Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if they passed a law, and the police refused to enforce it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Well lest what some LEO's have said about enforcing Federal Laws

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sh...rticle/2518922

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/us/ore...aws/index.html
    Too Much To Do Too Little Time

    Comment


    • #17
      And when government and LEO's refuse to enforce laws, they lost all power to enforce any laws upon the citizens themselves, because that is their dedicated function, and if they do not perform it we don't need them.

      It's ALL of the laws or NONE of the laws, and the government, the states and the LEO's damned well better make a choice very quickly.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by craven View Post
        oh it happens all the time

        I fairly sure you got some law that not enforced on the books anymore ie spitting on sidewalk or some of those old puritan laws

        Its always about time and money
        Priorities and profiling ...

        As mentioned in the OP, funding is another issue ... you get what you pay for.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          Priorities and profiling ...

          As mentioned in the OP, funding is another issue ... you get what you pay for.
          LEO's are all volunteers, and they knew the salary when they signed up. Soldiers don't get get rich, either, and there are more dead and maimed-for-life soldiers than there will ever be dead or maimed LEO's. Take the money - do the job.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #20
            Coincidentally California AG is deciding which federal laws to enforce and which to ignore,
            Isnít he setting a precedent? If he can arbitrarily pick and choose why canít police officers? Or citizens for that matter?
            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              LEO's are all volunteers, and they knew the salary when they signed up. Soldiers don't get get rich, either, and there are more dead and maimed-for-life soldiers than there will ever be dead or maimed LEO's. Take the money - do the job.
              Part of the Job is Officer Discretion. Imagine the Zero-Tolerance Police. You'd never leave your house, never get online, never do anything. Because most humans in America break 2-3 laws a day simply operating a motor vehicle. Hence officers get discretion to choose which laws to enforce, especially when the 'victim' is the State and not an individual. It would be excessively onerous to the population, and it would tie up the police endlessly with things that aren't worth the time and effort.

              In this case the Sheriffs are declaring en masse that it is not worth their time and effort to quit investigating and prosecuting REAL crimes in order to go after law abiding citizens for minor regulatory violations in which the State is the only purported 'victim'. Kind of like how my Sheriff highly frowns upon us spending too much time working traffic because we have real crimes to investigate. They're not saying that they will attempt to prevent the State Police from enforcing the law, only that ain't got time to screw with charging a bunch of grandmas and working folks with misdemeanors for not mailing in a form when they have armed felons walking about.
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                Part of the Job is Officer Discretion. Imagine the Zero-Tolerance Police. You'd never leave your house, never get online, never do anything. Because most humans in America break 2-3 laws a day simply operating a motor vehicle. Hence officers get discretion to choose which laws to enforce, especially when the 'victim' is the State and not an individual. It would be excessively onerous to the population, and it would tie up the police endlessly with things that aren't worth the time and effort.

                In this case the Sheriffs are declaring en masse that it is not worth their time and effort to quit investigating and prosecuting REAL crimes in order to go after law abiding citizens for minor regulatory violations in which the State is the only purported 'victim'. Kind of like how my Sheriff highly frowns upon us spending too much time working traffic because we have real crimes to investigate. They're not saying that they will attempt to prevent the State Police from enforcing the law, only that ain't got time to screw with charging a bunch of grandmas and working folks with misdemeanors for not mailing in a form when they have armed felons walking about.
                That explains why you guys don't go after those jerks driving while texting. I'd treat it as a revenue source...
                Credo quia absurdum.


                Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                  Part of the Job is Officer Discretion. Imagine the Zero-Tolerance Police. You'd never leave your house, never get online, never do anything. Because most humans in America break 2-3 laws a day simply operating a motor vehicle. Hence officers get discretion to choose which laws to enforce, especially when the 'victim' is the State and not an individual. It would be excessively onerous to the population, and it would tie up the police endlessly with things that aren't worth the time and effort.

