Since I never got an answer... (question for LEOs only)

[DRZinn]

Since I never got an answer...

A lot of LEO's were prolly boycotting the thread, and I can understand why. But in the midst of the fray there was a lone voice crying out....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally do not think of myself as a cop basher. I like to think of myself as a "state" basher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of what the state does is evil. Cops are the enforcement arm of the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS"; yet, the vast majority of the laws they are enforcing have no Constitutional basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's why, in the end, I decided not to be a cop. I like the idea of protecting people. Getting the bad guy. All that jazz. But there are now so many ridiculous ways of defining "the bad guy" and so many draconian ways to get him, that I decided I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

That's not to say that all cops are statists; I understand they sometimes have a bit of leeway as to what to let slide and what to stop. And there are some who have been cops since before most of our present situation developed. But to me no amount of personal discretion could be enough unless my supervisor would openly back all decisions I would make on constitutional grounds.

A question I've been meaning to ask for some time now, and this seems as good a time as any, is directed to those good cops who happen to be libertarian in philosophy: How do you resolve this type of conflict?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how do you resolve this type of conflict?

 

[TallPine]

cops who happen to be libertarian in philosophy

Is that related to:

"virgins who happen to be pregnant" ?????




Seriously, I would guess most libertarians never become cops in the first place.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Hey Doc, I think yer right. Yer gonna hear more crickets than responses.

And Mr. Pine, You gotta good point.....except....

We all mature in life. I remember being a conservative. I voted for LBJ. (more conservative then than most Republicans now)

Then I got liberal. I voted for Carter (last guy I voted for fer president that got in). I even voted for that guy whose name is forgettable who is the movie star's brother or somethin' and wore the stupid looking tank helmet.

Then as I wised up, I became a nationalist. I voted fer Perot and Buchanan.

Finally. as the curtains begin to draw closed on my hour upon the stage, I have really wised up and become a Libertarian. I am sure that some leos have gone or are going through the same sort of growth as me.

Trouble is....

Just like many of the Clinton apologists, (who defended and defended and then were hit with some other insult as his true character became exposed but couldn't admit that they were wrong just because of personal pride), they have invested so much into their philosophies that to admit that they have taken a wrong life path is too much.

Pride is a real strong enemy to overcome. That's why we will hear mostly crickets. It takes a big man to admit when he is/was wrong.

 

[pax]

Moderator Request

I would like to request that only LEOs or other government employees respond to this thread from this point forward.

They're the only ones qualified to answer the question as it was asked.

Thanks.

pax

 

[sendec]

Our nation is based on the rule of law. Its not a buffet, you cannot pick and choose only the ones you like. Its not about you.

You are not looking for a discussion, but to rationalize your own position. If you think that the state is evil, fix it.

 

[DRZinn]

Our nation is based on the rule of law. Its not a buffet, you cannot pick and choose only the ones you like. Its not about you.

I realize that very well. Better, perhaps, than many law enforcement officers. But when laws contradict each other, or specifically when a law contradicts the constitution, there IS a conflict. And just saying "It's the law, deal with it." is a cop-out. (No pun intended.)

And don't even TRY to tell me there aren't laws that contradict the Constitution, or other laws.

You are not looking for a discussion, but to rationalize your own position. If you think that the state is evil, fix it.

Pay attention. Those were quotes from other posts. Government by its very nature is "at best a necessary evil."

I asked a valid question, and was loking for a valid response. Will I not find reason?

 

[Matthew Courtney]

If this is about LEO's enforcing state laws restricting concealed carry and banning firearms, the fact is that the second amendment does not apply to actions by state and local governments.

When the Supreme Court decided to begin applying people's constitutional protections to state and local governments, they decided to do it selectively under has come to be called selective incorporation.

Some constitutional protections apply to state and local governments because they have been incorporated by the courts. I.e. the right to counsel, right against self incrimination. Some apply to state and local governments because they have been incorporated by the Congress. I. e. the right to vote.

Some protections have never been applied to states. I.e. the right to keep and bear arms, the right to only be charged for capital or other infamous crimes only by a grand jury.

 

[4v50 Gary]

In addressing police (or state) action that is sanctioned by the Constitution, remember that the Constitution is interpreted by only one august body, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Police policies are constantly changing according to the Court's interpretation of the law. It's not my interpretation or anyone else who is here including any member of the BAR that is important but the Court's interpretation that has to be followed. Most law enforcement policies are written in light of what the Court allows. Policy that clearly violates the Constitution should not be knowingly enforced by the officer lest that officer becomes liable (civil or criminal).

This is not to deny any abuse by LE and there are numerous examples of civil rights violation by LEOs (look at Title 42 Section 1983 for a litany of violations). However, by and large the vast majority of LEOs conduct themselves within the scope of the law. Exceed that scope and they as an individual can be liable in both civil and criminal court. Neither are exactly picnics.

