Disarm LEO, Interesting article

imported post

Wow! I thought I was cynical...damn!

So let me get this straight...some of you want to be able to sue the government without having to pay for it? Do I have this right? Sounds like a bunch of free loading to me. As a taxpayer the LAST thing I want to do is fund a "Sue theGovernment for FREE"program. Get real.

If you've been wronged, and your complaint doesn't go anywhere, then sue. If you find a lawyer who you think is capable of winning, and he/she thinks you can win, then put it on the line and sue. Otherwise, don't complain because you aren't interested in ponying up some coin to fight and protect your rights.

Further I will not concede the point that complaints have not had a positive effect for this movement. Just look at all the documents that can be downloaded from californiaopencarry. Did not (at least some) of thesecome from activism and formal complaints that lead to awareness and training?

Are things moving as fast as we want? NO. Are things moving in the right direction? YES. Will your fight be easy? NO. Achieving the best and most important things never are.

imported post

What the hell? Why should I be prepared to pay to defend my rights (morally, not practically speaking)? Against the unlimited funds of the state? They are my rights. I should exercise them without fear even if dead broke, and I should be able to seek recompense if they are violated, once again without a penny.

As far as I am concerned, police should have to hire their own lawyers or pay for their own defense, same as we do. Hell, I'm of the mind that police should have to do their own prosecution, since they've monopolized the levying of charges, a domain which once belonged to the citizen. Maybe if this happened legal proceedings could once again be affordable to the common person.

As long as the state uses its unlimited resources to violate our rights with impunity, the idea of making the state pay for the legal fees of people who have their rights infringed and have to sue sounds like a pretty damn good one to me, since you bring it up.

Police could always, you know, stop violating peoples' rights.

The problem with your position is that I, who cannot afford to set aside money for the purpose of initiating legal proceedings to defend my violated rights after-the-fact, am left unable to practice them as a practical reality.

In essence, the system you defend only enables rights for the rich.

imported post

In reading this thread it has sent me on a journey of thought about the situation we find ourselves in today in trying to maintain our rights. It is sad to remember a time growing up in small town America where we were taught that the Policeman was our friend and was there to help us. In those days they were referred to as "Peace Officers", meaning to keep the peace. Generally by the de-escalation ofany event or situation to which they happened upon or were called to. Today we have Law Enforcement Officers, the term "Enforcement" having a negative connotation denoting "force". The “us against them” attitude is prevalent and growing amongst our men and women in black (used to be blue), switching colorbecause black has an intimidating effectupon the citizen. There aretwo basic ways to enlist cooperation, one is to command respect by word and deed, the other is to instill fear. Sadly the second has become the easier path. In my opinion, as our police are moving more toward federalization the line between police and military grows thin. History tells us this isone of the steps toward all out population control. We must attempt to educate our police whenever possible. Talk to them about their oath to defend the Constitution. Point them to the Oath Keepers website. Explain to them that they are not immune to the oppression that they enforce. When they help relieve us of our rights, their rights as humans and citizens also diminish. Ask them if they have children and do they want their kids growing up fearing the police? Perhaps we can change a few attitudes.

imported post

The Big Guy wrote:

In reading this thread it has sent me on a journey of thought about the situation we find ourselves in today in trying to maintain our rights. It is sad to remember a time growing up in small town America where we were taught that the Policeman was our friend and was there to help us. In those days they were referred to as "Peace Officers", meaning to keep the peace. Generally by the de-escalation ofany event or situation to which they happened upon or were called to. Today we have Law Enforcement Officers, the term "Enforcement" having a negative connotation denoting "force". The “us against them” attitude is prevalent and growing amongst our men and women in black (used to be blue), switching colorbecause black has an intimidating effectupon the citizen. There aretwo basic ways to enlist cooperation, one is to command respect by word and deed, the other is to instill fear. Sadly the second has become the easier path. In my opinion, as our police are moving more toward federalization the line between police and military grows thin. History tells us this isone of the steps toward all out population control. We must attempt to educate our police whenever possible. Talk to them about their oath to defend the Constitution. Point them to the Oath Keepers website. Explain to them that they are not immune to the oppression that they enforce. When they help relieve us of our rights, their rights as humans and citizens also diminish. Ask them if they have children and do they want their kids growing up fearing the police? Perhaps we can change a few attitudes.

Click to expand...

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

Click to expand...

Gotta watch out using that quote. Its been debunked.

Second quote down from the top:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

imported post

...who taught history to Bill Clinton...



That told me all I needed to know about the article right there without reading more than the first line.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

What the hell? Why should I be prepared to pay to defend my rights (morally, not practically speaking)? Against the unlimited funds of the state? They are my rights. I should exercise them without fear even if dead broke, and I should be able to seek recompense if they are violated, once again without a penny.

As far as I am concerned, police should have to hire their own lawyers or pay for their own defense, same as we do. Hell, I'm of the mind that police should have to do their own prosecution, since they've monopolized the levying of charges, a domain which once belonged to the citizen. Maybe if this happened legal proceedings could once again be affordable to the common person.

As long as the state uses its unlimited resources to violate our rights with impunity, the idea of making the state pay for the legal fees of people who have their rights infringed and have to sue sounds like a pretty damn good one to me, since you bring it up.

Police could always, you know, stop violating peoples' rights.

The problem with your position is that I, who cannot afford to set aside money for the purpose of initiating legal proceedings to defend my violated rights after-the-fact, am left unable to practice them as a practical reality.

In essence, the system you defend only enables rights for the rich. Tell that to the young man in NM who successfully won his suit. Just a hunch, but something tells me he wasn't "rich".

