WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   "Message to police" (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=801140)

barry 02-10-2014 8:36 AM

"Message to police"
 
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b11_1388847703

Werd!

fly135 02-10-2014 11:30 AM

More like weird. Why should a cop refuse to enforce the law and potentially lose his job just because he doesn't agree with a law? The video was very explicit about disobeying superiors so we aren't talking about a cop using his discretion. Bad laws are the fault of society, not cops. Place the blame where it's due.

clubjoe 02-10-2014 1:14 PM

x2.....

She's also a liberal bonehead with a preconceived blanket opinion about cops, and a society she and her sponsors/fans want.

The worlds not perfect, honey..... Try Disneyworld
(I wonder if she chases laser lights around a room too)

barry 02-10-2014 1:25 PM

Quote:

Bad laws are the fault of society, not cops. Place the blame where it's due.
I don't think she was blaming anyone- The point was that law enforcement are the enforcers and they are essentially the last line. If they decide to not enforce immoral/unconstitutional law then the law has no teeth.

Your position suggests that the Nazis should not be held responsible, they're just doing their job.

Something tells me you skimmed the video.

barry 02-10-2014 1:25 PM

.... and, ClubJoe is a cop.

bigdtx 02-10-2014 2:50 PM

"Your position suggests that the Nazis should not be held responsible, they're just doing their job."

This made me laugh out loud. What a master debater.

fly135 02-10-2014 6:22 PM

You do realize that if "good" cops lose their jobs refusing to enforce laws they disagree with after receiving a direct order, then we will have no cops that have a moral sense of fairness. The only cops left would be the ones who don't give a sh*t. I'd rather have goods cops that use their discretion when they can and follow orders when they have to. Courts enforce the Constitution. Cops enforce the law.

Please tell me what could possibly be in the video that would refute any of the above.

barry 02-10-2014 6:41 PM

John, Should immoral/unconstitutional laws be enforced?

suprabobby 02-10-2014 7:12 PM

its always gonna be an up hill battle with this debate because as we all know cops love to push their weight around as most of them were the kids we picked on in school or the joc that was the high school star that went no where and now hes a pissed off barney fife!! excuse my spelling... cowards with a little gold shield that says hes right no matter what!!! so funny!

fly135 02-10-2014 7:31 PM

Barry, if you are asking me if a police officer should decide on his own to decide that what is immoral and unconstitutional, then sacrifice his career to act on that I would say that is his judgement call. It's not my place to vote in leaders that make unconstitutional and immoral laws and then judge the police officer for enforcing them.

However, that wasn't your question. And the question you asked isn't pertinent to the video. To be relevant to the video you first have to establish that police are the final authority on what's constitutional and moral. That's what one would call a police state. Ironic huh?

The answer to your question is no. Because we should not make immoral and unconstitutional laws.

barry 02-10-2014 8:24 PM

Quote:

Barry, if you are asking me if a police officer should decide on his own to decide that what is immoral and unconstitutional, then sacrifice his career to act on that I would say that is his judgement call.
He swore that he would, John...


PEACE OFFICER OATH OF OFFICE, State of California
California Constution Article 20, Sec. 3. Misc. Subjects
[Required Oath of Office ]

" I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."


Quote:

The answer to your question is no.
Thanks for answering my question. I agree, politicians are to blame for the law, but LE facilitates the enforcement even when they swore they wouldn't.

I get what you're saying and perhaps we could get Breasts McGee to go on another video tirade with politicians in mind, but at the end of the day enforcement is where the law garners teeth.

fly135 02-11-2014 6:13 AM

A police officer is not qualified to interpret the Constitution and act on his interpretation. He enforces the laws that must be Constitutional to be valid. Regardless, it makes no sense to encourage anyone to enter a career in law enforcement, then expect them to throw it away because the public can't elect leaders that make just laws.

barry 02-11-2014 9:13 AM

Quote:

He enforces the laws that must be Constitutional to be valid.
Do you believe there are unconstitutional laws, John? If so, are those laws being enforced by law enforcement?