How does one reconcile between what their personal beliefs are and that of the Court's? It depends on the issue at hand. For instance, I've seen people with AOW (any other weapon, specifically short barrel AR type rifles) at the range. Yet I've yet to see anyone's firearm examined or the person's name taken down by anyone. Drugs? The Court has not been an ally of drug abuse.

 

[DRZinn]

If this is about LEO's enforcing state laws restricting concealed carry and banning firearms, the fact is that the second amendment does not apply to actions by state and local governments.

It wasn't specifically about that, but since this is a firearms board...

I actually hadn't thought of that. As interpreted by the Supreme Court you may be right, but to me it seems to mean that the protection of the federal government extends to protecting that right from any "infringement."

Even if not, I'd be willing to bet there are similar violations at the state level. And the question was meant for federal LEO's too, if we have any on the board.

 

[Ellery Holt]

As an interested lurker of this thread (this will be my only post here) I would like to highlight this statement by 4v50 Gary:

In addressing police (or state) action that is sanctioned by the Constitution, remember that the Constitution is interpreted by only one august body, the U.S. Supreme Court.

in the hopes that other officers indicate their views on the subject too.

 

[LawDog]

directed to those good cops who happen to be libertarian in philosophy: How do you resolve this type of conflict?

I'm not a libertarian, I'm a constitutionalist, but I'll weigh in.

But there are now so many ridiculous ways of defining "the bad guy"

No, there aren't. Each crime in the State of Texas above the level of traffic ticket has a strictly and narrowly defined set of elements. Miss out on one element out of 8, and you don't have a crime. No crime, no bad guy.

and so many draconian ways to get him, that I decided I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

Where are these draconian ways? And why wasn't I told about them?

They are "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS"; yet, the vast majority of the laws they are enforcing have no Constitutional basis.

"Vast majority"? The "vast majority" of the Texas Penal Code is given over to what we affectionately call "The Big Five": Murder. Aggravated Assault. Sexual Assault. Robbery. Kidnapping.

Each one of those has lesser offenses: Homicide, simple Assault, Unlawful Restraint.

Then you've got property crimes: Burglary. Theft. Criminal Mischief. Criminal Trespass.

That's your "vast majority" of the laws. I see a Constitutional basis for them. You may not, but whatever floats your boat.

My peace officer career has been in smaller departments. Sheriff's Office's, to be exact. Smaller department = more individual leeway. Working for the Sheriff, my primary duty is to "conserve the Peace" in my County. Everything else is secondary to that mandate.

Plus, a small Sheriff's Office, means that the Sheriff (my boss) is more attuned to the people in my County. We tend to solve problems less with jail time, and more with other means.

LawDog

 

[Ian]

Seems to me that most of the unconstitutional laws are enforced by people other than normal police officers. They're enforced by the LEO branches of a variety of Federal agencies - IRS cops, ATF cops, DEA cops, FDA cops, FBI agents, etc. Perhaps for that reason the initial question is not likely to be answered...if libertarian police officers are a minority, libertarian federal enforcers are probably a miniscule minority.

Matthew Courtney -

If this is about LEO's enforcing state laws restricting concealed carry and banning firearms, the fact is that the second amendment does not apply to actions by state and local governments.

Many states (including mine) have RKBA clauses in their state constitutions that are equivalent to or stronger than the 2nd Amendment.

 

[DRZinn]

By "defining the bad guy," I was referring to all the things that the law now says are wrong, that were OK for so many years without problems. Thus, people who used to be just people doing what used to be normal things become "the bad guy" breaking the law. I'm not here to debate what is and isn't constitutional and what should and shouldn't be against the law. We can all probably agree, other than the question of degree, that there are things which have been made illegal and shouldn't have been. There's no need to discuss what those things are to answer how you, as a law-enforcement officer, act when confronted with them. And if you do have leeway, is it something you would be supported on, or if caught letting something slide would you be hung out to dry?

The "vast majority" line wasn't me, it was a quote from another post that I agree to in principle, if not in its entirety.

Where are these draconian ways? And why wasn't I told about them?

C'mon. Do we really need to start that debate again?

Seems to me that most of the unconstitutional laws are enforced by people other than normal police officers. They're enforced by the LEO branches of a variety of Federal agencies - IRS cops, ATF cops, DEA cops, FDA cops, FBI agents, etc. Perhaps for that reason the initial question is not likely to be answered...if libertarian police officers are a minority, libertarian federal enforcers are probably a miniscule minority.

Dead on there, but I figured it was worth a shot.

 

[cracked butt]

I read something in my local paper tonight that just blew me away.
The city's police and firefighter's board are reviewing the performance of a cop who the police chief is trying real hard to fire.

