Replies

The way I read these posts, ya’all sound like a bunch of damn fern feelin democrats.

Periodically on these threads, I have tried to explain the difference between regulatory "law enforcement" and the duty to "uphold the Constitution"

There are several aspects to the split in the Republican community over the role of the patrol officer in our society.

One aspect is the homogenization of training. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the Mayor of New Orleans ordered CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICERS (far outside their legal jurisdiction)to mug an old lady in her home IN FRONT of CAMERAS.

Even (or especially)the Military shrank from such duty, because, believe it or not, their command officers have more extensive training in the Constitution.

Another aspect is fitness training. There is evidence that some of the more gung ho officers may be abusing controlled substances such as anabolic steriods.

So you now have a bizarre environment where criminal drug abusers arrest and imprison other criminal drug abusers-- and treat everyone as though they are criminals, drug abuse or not.

A third aspect is cultural. There are a few hundred thousand laws currently on the books with more added every day. EVERYBODY is guilty of something, including you. Patrol Officers have put themselves in a position where they essentially agree to escalate to deadly force during any crime investigation.

The time is not far off when someone like Martha Stewart will be shot during arrest or die in custody. This nightmare is straight out of George Orwell's book "1984"- a Kafaesque fantasy no longer.

At a certain point the number and volume of anamolous "isolated" incidents must be considered a trend.

The Founding Fathers had good reason to impose a standard of "innocent until proven guilty" on government agents.

They personally experienced the result when such standards did not exist.

We, the people, rediscover this standard in the 21st Century.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

"There are several aspects to the split in the Republican community over the role of the patrol officer in our society."

I can't imagine why the confusion. It's very simple.

The proper purpose of a patrol officer is to intervene to prevent, or stop, actual harm to people and / or their property.

A secondary purpose of a patrol officer is to carry out judicial orders... but that applies only to judicial enforcement officers, i.e. the county sheriff and deputies, or federal marshals who are the judicial enforcement officers of federal courts.

Anything beyond that, and the patrol officer is violating the Constitution. They are exceeding their Constitutional authority.

Other than that, excellent points.

The ranger in this story was exceeding his Constitutional authority. He was attempting to enforce a camping fee when he had no Consitutional authority for doing so.

Since he was acting outside his Constitutional authority, he was the aggressor, the true criminal.

What he was doing was no different than a street thug robbing someone. When he pulled his gun on the citizen, he committed a felony. When he killed the guy, that was murder.