The Direction of Law Enforcement

[Father of four]

Personal opinions of right or wrong or moral standing are irrelevant when sitting on such a case. The actions are judged against the laws that are set forth by the Supremes etc., and are looked at not after the fact, not sitting in a nice chair in the comfort of x, but at the time the Officer was involved, and what info. was given to him/her at the time. It makes no difference what anyone thinks 'should' have been the right thing to do, some on here as well as on the street still haven't grasped that concept.

"Personal opinions of right or wrong or moral standing are irrelevant when sitting on such a case." I beg to differ. Isn't that why I was chosen to be a juror? The D.A, his assistant and the defendants lawyers grilled us about the answers in our juror questioner. They wanted to find out how we were gonna look at the case by not only reviewing the laws we knew only, but they also wanted to try and see our characters, opinions and values too. Everyone uses their own opinions of right and wrong in judging things.

While I am " sitting in a nice chair in the comfort of x" I can understand that it it totally different then the time when the officer was involved. I can take that into account and understand that laws give him power and I can understand the way he may be thinking when he went into that situation. But...i can also understand that not ever officer follows the laws or boundaries that are given them. So it would be my job as a juror to cast my opinion as to if the LEO stepped outside what I think was lawful and legal.

I can not know all the laws, the ways that they are, can be, or have been carried out, no one can. I could be shown the laws needed to help judge a case and use my common sense, my personal opinions, opinions of others, past experience, ect... to make my mind up about a case. And if given the chance I would help judge over a case with LE. I believe I as a citizen, non-LEO would be way more impartial then other LEOs sitting on that case.

 

[Father of four]

Yes, in the eyes of some, Officers have got away with murder etc., but when applying the action to the laws in which they have to operate under, they really haven't.

While that might sound good for a LEO sitting behind that law it does not for the average citizen. Just because a LEO can take someones life and not be held responsible in the name of law does not make it right.

How very messed up can the laws and the courts be with regards to a LEO. If he/she is found not guilty of a murder they are still often fired or seems to be forced to retire anyways? Something really weird and messed up there. Or when a LEO is found guilty but only looses his job, is demoted or just changes locations of employment? Weird and messed up there as well. How about the LEO just retire and then the case just seems to be dropped. How about that for justice?

I feel that the biggest problem as to why the LEOs as well as the citizens do not receive justice in LEO involved criminal cases is because of the internal investigations, the police unions along with the D.A. There is a definite double standard and we all see it.

I would be safe to say that most of us United States citizens believe that LEOs do often get away with murder.


P.S Be nice grammar Nazis!

 

[Father of four]

Here is a great example...Cleveland Police Shooting: Cops Investigate After Firing 137 Shots, Killing Two Suspects (VIDEO), <broken link removed>
and...http://www.prisonplanet.com/public-...-over-130-shots-into-car-find-no-weapons.html

Maybe a federal investigation will help bring justice. I have my doubts though.

 

[dmancornell]

The reason is a significant part of this discussion-- and the short version is (beyond the fact that it simply wasn't murder, but we can substitute "manslaughter" for the hyperbole) that if Ian Birk had been charged with murder-manslaughter, no reasonable person would become a cop.

Implying that reasonable people would shoot a man in the back because the victim didn't instantly obey the orders of an armed man.

I am amused by your insane defense of the Williams murder though, saying cops need protection from "simple mistakes". Because career advancement is so much more important than not killing someone via a simple mistake. Also why exactly should cops be exempt from the consequences of their actions?

 

[Father of four]

How about this one? Too much for a citizen review board also? <broken link removed>

"While FOX 32's Larry Yellen was interviewing the dog's owners, two police officers drove by the home. 90 minutes later, they came back, asked why Phillips why he had contacted the media and gave him a ticket for not keeping Colonel on a leash."


Officers revenge?

 

[Jammer Six]

More hyperbole.

Not being prosecuted for manslaughter or murder is not the same as exempt, and that leap of logic exposes the hysteria driving your argument.

 

[dmancornell]

Not being prosecuted for manslaughter or murder is not the same as exempt

Um, yes it is.

 

[Jammer Six]

Well, then, we've found the crux of our failure to agree.

Since it's not going to be solved unless you change your mind, you guys have a good night.