Law enforcement interprets law daily, they have to in order to fulfill their duty. They don't prosecute, but they interpret and it's silly to suggest otherwise. They have the ability to act/not act based on their judgement of the circumstances and the law. "Shall..." is not as frequently used as one would think. May and shall are not synonymous.

clubjoe 02-11-2014 10:41 AM

Barry, that's about the smartest thing I've seen you post but it must have been an accident . You're very entertaining though :rolleyes:

You are right that cops interpret the laws they act or don't act on, and "may act "is found waaay more than "shall."

Too bad the subject was supposed to be about acting or not acting on the interpretation of the -constitutionality- of said laws. That's the responsibility of the court system before the laws are enacted, or after they are enforced (unless of course you can rule by executive order).

The words "law" and "constitutionality" are not interchangeable like the drinks you order at your local café when it comes to interpretation by cops....... BTW I thought it was cute how your comment being a cop insinuates my opinion about utopia girl should somehow be discounted ......

cadunkle 02-11-2014 12:34 PM

Didn't watch the video, but police and most government officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Once in power, they often do exactly the opposite of what their oath was and act quite immorally. "Just following orders" is not a legitimate excuse. Many throughout history have been sentenced to prison or death for "just following orders" as they clearly made an immoral choice to violate the rights of others, there is always a choice to act morally, decently, and respect the rights of others.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense

barry 02-11-2014 4:12 PM

Clubjoe, Thanks for attempting to insult me. It makes you cool and I appreciate it.


Quote:

Too bad the subject was supposed to be about acting or not acting on the interpretation of the -constitutionality- of said laws. That's the responsibility of the court system before the laws are enacted, or after they are enforced (unless of course you can rule by executive order).
Fair enough. Sooo, the system enacts a clearly unconstitutional law- as an officer do you enforce it?


Edit- I am speaking hypothetically, obviously, the system would never enact an unconstitutional law. ;)

LYNRDSKYNRD 02-11-2014 4:35 PM

I thought saying "werd" made people cool:-)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

clubjoe 02-11-2014 7:39 PM

Hmmmm..... hypothetical huh?

Ok-

Roe V Wade --- Constitutional via case law....

A gunman shoots a doctor and a female engaging in an abortion procedure. the incident is witnessed by bystanders on both sides of the fence and the stories all match up except on whether it was justified...

The cop arrives and refuses to arrest the gunman because he/she personally believes the law is unconstitutional and morally wrong. The gunman, in the cops mind was just preventing a conspiracy and attempt to commit first degree murder on the unborn child. The bossge cop orders the regular cop to arrest the gunman but the cop refuses, saying the victim (unborn baby or viable tissue mass... take your pick) was saved from the morally bankrupt suspects.

Who is right?.......

Utopia girl should think the cop is a hero . Cop refused to act based on his/her moral compass and personal interpretation regarding the constitutionality of an existing law.....

Or is cop suddenly a bad guy because it clashes with -utopia girl's personal belief- regarding the law's constitutionality?

Hypothetically speaking of course.........

barry 02-11-2014 9:57 PM

Quote:

Cop refused to act based on his/her moral compass and personal interpretation regarding the constitutionality of an existing law.....
Morals and constitutionality are not necessarily synonymous. What constitutional law could the officer cite that would give him a basis to deny arrest?
You're blurring constitutional law and administrative law to try and drive a point home and that won't work.

clubjoe 02-12-2014 5:47 AM

Gotta watch your own video Barry...

It applies to any laws. Morals are subjective. Courts determine constitutionality so "synonymous" is removed as much as possible, and society as a whole (not cops or utopia girl) generally dictate what is acceptable.

Cops just generally know the rules waaaay better than the average citizen, but even then the courts reel in what needs to be reeled in if someone strays. That's why courts determine constitutionality.

There's no blur ......... You just don't agree with the game rules. But neither do I. I'm just on the good side of the fence! :)

barry 02-12-2014 9:12 AM

We're straying..

Again. in your scenario:
What constitutional law could the officer cite that would give him a basis to deny arrest?

Law enforcement has sworn to uphold the CONUS. Administrative law should not conflict with the CONUS, but often times it does. You and I both know the judicial system plays wordsmith at times to enact administrative law and circumvent constitutional matters. Gun control, anyone?


