarization of police, and over-criminalization by political interests on either side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#10,119
#10,119
NCFisher said:
Yes, and I think churches and congregations have a clear choice I alluded to.

The recreation area was not private.
Click to expand...
The churches had no choice in the matter.

The recreational area was a public park that was closed, but all they were doing is playing basketball. Not exactly an activity worthy of arrest.
 
#10,120
#10,120
lawgator1 said:
Good luck getting people to go into law enforcement as a career. Also, your taxes will skyrocket to pay for all the lawyers you will need to defend the wave of lawsuits that would follow.
Click to expand...
It would not be that hard to codify a liability scheme that creates an incentive for municipalities to act responsibly and chuck the bad apples.

The way qualified immunity is currently being defined by courts is asinine and demonstrably harmful to society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#10,121
#10,121
RockyTop85 said:
It would not be that hard to codify a liability scheme that creates an incentive for municipalities to act responsibly and chuck the bad apples.

The way qualified immunity is currently being defined by courts is asinine and demonstrably harmful to society.
Click to expand...


Negligent hiring and retention claims against the agency or its governmental entity has nothing to do with qualified immunity. You can sue the Minneapolis police agency for hiring and keeping this guy on despite confirmed complaints, Has nothing to do with the immunity given to individual officers.

And one of the exceptions to QI is when the act is so clearly wrong that no prior cases on point are needed. Has to do more with nuanced things like what constitutes "hot pursuit" into a residence under Santana and Peyton than some patently obnoxious use of force.
 
#10,123
#10,123
NCFisher said:
And if they'd said the guy with the yarmulke went into the restroom, he'd have asked to search you. See, no racism there.

I do notice you don't allow your black friend to speak for himself during the encounter; do you gauge him as incapable?
Click to expand...
Except more witnesses said he didn’t so no need to search
I didn’t say he didn’t speak. Just because it’s not listed doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It was a paraphrased story not a novel. It’s clear from what you read into the story what you think. it really would help you to get some black friends. I promise they won’t hurt you
 
#10,125
#10,125
lawgator1 said:
Negligent hiring and retention claims against the agency or its governmental entity has nothing to do with qualified immunity. You can sue the Minneapolis police agency for hiring and keeping this guy on despite confirmed complaints, Has nothing to do with the immunity given to individual officers.

And one of the exceptions to QI is when the act is so clearly wrong that no prior cases on point are needed. Has to do more with nuanced things like what constitutes "hot pursuit" into a residence under Santana and Peyton than some patently obnoxious use of force.
Click to expand...

That scheme is an abject failure at anything other than preventing police from being held accountable and allowing them to implement brute force in the name of personal safety regardless of whether the situation actually calls for it.

I’m talking about creating an entirely different regulatory scheme that offers liability shields as an incentive for municipalities who take reasonable action to implement reforms and if those reforms produce a threshold level in reduced violence.

The point of eliminating limiting qualified immunity shouldn’t be retributive towards the individuals presently immune (like the twitter debate clearly is) it should be about creating Incentive for positive outcomes with minimal negative outcomes.

Just spitballing, but a system in which a municipality reaches safe harbor by establishing that it has taken x, y, and z best practices to reform police conduct and somehow shows a resulting improvement that meets some threshold would deter repetitious litigation naming the municipality, and essentially makes it an assault and battery case between officer and plaintiff. Maybe there are some special issues with respect to something like comparative negligence since most of these outcomes are the result of some form of resistance but for the most part the officer has some consequences to consider when he’s deciding whether or not to join his colleagues in a dog pile on a subdued suspect.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top