 

[dmancornell]

Well, then, we've found the crux of our failure to agree.

Since it's not going to be solved unless you change your mind, you guys have a good night.

Yep, not budging here. Instead of running away, how about you pull your head out your butt and explain why you've outsourced your morality to the state.

By the way, "it's the law" is not a valid argument, that's just a mantra chanted by idiot statists who cannot give any logical explanations for the moral cowardice.

Also I would like to hear how protection from persecution is *not* exemption. This is really a binary outcome, he is either persecuted or not.

 

[Jammer Six]

I see-- so, since "it's the law" won't fly, we should let illegal immigrants in, since there's certainly no racism or other "moral" reason not to?

Sometimes this board amuses me...

The law if and only if it's convenient, cheap, and what we want after a few beers.

 

[dmancornell]

I see-- so, since "it's the law" won't fly, we should let illegal immigrants in, since there's certainly no racism or other "moral" reason not to?

Sometimes this board amuses me...

The law if and only if it's convenient, cheap, and what we want after a few beers.

Sure, why not? The "illegals" are only a problem because of the welfare state that the government created. As usual, government creates problems then masquerades as the solution. Your precious laws is a big part of that charade.

99% of laws on the book are nothing more than excuses for theft, oppression and murder.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

My oh my, it appears I've missed quite a bit.

Most who know me, know I ain't very standoffish...quite the contrary. But I tend to be an observer.

CounterOfBeans, I'm at a great disadvantage about other state laws, as I've not delved into them as much as I would need to address your legal questions/concerns.
But with skimming thru a few states laws, pretty much the same laws are on the books of about every state, just worded in their own political way. UGH!

So let me chew on them for a bit, and see what I can spit out.

Wichaka,

Indeed, "pretty much the same laws are on the books of about every state", so since I can tell you've probably got a lot on your plate, I decided to do a little research with the RCWs to help out. In post #316 and others, I cited a few laws to explain how we've been lied to (including you and all other LE) about what "licensing" is all about. I used Oregon's laws because Oregon's laws are just so crystal clear. You already mentioned that any given State's laws are essentially on the same page, so to help start bridging whatever gap there might be in perception between Oregon and Washington law, I'd like to use each State's definition of "highway" below:


ORS "801.305 "Highway."
(1) "Highway" means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right."


RCW "47.04.010
(11) "Highway." Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns"

As it state's above in both State's laws, the public's use of the "highway" is described as a "right"......not a "privilege". One big difference between Oregon and Washington though is that Oregon puts this definition right in its vehicle code. But Washington doesn't. Washington puts its definition in Title 47, rather than Title 46....Washington's vehicle code, where most people would intuitively look to find it.

If you want to get an insiders look at the behind-the-scenes jockeying that is taking place to avoid a conversation about the "licensing-the-public" issue, stop in and visit Liz Luce or whoever the Director at the Washington Department of Licensing is and ask them to make you a copy of Liz's response to a particular public record law demand made (c. 2008) by an Oregon Citizen named Richard L. Koenig, regarding policies that treat the public the same as motor vehicle operators. Watch her reaction and please be ready to ask her some pointed questions. Maybe even copy and paste some of the Oregon laws that I've already posted, as a reference to what's what in other States. No, I'm not Richard. But I have picked up some of what I know about this stuff from his online information and just cruising the statutes.

You said that "knowledge is power" and it's true that the more you learn from just reading things like law term definitions and legislative construction laws, the more you want to know about what their effect is when you plug those understandings into the laws that we're told we have to submit our rights to. I know you want your thread to empower people to make more informed decisions. So I hope you can help us put some of this stuff under the microscope. Thanks

 

[Riot]

COOL IT GENTLEMEN!

 

[Jammer Six]

Looks like some of that hit home...

Wichaka, I see part of what a good cop would be up against, right here in this thread, among men who claim moral solvency.

Best of luck, and the offer of that beer stands.

 

[ron]

This blog I look at from time to time makes some interesting points about law enforcement. I think many times
cops have the us against them attitude. When the SHTF and law enforcement is directed to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens,
(as they did in New Orleans) how many will not follow orders and support our 2A rights?