Quote:

There's no blur .........
There is, because LE has sworn to uphold CONUS and not all laws are constitutionally sound yet they still enforce them. Never mind the officers who push the edge continually stepping JUST outside legal parameters to get the "bad" guy with no departmental scrutiny because the end justifies the means. Law enforcement has been given GREAT responsibility and latitude and they abuse it. This is why you're seeing a general distrust and animosity from the general public. This is the sentiment of utopia gal's video.

Quote:

You just don't agree with the game rules. But neither do I. I'm just on the good side of the fence!
You're wrong. I DO agree with the game rules. My problem is that law enforcement believes they don't have to play within the game rules as long as the "bad guy" goes to jail. Sort of makes you wonder who the 'bad guy' really is..

I don't know you, so you may very well be on the good side and I hope you are because society needs that desperately. I work with lots & lots of law enforcement and there are some exceptional, moral, trustworthy guys who I trust to always do the right thing when nobody is looking, but that's the minority.

clubjoe 02-12-2014 11:09 AM

Well I guess we agree to disagree. SHOCKER! :D

I've lived with and seen first hand for many years, many many different LEO's in action, and heard via inside information from first hand accounts about many many more.

I believe the great majority (obviously there are exceptions to any rule) of LEO's do not abuse their power, but are scorned by a loud provoking minority that don't like the restrictions society at large still require of them.....

Thanks for helping me exercise my brain for a few posts! My wife is shocked I actually wasted time talking politics, because I never do........

fly135 02-12-2014 7:44 PM

Once again it is not the domain of a PO to determine the constitutionality of a law. It is his duty to uphold laws as written. What you fail to grasp is that laws are presumed Constitutional until challenged in court. What you think is Constitutional may not be the same as me, a PO, or a court.

That's only half of the equation. The point I'm making is that a PO should be able to dedicate himself to a career without being the scapegoat for the public who fail to ensure that their elected leaders create constitutional laws.

The very idea that you believe 21st century America is synonymous to 1930's/40's Nazi Germany, as indicated in your prior post is illustrative of your lack of insight into the issues presented here.

barry 02-12-2014 8:34 PM

Quote:

Once again it is not the domain of a PO to determine the constitutionality of a law. It is his duty to uphold laws as written. What you fail to grasp is that laws are presumed Constitutional until challenged in court. What you think is Constitutional may not be the same as me, a PO, or a court.
Do you believe there are unconstitutional laws, John? If so, are those laws being enforced by law enforcement?

John, why do you have to take a parting shot at the oppositions education/intelligence?

Quote:

The very idea that you believe 21st century America is synonymous to 1930's/40's Nazi Germany, as indicated in your prior post is illustrative of your lack of insight into the issues presented here.
Everything else aside, the similarities between Germany and America are striking, John. From the unions to the media/press, from Health care to the rise of environmentalism. A quick study of their economy will frighten you. Ironically probably the least comparable is their policing practices/justice system.

barry 02-12-2014 10:54 PM

Comparing pre-WW Germany with modern day America

deuce 02-12-2014 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clubjoe (Post 1864678)

I've lived with and seen first hand for many years, many many different LEO's in action, and heard via inside information from first hand accounts about many many more.

I believe the great majority (obviously there are exceptions to any rule) of LEO's do not abuse their power, but are scorned by a loud provoking minority that don't like the restrictions society at large still require of them.....

BINGO

DITTO

Stuff like that...

fly135 02-13-2014 2:58 AM

Barry, if there are no un-Constitutional laws then there would be no court decisions indicating that there laws are un-Constitutional. But there are, so it's pretty obvious that either there are un-Constitutional laws or the courts are wrong every time they determine a law is un-Constitutional. So it's one or the other. And what I think is irrelevant. It's what society as a whole thinks. And society thinks cops should enforce the law. If society thought differently then they would make a law protecting a cop's jobs if he decides on his own what laws to enforce or not. If that's what you want, then that's what you should advocate.

And what is this "parting shot" that you speak of? Do you mean the "fail to grasp" comment?

A quick study of the economy? LOL! Where have you been demonstrating your expertise on the state of the economy these days. I'll check it out.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:43 AM.