Are Cops Constitutional - Rodger Roots

[MatthewP503]

If any of you have Skype or a willingness for voice communication than I am willing as well, I explained to Etrain, that I am PMing individuals to keep this thread as clean as possible with your comments or replies being of most importance.
If I can, in my own words reply collectively to the issues you have all brought up, than I will try to do so, but in order for that to happen I need to collect my thoughts, look at your comments and work on a reply. In that time another comment or concern might be raised an might not get attended to.

This is part of the reason that I would prefer that before starting a conversation about this topic, that you guys would briefly read up on what your commenting about and come with more than just your opinion for me to reply to.

 

[The Heretic]

You hit alot of topics with that well written and thought out reply.
(I do disagree with some of your logic If you have any specific questions please ask.. I wanted to reply to your comment and address each paragraph but I feel like what I have to say is a bit long winded)

-what do I suggest.
1. Committees of safety and common law courts
2. What the article suggests as the intent of the founding members of this country

Www.Committee.org <-- this site is run by the same person (Gary hunt) who publishes his articles at outpost-of-freedom.com

Okay

And this is sort of what I was looking for; whenever someone says there is a problem, I look for what they suggest as the solution to that problem.

We all know, and probably all agree, that there are problems with law enforcement and the justice system today. Actually, these problems have been around for quite a while (decades if not longer) - as a former federal LEO (35 years ago) I can attest to that fact. What is making it more apparent now is the technology we have to to share witness of these incidents and not have them covered up so easily.

That said, I don't find your suggested solutions to be realistic given the current power structure, culture and mindset of the vast majority of people. In short, between those in power and the general population, I doubt you will find support for such a radical change in the status quo.

So again I ask, given my assertion that your solution simply isn't practical, what you you suggest as a solution that people today would actually accept?

And no, trying to make them aware of the problem and convincing them your proposed solution is the answer, simply won't work (in my opinion and experience), due to human nature and those in power won't allow it.

There are a lot of changes I would like to have happen too, but I accept the fact that the world today is what it is and people are who they are (stupid, ignorant, greedy, selfish, lazy, close minded and very resistant to change), and neither people nor the powers that be will change simply because I want them to. If it were only that easy.

 

[etrain16]

I responded back to your PM again. I appreciate that you don't want this to get personal, and it really doesn't need to.

But I'd like to point something out, similar to what I replied to you via PM. Don't discount the words of people that are responding here, even if they haven't read your article. Most are older than you and have more experience. What you're asking them to read is hardly a new idea, and many of us can smell a re-hashed argument that has been made before. Maybe at a different time, by a different person, but it's been made - there is really nothing new under the sun.

I was a head-strong, idealistic young man at one time. At your age, I had my life figured out and I was out to save the world. I pushed and shared my ideas with anyone that would listen, including with many that wouldn't listen. And you know what that pushing got me? Nothing. People will listen if they want to listen. They will read if they want to read. And they will comment if they want to comment. No amount of asserting will make anyone click that link. The best you can do is come here, make your comments about what you think is important and hope that some may follow it and read it. Beyond that, there isn't much you can do.

Free will is a funny thing. If you want to convince someone to follow you or your point of view, you need to find a way to draw them in. If your pitch isn't getting a response then either the message or the messenger is the problem, and sometimes it's both (well, oftentimes it's both). If you're going to share your point of view in a public forum, be prepared to have backlash, it's all part of the process. If people disagree, you can certainly try to help them understand why you think your view is better, but most won't bother to read anything, you're going to have to find a way to do that in your own words, and, if you do it well, you may just get a few to follow up and read more.

 

[etrain16]

LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A UNIVERSAL DUTY:
Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and
equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to
enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and
bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in
the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private
person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in
his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed.

