And therein lies the problem in a huge nutshell. His job is NOT to prevent crime. His job is to investigate the crime afterwards, and prosecute the criminal(s) if there is enough proof a criminal can/will be found guilty. I THINK doesn't get it. A PROVEN, ACTUAL crime has got to be committed first or a policeman cannot act, and it must be pursued as a crime by criminal investigation. There must be independent PROOF that a criminal is guilty because a criminal cannot be forced to incriminate him/herself.
As I said before, the Fifth Amendment has created a paradox in this situation. I don't have time right now to go into this deeper, but I will later.
"What we are facing is telling a policeman, with a camera rolling as we do so, that his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw a burglar entering the back window of the bank, then he ignores us."
To which you posted
"His job is NOT to prevent crime."
So, lets see now, you are of the opinion that a policeman's job is NOT to prevent crime. That's ridiculous, almost "Obama-like" thinking.
I guess if someone takes out a gun in front of a policeman and starts shooting bystanders, he is supposed to wait till everything is over and the gun is emptied before he attempts to apprehend the shooter. That's what YOU are suggesting.
I am suggesting that such a policeman would be sent to prison, deservedly so. If our representatives refuse to obey their oaths of office as it pertains to the Twentieth amendment, section three of the Constitution, they also should be legally prosecuted. The fifth amendment has NOTHING to do with this.
Another thing, the Twentieth amendment, section three CLEARLY requires that the person wanting to ascend to the office of President is the one responsible for providing qualification evidence. We the people don't have to do any "thinking" about whether or not this was in fact done. We the people can, according to our very own Constitution can DEMAND that it be done and DEMAND as well the proof that it was done. Our reps are in for some heat until they obey the document from which they themselves claim power to govern over us.
"I think" is enough to start an investigation, if there are credible reasons that "I think", a crime has been committed.
Proving the crime has been committed is a job for prosecutors, not policemen. Policemen can of course help the prosecutor by conducting investigations, serving warrents to obtain evidence, and so forth.