The reason: He's not writing enough traffic tickets- he wrote approximately 1/10 the number of traffic tickets as the average cop in my town wrote over a 6 month period. His defense to this is that he felt it better to spend his time patrolling the streets of the town to try to prevent property and more serious crimes than to sit on the freeway and ticket speeders passing through.

How about that, a cop being fired by management for doing the job that every single citizen thinks a police force should do rather than being a revenue generator for the local government. :banghead:

 

[Coronach]

Excuse me?

Did Pax not just request that LEOs reply to this query, and no one else?

I'm just going to assume that some of the non-sworn posters have just missed that request.

Mike

 

[Texasbagman]

Sorry, I'm not a cop so I shouldn't be posting to this thread...

remainder of message deleted by moderator. -- pax

 

[Matthew Courtney]

Did Pax not just request that LEOs reply to this query, and no one else?

I read the request as that respondents be limited to LEOs and other government employees. I teach Government and Economics and swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Louisiana against all enemies when I was hired.

May I continue to participate?

 

[4v50 Gary]

DocZin - times change and the law changes with the time. When the question was posted about enforcing laws that have no constitutional basis, well, that all depends on when the Supreme Court strikes down that law as unconstitutional. The LEO on the street has to enforce that law until the State Supreme Court or even better, THE Supremes says it's Unconstitutional.

As to the conflict, consider that most cops work the best they can within the law as it's interpreted by the Court. They don't sit around an argue due process, freedom of speech. Catch a couple of guys in the car and I betcha anything they'll have the same conversation like two office clerks, assembly line workers, carpenters, etc. "Did you get that boat?" "Did you see the game last night?" "Where are you going on vacation?"

Sometimes the Court will revisit an issue and reverse itself. But until it does, the Cop must follow the decisions of the Court. To do otherwise invites both civil and criminal action.

 

[Matthew Courtney]

Incorporation is a figment of the courts imagination.

No part of the Constitution exists in a vacuum. Article VI and Amendments 2 and 14 obviously say that states are forbidden to infringe. But Article III says The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.

That means that the Constitution doesn't say anything unless the Supreme Court says it does. The doctrine of selective incorporation is a good thing to the extent that often prevents lower courts from inferring precedents that run across the spectrum. It is bad only because the second has not yet been incorporated.

The most effective vehicle to incorporate the 2nd remains the Congress, as section 5 of the 14th clearly authorizes the Congress to fully incorporate it, and we are only a few votes shy in the Senate.

 

[Texasbagman]

Sorry, I'm not a cop so I shouldn't be posting to this thread...

post deleted and comment added by moderator -- pax

 

[pax]

Matthew Courtney --

You're fine, and read my first post correctly. The initial post/question was directed toward people who have sworn an oath to uphold the laws and the Constititution, so that's who should be responding here.

Thanks.

(Just ONE thread -- just one! -- out of dozens of LEO-oriented threads on THR at the moment should be a haven from the polarized yelling that the others have become. Those who have ears to hear might learn something important from our LEO members' answers.)

pax

 

[AZRickD]

That's why, in the end, I decided not to be a cop

I have a buddy who, in a former life, spent many a weekend doing pro-RKBA activism with us. Quite conservative with a slight streak of libertarian.

A couple of years ago he decided he wanted to be a cop in the Phoenix area. He interviewed, did the academy thing and disappeared for a while.

When we found him appearing out of the blue at another RKBA function we just had to know if what we thought about the sausage-making that is modern "law enforcement."

He shook his head and said, "You have no idea." He didn't want to go into details but he hinted at corruption and a lack of respect for rights. And any pretense at respecting those rights had more to do with fear of getting caught by a judge who cared, rather than the mores of our Founding Fathers.

He's trying to save them, one Soul at a time, while trying to keep his job. A very difficult juggling act for this particular Man of Principle.

Rick

 

[Matthew Courtney]

You're fine, and read my first post correctly. The initial post/question was directed toward people who have sworn an oath to uphold the laws and the Constititution, so that's who should be responding here.

Thank-You.

I have at times been inclined to suggest resistance to tyrannical laws and I have oft quoted our founders. In support of our government I so do again. From the Declaration:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Our first duty is to toil at length within our system to right perceived abuses! Too many do not vote. To many do not participate.

I again remind all who will read that the first time the colonists resisted with force in mass was when they had no choice. On April 19, 1775, the British came to seize their guns. I believe that the break point remains in the same place. Evils become unsufferable when the .gov attempts to remove from us our means to ultimately resist true tyranny.

To those who would define tyranny as government interference in business, or recreational activities and such; mere failure to afford you protection from your neighbors is not tyranny, it is democracy! A republic would be better, but we have lost much Republicanism by claiming a right to interfere with our neighbors, and have thus suffered the loss of not having them mettle in ours.

