The War on some Drugs - Helmet Cam Edition

[jsharmon7]

So, you'd be good enforcing something like the Fugitive Slave Act? Or confiscating firearms, if the courts said it was OK?

A state law ordering the confiscation of firearms would be directly in violation the Second Amendment and therefore unconstitutional on its face. In order for it to be "constitutional" there would have to be an amendment to the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment, which is highly unlikely. At that point it would become technically "constitutional." These kinds of "what ifs" are too much of a stretch for me to really worry about and debate. Same thing with the Fugitive Slave Act. I can't debate that without accepting on at least a theoretical level that this could ever be a possibility. It isn't, as far as I'm concerned, possible. It's like asking me if I'd assist with injecting citizens with "zombie juice" in order to make an army of living dead. I don't see the point in arguing something like that.

 

[jsharmon7]

well at least your honest. i am sad that you dont know what it is. we need all the people we can get on board to protest it. i'll standby for your answer. thanks

I know the idea behind it. I don't however know all the details of it. Certainly not well enough to understand the impact on local law enforcement and whether it's legal or not.

 

[E5RANGER375]

A state law ordering the confiscation of firearms would be directly in violation the Second Amendment and therefore unconstitutional on its face. In order for it to be "constitutional" there would have to be an amendment to the Constitution to delete the 2nd Amendment, which is highly unlikely. At that point it would become technically "constitutional." These kinds of "what ifs" are too much of a stretch for me to really worry about and debate. Same thing with the Fugitive Slave Act. I can't debate that without accepting on at least a theoretical level that this could ever be a possibility. It isn't, as far as I'm concerned, possible. It's like asking me if I'd assist with injecting citizens with "zombie juice" in order to make an army of living dead. I don't see the point in arguing something like that.

how about a law making all ammo illegal?

see the point?

its gonna get krunk soon.

 

[MinuteMan47]

I will answer shortly, I need to research the Patriot Act a little bit more due to my ignorance on it. I'm not sure how it impacts local law enforcement and I need to read up.

Stand by.

You aren't alone for needing to research the Patriot Act...

There was a poll on WRTV 6 yesterday, somewhere around 75% of the sheeple voted that they wanted to extend the Patriot Act, especially for wiretapping and the ability of law enforcement to obtain any records deemed necessary.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I know the idea behind it. I don't however know all the details of it. Certainly not well enough to understand the impact on local law enforcement and whether it's legal or not.

watch the Ron Paul speech that was posted on here in the political threads. I think that will sum up a lot of it for you. welcome back to the colonies.

 

[level.eleven]

So, who would have gone on this raid?

If the chief called you in and laid out that you would be raiding the home of a marijuana user, would you go?

 

[E5RANGER375]

So, who would have gone on this raid?

If the chief called you in and laid out that you would be raiding the home of a marijuana user, would you go?

nope. thats why I chose not to be a cop. I chose not to pick a career that I would be ever put in a position to violate someones constitutional rights. and ridiculed and chased out of the job if I refused to be a good cop and follow orders all the time and harass people for seat belts, or smoking cigarettes, or carrying a LEGAL gun onto state property or a city park (OH MY).

all the cop friends I have who dont do that stuff, KNOW they will never be promoted very high. pretty sad. Id wanna crack some heads of the bosses.

 

[jsharmon7]

how about a law making all ammo illegal?

see the point?

its gonna get krunk soon.

Wouldn't ammunition be part of the "arms" protected by the 2nd Amendment? Luckily we have a Supreme Court to make these calls.

is the patriot act legal? your answer will sum it all up for me. thanks for answering my other question and also for not being willing to illegally searching someones home I have KNOWN cops who would and have had no problems with it

Ok back to this...

I found a lot of information, not all of it clear. Let me explain my general understanding of it first, so that you can correct me if I've got it wrong. This isn't meant to be a summary of the entire thing, but the applicable parts I think we're discussing here as far as "legal" and "constitutional." Feel free to point out others areas that I've missed that you think merit discussion. But, it appears that it expanded the ability of federal law enforcement to use surveillance, wire taps, detentions of suspected terrorists, etc. It appears to me that these "searches" still have to be approved by a judge based on probable cause per the 4th Amendment. If I'm understanding it correctly, it would appear to be "legal" and "constitutional" from a technical standpoint. What I mean is, it follows the letter of the 4th Amendment but not the spirit. As far as detaining someone without due process of law, are these American citizens like you and I? I think part of my issue with debating this is that I think this is much different than a state law banning drugs. An officer obtaining a proper warrant to enforce a valid state law is different than a perversion and stretching of our Constitution. I'm also not sure how this would apply to your everyday law enforcement officer. So to your original question E5, I really don't know. I apologize if that seems like a "cop out" but I really can't answer your question. Legal? Possibly. In the spirit of the 4th Amendment? It doesn't appear that way.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Wouldn't ammunition be part of the "arms" protected by the 2nd Amendment? Luckily we have a Supreme Court to make these calls.




Ok back to this...