Click on 'Rifleman's Journal'. Jeffersonian's Home Page

 

[davemata]

Now, we look at a DUI instance where an employee uses a company vehicle, the stop ends on said company property, with the employee getting arrested for DUI.
Even though the state says its a mandatory impound, I don't see the need. Why punish the company for an unnecessary tow bill? It's their vehicle, and on their property.

Could you explain to me why victims of auto theft have to have their cars impounded? Police found my car hours after it was stolen, instead of calling me to get it, called me to tell me it was at a wreckers. WTH is up with that? Do tow companies do paybacks for agencies here like they did in MA?

Let's not even cover the fact that the victim gets victimized twice when they see that impound bill.

ETA - this is also interesting.
<broken link removed>

 

[DuneHopper]

I kinda stayed back and watched the responses for awhile.
Lets see if we can get a few facts straight.

1. LEO are citizens first and officers second in the eyes of the law. As much as some may want exception to this statement. Want to see that is action have Marshall Law roll in and the watch and a officer throw his weight and get shot on the spot by the military. The government and military see LEO as security guards for public safety, it is exactly how Iraq police were viewed, and tolerated.

2. LEO are granted no more special rights then any other citizen they are sworn to upload the law, I am not. However I can file to have any cop or citizen arrested according to the law a citizen has the right to do this. However most cities will ignore this right, regardless it is still the law.

3. If a officer shoots a person with malice which is scene often in videos it is murder not justified shooting.

4. Under the law and officer has no more right to shoot a person then I do. Departments may make rules for their officers however those rules do not supersede my rights to shoot as needed.

5. The reality is police are citizens with a badge and buddies who will lie for them, lets be honest here at your jobs how many times have you lied to your boss or customers? How many times was something done other were blamed for it? Happens in every company and the police are no different they lie to the sarge and the public however since we are the employer of the POLICE, some of use want to fire that employee for lying.

Some say we do not need police, we need police as much as we need clean drinking water. You take away clean water their is Kaos. You take away patrols in the streets their is Kaos. There is a small town near me that had 1 LEO and he was let go due to budgets the counsel decided since the town was so small they did not need one.
Robberies started in a town that had never really had crime houses broken into etc, you get my point. Police serve a purpose, maybe not the one they think, but they are needed as an illusion of peace and tranquility in a community.

Take away our guns and only the bad guys have guns, take away police and the bad guys will fill in for them.
Arming yourself will not change the perception of the population. A gun may protect you if there were no police, but whom will protect the ill, the weak and elderly without police these people become victims.

 

[DuneHopper]

Could you explain to me why victims of auto theft have to have their cars impounded?

May be some law that sees the car as evidence in a crime and therefore must be process as evidence and secured then released. What if you got the car back and hidden under the spare tire was 10 lbs of meth. A week later you get pulled over for a routine stop and a its a K9 and he snifs out your meth.................... ???

This may be why they impound the car is my guess !

 

[davemata]

May be some law that sees the car as evidence in a crime and therefore must be process as evidence and secured then released. What if you got the car back and hidden under the spare tire was 10 lbs of meth. A week later you get pulled over for a routine stop and a its a K9 and he snifs out your meth.................... ???

This may be why they impound the car is my guess !

It would be a wrong guess. They didn't search my vehicle.

When I got it back I found a large knife in it from the thief. Cop told me that he couldn't take it because I already had the car, suggested I throw it away. How you like them apples?

 

[Quixilver]

Most of my experiences with the police have not been particularly positive. I grew up in a small town with little crime and an over-large police force. When things were slow, they would find things to do, like pulling people over for going 21 mph in a school zone in the middle of the night. When they came to pick up my brother for an alleged credit card fraud, they took our baseball bats with them.

But I know that they aren't all a a-holes. There was a state patrolman in Montana who helped my girlfriend and I after a major accident. He gave us a ride to a town two hours away so we could get a ride from someone else. He stopped to help a family stranded with a flat tire on the way. On his dashboard, he had taped up some sort of Oath. I don't remember what it said, except that it had something to do with service and integrity. That was a guy, one out of many, I'm sure, but one who was in his profession for the right reasons.

Ultimately, I think that LE as a career is not a cross-section of society. I think that it attracts certain types of people. Some are there for the power and control, and some attracted to the life of service and the idea of protecting people. And then there's what happens to people once they're inside for a while...