Laws in virtually every state still require citizens to aid in capturing escaped prisoners, arresting criminal
suspects, and executing legal process. The duty of citizens to enforce the law was and is a constitutional one.
Many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement
functions, yet evinced no mention of any state power to carry out those same functions. But the law
enforcement duties of the citizenry are now a long-forgotten remnant of the Framers' era. By the 1960s, only
twelve percent of the public claimed to have ever personally acted to combat crime. The Founders could not have envisioned 'police' officers as we know them today. The term "police" had a
slightly different meaning at the time of the Founding. It was generally used as a verb and meant to watch over
or monitor the public health and safety. In Louisiana, "police juries" were local governing bodies similar to
county boards in other states. Only in the mid-nineteenth century did the term 'police' begin to take on the
persona of a uniformed state law enforcer. The term first crept into Supreme Court jurisprudence even later.
Prior to the 1850s, rugged individualism and self-reliance were the touchstones of American law, culture, and
industry. Although a puritan cultural and legal ethic pervaded their society, Americans had great toleration for
victimless misconduct. Traffic disputes were resolved through personal negotiation and common law tort
principles, rather than driver licenses and armed police patrol. Agents of the state did not exist for the
protection of the individual citizen. The night watch of early American cities concerned itself primarily with the
danger of fire, and watchmen were often afraid to enter some of the most notorious neighborhoods of cities like
Boston.
At the time of Tocqueville's observations (in the 1830s), "the means available to the authorities for the discovery
of crimes and arrest of criminals [were] few,"yet Tocqueville doubted "whether in any other country crime so
seldom escapes punishment. Citizens handled most crimes informally, forming committees to catch criminals
and hand them over to the courts. Private mobs in early America dealt with larger threats to public safety and welfare, such as houses of ill fame. Nothing struck a European traveler in America, wrote Tocqueville, more
than the absence of government in the streets.
Formal criminal justice institutions dealt only with the most severe crimes. Misdemeanor offenses had to be
dealt with by the private citizen on the private citizen's own terms. "The farther back the [crime rate] figures
go," according to historian Roger Lane, "the higher is the relative proportion of serious crimes. In other
words, before the advent of professional policing, fewer crimes -- and only the most serious crimes -- were
brought to the attention of the courts.
After the 1850s, cities in the northeastern United States gradually acquired more uniformed patrol officers. The
criminal justice model of the Framers' era grew less recognizable. The growth of police units reflected a "change
in attitude" more than worsening crime rates. Americans became less tolerant of violence in their streets and
demanded higher standards of conduct. Offenses which had formerly earned two-year sentences were now
punished by three to four years or more in a state penitentiary.

THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME-FIGHTING POWER
But the constitutions of the Founding Era gave no hint of any thin blue line. Nothing in their texts enunciated
any governmental power to "fight crime" at all. "Crime-fighting" was intended as the domain of individuals
touched by crime. The original design under the American legal order was to restore a semblance of private
justice. The courts were a mere forum, or avenue, for private persons to attain justice from a malfeasor. The
slow alteration of the criminal courts into a venue only for the government's claims against private persons
turned the very spirit of the Founders' model on its head.
To suggest that modern policing is extraconstitutional is not to imply that every aspect of police work is
constitutionally improper. Rather, it is to say that the totality and effect of modern policing negates the
meaning and purpose of certain constitutional protections the Framers intended to protect and carry forward to
future generations. Modern-style policing leaves many fundamental constitutional interests utterly unenforced.
Americans today, for example, are far more vulnerable to invasive searches and seizures by the state than were
the Americans of 1791. The Framers lived in an era in which much less of the world was in "plain view" of the
government and a "stop and frisk" would have been rare indeed. The totality of modern policing also places
pedestrian and vehicle travel at the mercy of the state, a development the Framers would have almost certainly
never sanctioned. These infringements result not from a single aspect of modern policing, but from the whole of
modern policing's control over large domains of private life that were once "policed" by private citizens.

Having read this, it doesn't change my view. The police are here for a variety of reasons, but I don't see that as being unconstitutional. Do they sometimes violate constitutional rights? Yes. And when they do, it is the job of the citizens to demand that be corrected. I don't see anything here that make a good case to eliminate police altogether. In fact, I don't know I'd really want to have all law enforcement in the hands of the citizens. The world is more complex now. We're no longer a collection of small, rural communities like we once were. In many cases, the citizens were the law because they had no other choice. But I don't have a desire to go back to those times. And neither do many others.

What I do want is for the police to do their jobs and for government officials not to misuse that authority. I want to see officers that don't abuse their power or violate civil rights. But I don't have a desire to get rid of police. I think they are as necessary as the fire department or a hospital or a school. Just because I don't always agree with their methods doesn't negate their necessity in our world.

 

[The Heretic]

Moreover, I disagree that the formation of civilian "committees", even if the US populace decided that this was acceptable (which they wouldn't), is a solution to the problem of law enforcement misdeeds or abuse of power under color of authority.

Indeed, the idea (as quoted) that we should form "mobs" to take care of "houses of 'ill fame'" is just the very sort of thing that I would fear would happen and the very sort of thing that we have been trying to move away from; the idea that the majority would enforce its idea of "morality" on others when the so-called "crime" is victimless but offends *their* sense of morality.

I have no illusion that current law enforcement doesn't also fall prey to this abuse of power, but in general official law enforcement usually isn't a "mob" - it is a trained police force with some modicum of oversight and accountability, whereas a "mob" is just that; an *unruly* mob, know in the past to literally tar and feather people and run them out of town when they deemed them to be "undesirable".