I found a lot of information, not all of it clear. Let me explain my general understanding of it first, so that you can correct me if I've got it wrong. This isn't meant to be a summary of the entire thing, but the applicable parts I think we're discussing here as far as "legal" and "constitutional." Feel free to point out others areas that I've missed that you think merit discussion. But, it appears that it expanded the ability of federal law enforcement to use surveillance, wire taps, detentions of suspected terrorists, etc. It appears to me that these "searches" still have to be approved by a judge based on probable cause per the 4th Amendment. If I'm understanding it correctly, it would appear to be "legal" and "constitutional" from a technical standpoint. What I mean is, it follows the letter of the 4th Amendment but not the spirit. As far as detaining someone without due process of law, are these American citizens like you and I? I think part of my issue with debating this is that I think this is much different than a state law banning drugs. An officer obtaining a proper warrant to enforce a valid state law is different than a perversion and stretching of our Constitution. I'm also not sure how this would apply to your everyday law enforcement officer. So to your original question E5, I really don't know. I apologize if that seems like a "cop out" but I really can't answer your question. Legal? Possibly. In the spirit of the 4th Amendment? It doesn't appear that way.

cops can write their own SECRET warrants under the patriot act, and so can judges. (remember how british soldiers could write their own warrants in the colonies? its one of the main reasons for the revolution) they dont even have to tell you why you were arrested or put in jail, for however long they want. also you can be tried by a military court in secret. the stink of it is just too huge to be all listed here. it really takes some research (some have already done it and you can read the cliff notes). basicly, America and freedom died with the patriot act. all in the name of safety. In the 1700's the tar would be boiling already.

 

[jsharmon7]

cops can write their own SECRET warrants under the patriot act, and so can judges. (remember how british soldiers could write their own warrants in the colonies? its one of the main reasons for the revolution) they dont even have to tell you why you were arrested or put in jail, for however long they want. also you can be tried by a military court in secret. the stink of it is just too huge to be all listed here. it really takes some research (some have already done it and you can read the cliff notes). basicly, America and freedom died with the patriot act. all in the name of safety. In the 1700's the tar would be boiling already.

If it's not a tremendous amount of leg work for you, could you point me in the direction of where I can find the actual language of the Act that allows secret warrants? Do you have any examples of where this has happened, just as background information to how it's being applied? If not, I understand. I just hoped maybe you had it somewhat handy.

 

[E5RANGER375]

If it's not a tremendous amount of leg work for you, could you point me in the direction of where I can find the actual language of the Act that allows secret warrants? Do you have any examples of where this has happened, just as background information to how it's being applied? If not, I understand. I just hoped maybe you had it somewhat handy.

yeah i will dig and find it for you. also i forgot to mention that some parts of the patriot act are so secret that we cant even know about them. yep, thats true.

 

[jsharmon7]

yeah i will dig and find it for you. also i forgot to mention that some parts of the patriot act are so secret that we cant even know about them. yep, thats true.

So you're not willing to try to find these for me?

 

[E5RANGER375]

So you're not willing to try to find these for me?

im already on "the governments terrorist **** list" for owning a dont tread on me flag and being a legal gun owner

 

[level.eleven]

nope. thats why I chose not to be a cop. I chose not to pick a career that I would be ever put in a position to violate someones constitutional rights. and ridiculed and chased out of the job if I refused to be a good cop and follow orders all the time and harass people for seat belts, or smoking cigarettes, or carrying a LEGAL gun onto state property or a city park (OH MY).

all the cop friends I have who dont do that stuff, KNOW they will never be promoted very high. pretty sad. Id wanna crack some heads of the bosses.

I knew you wouldn't. The question wasn't really directed at you.

Your second paragraph is the money shot, though. Sounds like a culture where the worst rise to the top.

 

[serpicostraight]

I knew you wouldn't. The question wasn't really directed at you.

Your second paragraph is the money shot, though. Sounds like a culture where the worst rise to the top.

if a cop crosses the thin blue line his career is over. just ask the detective in kansas city who told the truth and was forced into retirement.

 

[irishfan]

You aren't alone for needing to research the Patriot Act...

There was a poll on WRTV 6 yesterday, somewhere around 75% of the sheeple voted that they wanted to extend the Patriot Act, especially for wiretapping and the ability of law enforcement to obtain any records deemed necessary.

My dad is a perfect example of the people drinking the government kool-aid. He is all for the government being able to do "what is needed" to catch the bad guys but doesn't realize that he has given away a lot of his personal liberty as well. There are some things that government and LEO's are bashed for incorrectly but at the same time there are a lot of times that they deserve it and get protected because they are running the show. It is a double edged sword that all people need to stand up to correct before it is to late.

 

[jeremy]

If a person thinks the war in Iraq is immoral and wrong, would you say they are justified in thinking that the soldiers fighting over there are immoral and wrong? Guilt by association is wrong.

Apples and Oranges here.

I have no problem with Protesting a War. I do have a Problem with the way some Protest though.

Soldiers have a LOT far less Authority than LEOs. The Constitution and Law is very defined on what I can and cannot do. Not only am I required to follow the Constitution and Federal and State Laws but I am also subject to Various Foreign Countries Laws along with International Laws. Not to mention the Various Treaties that are also involved, not to mention all the DoD Regulations. I literally have to consult with a Legal team before any Mission is executed to make sure I am in compliance with all the relevant Laws. If as a Soldier I were to execute a poorly planned OP I have little doubt that I would be going to Leavenworth for an extended stay.

