Posted on 09/20/2017 12:03:00 PM PDT by ColdOne
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Police should not have greater benefit of the doubt than a citizen would get.
“I keep waiting for an entire city police force to quit.”
This would not be a bad thing.
First, the police would no longer be running around threatening law abiding citizens who are exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Second, the police would no longer be protecting criminals from those same armed citizens.
I figure if the Detroit police all quit then the first few days might get ugly. But then the law abiding citizens would start to fight back because they’d have no choice and they’d also realize that there wouldn’t be any worry about idiot cops arresting them for defending themselves and their property.
By the end of the first week I assure you that no one would miss the police.
Well considering they gunned down an unarmed Downs Syndrome guy in a movie because he wanted to see the movie again and didn’t have a ticket. He was with a caregiver as well. The guy was on the very edge of DS towards the childlike.
They didn’t shot him. They held him down and broke his larynx and he asphyixated.
It was mixed in with a story of cops using excessive force and it appeared the way the article was written was he was shot. I tried going back to MyNorthwest.com to find the original story but was unsuccessful.
Joe Q. Citizen has no obligation to take law breakers in custody. They also have no Constitutional obligation to render first aid to those the have shot. They may not even have an obligation to report the self-defense shooting, although it may be prudent.
These are all things that police officers are Constitutionally bound to do.
The standard is not and will not be what Joe Q. Citizen would do in a similar situation, because Joe will not be in the situations police officers are. Joe may defend himself from a robber (or be the victim of), the police will hunt the robber down. Society no longer asks citizens to band together in posses to hunt down offenders to bring before a magistrate because far too many times the offender did not make it to the magistrate for due process.
The standard will be what a reasonable police officer, with similar training, experience and in a similar situation would do.
One more out of the 9th Circuit that will be overturned.
There is nothing in the Constitution that either authorizes “police” or tells them what they can and can’t do.
The courts determined at some point that if the executive branch (whom the police work for) actually wants to “arrest” someone, they must tell them they have certain rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that police have to do this - it was a creation of the courts.
Nowhere does the Constitution say that police must render aid - to anyone including someone they’ve shot. In fact, the USSC has ruled that police officers aren’t even obligated to help someone who is being victimized right in front of them. They can let someone they’ve shot bleed out and there would be zero *legal* consequence.
A police officer is nothing more than a citizen with a few more responsibilities and a *modicum* of training. Their rules of engagement should be exactly the same as a normal person - no more, no less. I would even say that as the only people authorized by government to use lethal force with relative impunity - they have an even greater responsibility to show restraint.
The “thin blue line, us against them” mentality is leading to a militaristic attitude - along with the same type of ROE - and that will only serve to further agitate the population.
Police officers - and the governments who haven’t reigned in and properly disciplined the bad apples - have done this to themselves.
So, when did police officers lose their citizenship?
"The ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the use of force reforms put in place by federal mandates under the Obama administration that required police to use only “objectively reasonable force, proportional to the threat or urgency of the situation,” the Associated Press reports."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Basically everything in the above statement about the Ninth Circuit Court's decision concerning police is wrong imo.
Patriots are reminded that, other than a few clauses in Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, clauses like 12 and 16 which reasonably give Congress the specific power to regulate military-related arms, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific powers to regulate civilian-related arms or local police departments imo.
No express delegation of powers for regulating civilian-related firearms is important for this reason. A previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that powers that the states haven’t expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So the post FDR-era, institutionally indoctrinated, state sovereignty-ignoring 9th Circuit Court judges who made this politically correct decision about local police departments complying with unconstitutional executive orders are once again wrongly helping to unconstitutionally expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government's powers imo.
And shame on the uniparty Congress for first letting lawless Obama get away with make unconstitutional policy for police, and then letting these activist judges who support Obama's policy stay on the bench.
Note that both Thomas Jefferson and John Bingham, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had indicated that the Founding States had left the care of the people to the states, NOT the feds.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added]." —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
In fact, the Supreme Court's clarification of the fed's prohibited powers in the excerpt above from the Butler opinion reflects Bingham's official clarification that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific peacetime power to make INTRAstate punitive laws, including for murder.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it, There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
Also, considering the observation of no express powers to regulate civilian-related firearms along with Jefferson's and Bingham's clarifications, it is disturbing that federal gun regulations for civilian-related arms seem to have started appearing in the books during FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at that time infamous for making laws which they had no express constitutional authority to make.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Switching the emphasis of this thread to pro-2nd Amendment (2A) Pres. Trump, noting that he is accomplishing a LOT as president, please consider the following.
Bearing in mind that the uniparty Congress that let lawless Obama get away with stealing state powers to make policy for police departments, using those stolen powers to limit what police can do, that same anti-2A Congress now wanting to get rid of Trump, consider that Trump's first two years in office are arguably for practice. That being said ...
Drain the swamp sewer! Drain the sewer!
Remember in November 2018 !
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the sewer (imo) that Trump wants to drain, it is actually up to us patriots to drain the sewer in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed in this post.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Also, unlike career members of Congress who wrongly remained silent while misguided state officials abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens during the lawless Obama Administration, patriots need to make sure that candidates on the 2018 primary ballots commit to the following.
Candidates need to commit to making and enforcing 14th Amendment-related laws to prosecute misguided state officials who use state powers to abridge constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech for example, such actions prohibited by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Again, drain the sewer! Drain the sewer!
We are going to disagree. I am not going to waste my time showing you where you are wrong.
They cannt be both at the same time- the are agents of a political entity, and as such they are “authorized” to use certain powers, not equipped with certain inalienable rights.
Just imagine, a cop hiding behind both a badge his gun and the full force of the law AND his “right” to self defense”, there would be noting they couldn’t start finish and claim fear for their life all in the same breath.
No, except in certain circumstances, LEOs are not private citizens, otherwise we could tell then to F-off and they’d have to comply....
They have their badge and office to stand with, that is enough. We have the laws of justification of defense and use of lethal force to stand with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.