As much as I deplore the abuse of law enforcement powers, the current state of affairs is much better than this:

 

[DeanfromOregon]

While you're at it, you should stop paying income taxes as well, it is illegal! Here is the obligatory cut and paste of internet knowledge to prove my assertions...

Tax protester Irwin Schiff, following his criminal conviction for tax fraud that resulted in the imposition of a 13-year prison sentence, released a statement asserting in part that "the entire federal judiciary is involved in a monumental, criminal conspiracy to collect income taxes in violation of law". Schiff's web site continues to state: "Since the income tax was repealed in 1954 when Congress adopted the 1954 Code, it is clear that for 50 years federal judges in conspiracy with U. S. Department of Injustice [sic] prosecutors have been illegally and criminally prosecuting people for crimes that do not exist in connection with a tax that nobody owes."[1]

 

[MatthewP503]

the idea (as quoted) that we should form "mobs" to take care of "houses of 'ill fame'"

This is not the premise of the article.

Try this: Laws in virtually every state still require citizens to aid in capturing escaped prisoners, arresting criminal
suspects, and executing legal process. The duty of citizens to enforce the law was and is a constitutional one.
Many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement
functions, yet evinced no mention of any state power to carry out those same functions. But the law
enforcement duties of the citizenry are now a long-forgotten remnant of the Framers' era

 

[MatthewP503]

Oregon State Constitution Article 1, Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.—

"The Heretic, post: 1261393, member: 34166"My point is, that it is unrealistic to assume that by simply pointing out that the original intentions don't match where we are today doesn't mean we can or should return to those intentions - as much as we may wish we could.

 

[MatthewP503]

And this is sort of what I was looking for; whenever someone says there is a problem, I look for what they suggest as the solution to that problem.

We all know, and probably all agree, that there are problems with law enforcement and the justice system today. Actually, these problems have been around for quite a while decades if not longer)- as a former federal LEO (35 years ago) I can attest to that fact. What is making it more apparent now is the technology we have to to share witness of these incidents and not have them covered up so easily.

That said, I don't find your suggested solutions to be realistic given the current power structure, culture and mindset of the vast majority of people. In short, between those in power and the general population, I doubt you will find support for such a radical change in the status quo.

So again I ask, given my assertion that your solution simply isn't practical, what you you suggest as a solution that people today would actually accept?

And no, trying to make them aware of the problem and convincing them your proposed solution is the answer, simply won't work (in my opinion and experience), due to human nature and those in power won't allow it.

There are a lot of changes I would like to have happen too, but I accept the fact that the world today is what it is and people are who they are (stupid, ignorant, greedy, selfish, lazy, close minded and very resistant to change), and neither people nor the powers that be will change simply because I want them to. If it were only that easy.

June 27, 1774. Samuel Adams

"A Grecian philosopher," Adams said, "who was lying asleep upon the grass, was aroused by the bite of some animal upon the palm of his hand. He closed his hand suddenly as he woke and found that he had caught a field mouse. As he was examining the little animal who dared to attack him, it unexpectedly bit him a second time, and made its escape."

"Now, fellow citizens," he continued, "what think you was the reflection he made upon this trifling circumstance? It was this: that there is no animal, however weak and contemptible, which cannot defend its own liberty,

if it will only fight for it.

 

[The Heretic]

This is not the premise of the article.

Try this: Laws in virtually every state still require citizens to aid in capturing escaped prisoners, arresting criminal
suspects, and executing legal process. The duty of citizens to enforce the law was and is a constitutional one.
Many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement
functions, yet evinced no mention of any state power to carry out those same functions. But the law
enforcement duties of the citizenry are now a long-forgotten remnant of the Framers' era

1) You cannot bind someone to an obligation simply by declaring it so, even by declaring it so in a governmental constitution. You might be able to fool some people, but those people who understand what an obligation truly is and how it comes about, will not be fooled.

2) I only have a duty or responsibility if I voluntarily and explicitly do something to obligate myself to that duty or responsibility. I do not implicitly incur a duty/responsibility simply by my existence or presence within a society any more than there is "original sin".

This is one of the fundamental lies of both the left and right.

The left says I have a responsibility to my fellow man to provide for him/her if they are in need.

The right says I have a duty to the state to serve it (e.g., conscription into the military, or other service to the state).

No one, over the years I have asked in many forums, has been able to satisfactorily explain to me how I have somehow incurred these duties, obligations or responsibilities they say I have. If I were you, I wouldn't even try - people a lot better at debate have tried - and failed.

 

[10010110]

Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'