The Police And Us
I want to start off by saying that I am slightly prejudiced on the side of the cops. My favorite cousin's son is in law enforcement. When I was in the retail business, many of my customers were police officers. In my dealings with the police, I have found all kinds of people. I've had a rude cop give me a ticket as if he was talking to a drug dealer, I've had another cop give me a speeding ticket almost apologetically saying how he realized I was trying to just pass a slower vehicle. I have, however, noticed a strong dislike of police prevalent in the Gulch. Not for a single event or even a series of events, but just police in general. Those who are on the con side seem to think that police are getting too militaristic. That they overstep their bounds on a regular basis and hassle regular citizens inordinately. I'd like to know the general feeling in the Gulch. Are there experiences that reflect on the general actions of the police, or are there just individual incidents? What does the Gulch feel is the general trend? Should we fear the police more than the criminals? I personally think that imposing bad generalities on the police is beginning to become a prejudice opposite of mine. What do you think?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20...
know whether that is the case in Virginia or not. But
maybe if you agitate enough, you can get the law
changed. Of course, maybe you have a job and
don't believe you have enough time.
What we need is to have some kind of Constitutional amendment explicitly declaring that the purpose(s) (the only) purpose(s) of government(whetherFederal,State,or local)is/are: to protect persons from force and/or violence (in-
cluding fraud), and to punish same, and no law
not in pursuance of this goal shall be Constitu-
tional or remain on the books.
Good luck on accomplishing that. I don't ex-
pect to see it in my lifetime.
In the meantime, perhaps we can agitate,
with some success, for abolition of departments
of government, on a department-by-department
basis.--And maybe it could be done within
States and localities, too.
--Particularly the abolition of public education.
Perhaps, after enough conversion of the ideas
of the populace, that could be begun state by
state.
This is the natural course of the way the law falls apart. There are all these rules on the book that no one enforces. Police and prosecutors know they're bogus things that most of the population does, so they look the otherway. Then when someone powerful wants to use the power of the state against a citizen or group, they get the authorities to enforce the law. They appear to have the rule of law behind them, but it's just a veil covering rule by people.
As long as the Constitution is observed, your job as a cop will be respected by me. I don't mean SCROTUS interpretations of the Consitution, actual constitutional ideals.
There are so many contradictory laws on the books that it's just as bad as having no laws. Any law running to more than 25 pages is probably got so many hidden things in it that it could be used to save, condemn, or do nothing at all. Did you ever see the room where Judge Judy makes her phone calls? Row after row, shelf after shelf of law books and I'd be willing to bet that they don't represent 10% of all the laws there are.
remembering it now.
Which basically means that an Officer can write a ticket for anything and you will end up paying at least $99.00.
probably, to a man,if he were to start deciding
which laws he would and would not enforce.
You fit in where you are. No one should criticize you for doing a legitimate job. Especially an essential one.
Add (different) multiple experiences of cops perjuring themselves on signed charging documents. So, no, I don't give cops the benefit of the doubt.
Add judges who are willing to ignore the lies, misrepresentations, and other dissembling, and I don't give judges the benefit of the doubt either.
Who will guard the guards themselves?
From the Satires of Juvenal, the 1st/2nd century Roman satirist.
(Satire 6.346–348):
audio quid ueteres olim moneatis amici,
"pone seram, cohibe." sed quis custodiet ipsos—
custodes? cauta est et ab illis incipit uxor.
----------
I hear always the admonishment of my friends:
"Bolt her in, constrain her!" But who will guard
the guardians? The wife plans ahead and begins with them.
But from the Oxoniensis manuscript discovered by E.O. Winstedt, an undergraduate student at Oxford, in 1899:
(O 29–33):
… noui
consilia et ueteres quaecumque monetis amici,
"pone seram, cohibes." sed quis custodiet ipsos—
custodes? qui nunc lasciuae furta puellae
hac mercede silent crimen commune tacetur.
----------
… I know
the plan that my friends always advise me to adopt:
"Bolt her in, constrain her!" But who can watch
the watchmen? They keep quiet about the girl's
secrets and get her as their payment; everyone hushes it up.
Load more comments...