What happens to a SWAT Team that hits the wrong house?!
Little to nothing in comparison to what would happen to a Soldier that Hit the wrong address...

What happens to the LEO who damages property unnecessarily?!
A Soldier earns a Trip to a Military Correctional Facility...

What happens to the LEO who oversteps their authority?!
At a minimum the Soldier can lose half of 2 months pay and be confined for 90 days...

 

[MinuteMan47]

If it's not a tremendous amount of leg work for you, could you point me in the direction of where I can find the actual language of the Act that allows secret warrants? Do you have any examples of where this has happened, just as background information to how it's being applied? If not, I understand. I just hoped maybe you had it somewhat handy.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...than_we_thought_feds_datamining_everyone.html

 

[jsharmon7]

Apples and Oranges here.

I have no problem with Protesting a War. I do have a Problem with the way some Protest though.

Soldiers have a LOT far less Authority than LEOs. The Constitution and Law is very defined on what I can and cannot do. Not only am I required to follow the Constitution and Federal and State Laws but I am also subject to Various Foreign Countries Laws along with International Laws. Not to mention the Various Treaties that are also involved, not to mention all the DoD Regulations. I literally have to consult with a Legal team before any Mission is executed to make sure I am in compliance with all the relevant Laws. If as a Soldier I were to execute a poorly planned OP I have little doubt that I would be going to Leavenworth for an extended stay.

What happens to a SWAT Team that hits the wrong house?!
Little to nothing in comparison to what would happen to a Soldier that Hit the wrong address...

What happens to the LEO who damages property unnecessarily?!
A Soldier earns a Trip to a Military Correctional Facility...

What happens to the LEO who oversteps their authority?!
At a minimum the Soldier can lose half of 2 months pay and be confined for 90 days...

Whether you realize it or not, you understand the theory I'm trying to explain here. I have no problem with protesting a law the same as you have no problem with people protesting a war. You have a problem with their methods of protest, as do I. I'm talking about implying that anyone who is involved with that law (or war) is unjust and terrible simply by their association. It's all guilt by association. You wouldn't like me saying that soldiers are criminals for fighting in a war I deem to be unjust anymore than I like people insinuating that all cops are criminals for enforcing a law that they deem to be unjust. It has nothing to do with authority and everything to do with not judging a person by the policy they have to work under.

As to the rest of your post, I'm understanding it as saying that soldiers will be held accountable and police won't. Would it be safe for me to assume that you'd be happy for police to suffer the same types of consequences for mistakes that a soldier (or any employee) would face? If so, I agree with you. If an officer doesn't do his due diligence and a mistake is made, then he should be held accountable. What does that have to do with the everyday patrol officer though? How does that make him and all his kind bad? It means that those who oversee the police departments aren't policing the police. I don't think you'll find too many officers who would agree that an officer who does a lazy, half-assed investigation that gets a person arrested for something they aren't guilty of or killed should be exempt from scrutiny and punishment. Keep in mind this is entirely different than doing everything in your power to do the right thing and the outcome ending badly.

 

[jeremy]

Whether you realize it or not, you understand the theory I'm trying to explain here. I have no problem with protesting a law the same as you have no problem with people protesting a war. You have a problem with their methods of protest, as do I. I'm talking about implying that anyone who is involved with that law (or war) is unjust and terrible simply by their association. It's all guilt by association. You wouldn't like me saying that soldiers are criminals for fighting in a war I deem to be unjust anymore than I like people insinuating that all cops are criminals for enforcing a law that they deem to be unjust. It has nothing to do with authority and everything to do with not judging a person by the policy they have to work under.

As to the rest of your post, I'm understanding it as saying that soldiers will be held accountable and police won't. Would it be safe for me to assume that you'd be happy for police to suffer the same types of consequences for mistakes that a soldier (or any employee) would face? If so, I agree with you. If an officer doesn't do his due diligence and a mistake is made, then he should be held accountable. What does that have to do with the everyday patrol officer though? How does that make him and all his kind bad? It means that those who oversea the police departments aren't policing the police. I don't think you'll find too many officers who would agree that an officer who does a lazy, half-assed investigation that gets a person arrested for something they aren't guilty of or killed should be exempt from scrutiny and punishment. Keep in mind this is entirely different than doing everything in your power to do the right thing and the outcome ending badly.

I do not think we are on separate pages, heck I think we are even probably around the same paragraph...

You are right I think there is not enough Policing of the LEO Community at all. There is way to much Authority and Responsibility on the Individual LEO with not enough Accountability for poor decisions and practices. That and I have noticed a trend in the last decade or so that Officers tend to be less Professional and Respectable in their dealings with the Populace. That could just be my perspective on that from myself becoming more Mature though.

I do not think this is just an LEO problem, but an entire legal system problem to include the Politicians, Judges, Prosecutors, and Attorneys that allow this attitude to grow...