                  In this case the Sheriffs are declaring en masse that it is not worth their time and effort to quit investigating and prosecuting REAL crimes in order to go after law abiding citizens for minor regulatory violations in which the State is the only purported 'victim'. Kind of like how my Sheriff highly frowns upon us spending too much time working traffic because we have real crimes to investigate. They're not saying that they will attempt to prevent the State Police from enforcing the law, only that ain't got time to screw with charging a bunch of grandmas and working folks with misdemeanors for not mailing in a form when they have armed felons walking about.
                  This post presents the clarity that few citizens realize is the duty of every LEO. The necessity to use their experience and training to the best of their ability.
                  The court system would collapse under the load.
                  Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                  Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                    That explains why you guys don't go after those jerks driving while texting. I'd treat it as a revenue source...
                    Horrific PITA to enforce. You either need to perform sting operations which tie up a LOT of officers (I'm the deputy for ~100 square miles), or seize phones to determine if there were violations (4th Amendment precludes this without a search warrant, so there's that), or get admissions (good luck).

                    I can say I've never written a texting while driving ticket. Normally there's a much more easily proveable (read: They'll plead guilty to it and save me and the court system the time) violation, and I write a ticket for that instead.
                    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                      This post presents the clarity that few citizens realize is the duty of every LEO. The necessity to use their experience and training to the best of their ability.
                      The court system would collapse under the load.
                      Court system is already collapsing under the weight. Hence why you get nonstop plea deals rather than criminals being tried for what they actually committed. The court system only has the resources or time to fully prosecute only the most heinous or high profile crimes. I've had slam dunk property crimes that just got plead.....the better the case the less they plead it down, but they'd plead down a videotaped confession with full evidence recovery and cooperating witnesses.
                      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                        Court system is already collapsing under the weight. Hence why you get nonstop plea deals rather than criminals being tried for what they actually committed. The court system only has the resources or time to fully prosecute only the most heinous or high profile crimes. I've had slam dunk property crimes that just got plead.....the better the case the less they plead it down, but they'd plead down a videotaped confession with full evidence recovery and cooperating witnesses.
                        I hear you, that is why officers have to make those decisions, based on training and experience. Sometimes it is better to give a warning to a speeder, sometimes scaring the hell out of a teenager will get better results than locking them up.
                        Low hanging fruit. But more and more officers are called on to act as arbitration councilors for family disputes, neighborhood conflicts, unruly kids at schools, because we citizens have become spineless.
                        I can count on one hand how many times LEOs were called out to the schools I attended, because back then the principal could and would kick our butts, and when we got home our dads would kick our butts again!
                        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                          Coincidentally California AG is deciding which federal laws to enforce and which to ignore,
                          Isnít he setting a precedent? If he can arbitrarily pick and choose why canít police officers? Or citizens for that matter?
                          That's been the whole point of my arguments along this line the entire time. Laws are all of nothing. Anyone cherry-picks, we all get to.

                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            That's been the whole point of my arguments along this line the entire time. Laws are all of nothing. Anyone cherry-picks, we all get to.

                            Cherry picking enforcement is one thing. Openly defying all enforcement of a law is another. This rarely happens. I think the last federal law widely unenforced and defied by state governments was the national 55 mph speed limit. But, that law was widely unpopular, whereas I don't think ignoring illegal immigration gets anywhere near the support that it claims.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Cherry picking enforcement is one thing. Openly defying all enforcement of a law is another. This rarely happens. I think the last federal law widely unenforced and defied by state governments was the national 55 mph speed limit. But, that law was widely unpopular, whereas I don't think ignoring illegal immigration gets anywhere near the support that it claims.

                              Doesn't really matter though, does it, because the issue is enforcing the laws - all of them - as required. If "discretion" comes into the equation, then we all get to exercise our discretion and determine what laws we find acceptable, ignoring those that we do not. And then where are we?
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X