 

[DMF]

LawDog, sendec, and Matthew Courtney have addressed this question very well. I will weigh in on this:

. . . for federal LEO's too, if we have any on the board.

There are a couple of us here, and I've answered this before, and I'll give a brief answer again.

My oath of office (both as a military officer, and a fed LEO) is this:
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."*

*The military version included included a preamble with name and rank.

I have ALWAYS kept that oath.

Every law I have worked to enforce has been passed in accordance with Article I of the Constitution, signed into law under Article II, and must be considered valid and Constitutional unless challenged in the courts under Article III. I support and defend the WHOLE Constitution, not just the parts that are convenient for me. My fellow fed LEOs in the FBI, IRS, DEA, ATF, USSS, NCIS, USMS, ICE, etc, etc, including the smaller agencies like the Railroad Retirement Board-OGI, FDA-OCI, EPA-CID, etc, etc, are all doing the same thing.

You, or I, may not personally like a law, however there is a system set in place to address how laws are passed, enforced, and reviewed in the courts. One cannot profess to love the Constitution, but then shun the very system defined by the Constitution to run our government, and manage laws. To do so would be the very definition of hypocrisy.

Don't like the laws? Vote for better representatives, vote for better presidents, lobby for repeal of laws you disagree with, or lobby for new laws you want, even lobby for new Constitutional amendments. Better yet, run for office and work for the change you desire. However, don't blame your local, state and fed LEOs for enforcing the laws that were created under the system defined in the Constitution you profess to love.

 

[Coronach]

Well, I'm no libertarian. I actually don't think I fit easily into any -ian or -ist niche. I'm certainly more statist than many on this board, but if you take a moment and consider the implications of that statement, you will realize that claiming to be more statist than your standard TFL/THR member is akin to being slightly less bloodthirsty than Ghengis Khan. I also come from the opposite part of Law Enforcement than LawDog. Mine is a large, urban, yankee police department. LawDog's post, however, sounds pretty much like what I would write.

That's why, in the end, I decided not to be a cop. I like the idea of protecting people. Getting the bad guy. All that jazz. But there are now so many ridiculous ways of defining "the bad guy" and so many draconian ways to get him, that I decided I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

This is more about you and less about the system. If you decide, absent any evidence, that someone is a bad guy and decide that they need to be gotten, well, yeah. You made a good choice. You should not be a cop. However, if you know someone is a bad guy, likely there is some evidence to this effect. That is different. You are still constrained by the law, however. As LawDog said, miss one element of the offense, and you have no offense. Many many many times you end up with a "bad guy" who ends up not committing a crime. Hey, thats no big deal. See yah next time. because if there is one thing you learn quickly as a cop, there is always a next time. I have been arresting and revisting and rearresting the same idiots for the past few years now. Actual Bad Guys can't stay out of trouble...and shame on the State for continuing to allow them to be free to get into more.

That's not to say that all cops are statists; I understand they sometimes have a bit of leeway as to what to let slide and what to stop. And there are some who have been cops since before most of our present situation developed. But to me no amount of personal discretion could be enough unless my supervisor would openly back all decisions I would make on constitutional grounds.

I have never made a decision on constitutional grounds and had a supervisor not back me. Because I am cautious on such things, I have also never had a supervisor tell me that he thought what I was doing was unconstitutional. Have I seen questionable things done by other officers? Yes- but it is a qualified yes. I have never seen a malicious search, or a malicious stop. I have, however, seen officers get the cart ahead of the horse...mostly as a result of lack of communication between cops, or a misunderstanding about what the PC is for a stop or search. In such instances it is an honest mistake- and not a "mistake" that is made in "quotes"...because any such mistake will still kill your court case, whether you are making a mistake in good faith or if you are simply being malicious. Screw up and your case is dead, and you're now open to lawsuits.

"What? you searched without probable cause? Motion to suppress sustained."

A question I've been meaning to ask for some time now, and this seems as good a time as any, is directed to those good cops who happen to be libertarian in philosophy: How do you resolve this type of conflict?

It is less hard than you think. Despite all of the penny-ante laws that our legislators have ginned up, we still get called almost completely for the real deals: old fashioned common law crimes. Theft. Robbery. Assault. Rape. Murder. Trespass. Crimes with victims. Shyte that matters.

As to what you pick up? What offenses will you stop someone for? Heck. That is one area where discretion still reigns supreme. What you see is what you see. You want to 'not see' some 25 year old standing in the bushes outside of the bar smoking a joint, thats on you.

Of course, occasionally you will get detailed to do something and enforce some law that you do not personally like. There are some things that you have to do to be a member of an organization and draw a paycheck. I don't like having to show up to work on time, either, but I have to do so. You would have to decide for yourself if that pressure would be too much. Look at the organization you would be joining. Look at the laws you would be enforcing. Look at their policies. Make your decision that way.

Mike