Click to expand...

You should absolutely be prepared to defend your rightsmorally, practically, and financially. We all should, or we could find ourselves defending them in other more harsh, drastic and severe ways. Freedom isn't free, pay for it with money or pay for with blood, you choose.

And as far as the police stopping the violation of the People's rights, good luck with that. There's always a bad apple. Butthe real problem we face today (and its a downhill battle, not an uphill battle) is to reintroduce the right with good training and good examples to the good LEOs. Heck, that's not hard at all, but it will take some time.

As far as money for legal defense (or offense) there are non-profit organizations that do this kind of work. We just find ourselves in an odd period of time where the one we would like to help out has chosen not to.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

coolusername2007 wrote:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

Click to expand...

Gotta watch out using that quote. Its been debunked.

Second quote down from the top:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. Through this link I found another quote that I use in my educational brochure that will have to be removed/changed. I try to verify all the quotes I use by searching multiple sites.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

coolusername2007 wrote:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

Click to expand...

Gotta watch out using that quote. Its been debunked.

Second quote down from the top:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. Through this link I found another quote that I use in my educational brochure that will have to be removed/changed. I try to verify all the quotes I use by searching multiple sites.

Click to expand...

That's the cool part about the 2A world. You'll never see the anti-s self-correcting. Well, except maybe when they want to tell a bigger lie.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

What the hell? Why should I be prepared to pay to defend my rights (morally, not practically speaking)? Against the unlimited funds of the state? They are my rights. I should exercise them without fear even if dead broke, and I should be able to seek recompense if they are violated, once again without a penny.

As far as I am concerned, police should have to hire their own lawyers or pay for their own defense, same as we do. Hell, I'm of the mind that police should have to do their own prosecution, since they've monopolized the levying of charges, a domain which once belonged to the citizen. Maybe if this happened legal proceedings could once again be affordable to the common person.

As long as the state uses its unlimited resources to violate our rights with impunity, the idea of making the state pay for the legal fees of people who have their rights infringed and have to sue sounds like a pretty damn good one to me, since you bring it up.

Police could always, you know, stop violating peoples' rights.

The problem with your position is that I, who cannot afford to set aside money for the purpose of initiating legal proceedings to defend my violated rights after-the-fact, am left unable to practice them as a practical reality.

In essence, the system you defend only enables rights for the rich.  Tell that to the young man in NM who successfully won his suit.  Just a hunch, but something tells me he wasn't "rich".

Click to expand...

You should absolutely be prepared to defend your rights morally, practically, and financially.  We all should, or we could find ourselves defending them in other more harsh, drastic and severe ways.  Freedom isn't free, pay for it with money or pay for with blood, you choose.

And as far as the police stopping the violation of the People's rights, good luck with that.  There's always a bad apple.  But the real problem we face today (and its a downhill battle, not an uphill battle) is to reintroduce the right with good training and good examples to the good LEOs.  Heck, that's not hard at all, but it will take some time.

As far as money for legal defense (or offense) there are non-profit organizations that do this kind of work.  We just find ourselves in an odd period of time where the one we would like to help out has chosen not to.

Click to expand...

OK, I don't know where to start.

First of all, I think you misunderstood what I mean by "morally, not practically'. Yes, today we need to fight for our rights because they're under attack. But that fact is, in and of itself, wrong. Your defense of it because "that's the way it is" is morally bankrupt.

Your silly platitude "freedom isn't free" may have practical truth, but to defend such a situation as morally justifiable merely because it exists is ludicrous to the extreme. And money is the only thing that counts. Poor black dude in the ghetto wants to OC, there is NOTHING he can fight for that right with. Is it effectively not a right for him. For him, "freedom costs" more than he can ever afford.

Secondly, the ACLU isn't going to help you sue unless you're about to go to jail. I don't know of a single group who exists to fund lawsuits for routine violation of rights (especially 4th amendment rights). Your "odd period of time" argument has no connection with reality. There never has been such a group. At one time, it didn't matter, because "the state" rarely, if ever, actually served as a criminal plaintiff. The few who are helped by the likes of the ACLU are the most extreme cases. The ACLU doesn't fund day-to-day rights litigation, they merely provide a bulwark against the Joe Arpaio's of the world, the worst of the worst offenders.

Finally, your second paragraph makes no sense. We shouldn't make it easy to sue police, because "good luck" getting them to stop violating rights? What kind of circular reasoning is that? You want to train them? What the hell for? Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

For all your talk about "fighting" for "freedom" which "isn't free", you display a remarkable unwillingness to pay a price which would allow violated citizens to seek punitive recompense against those very people who are responsible for the abrogation of rights in the first place.

I think I can safely say you make no sense at all.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

You should absolutely be prepared to defend your rightsmorally, practically, and financially. We all should, or we could find ourselves defending them in other more harsh, drastic and severe ways. Freedom isn't free, pay for it with money or pay for with blood, you choose.

And as far as the police stopping the violation of the People's rights, good luck with that. There's always a bad apple. Butthe real problem we face today (and its a downhill battle, not an uphill battle) is to reintroduce the right with good training and good examples to the good LEOs. Heck, that's not hard at all, but it will take some time.

As far as money for legal defense (or offense) there are non-profit organizations that do this kind of work. We just find ourselves in an odd period of time where the one we would like to help out has chosen not to.

Click to expand...

Freedom isn't free because we must defend it. Slavery is also not free because we have to pay the state to pay the police officers who enforce bad laws from legislators that we also pay and then we get tried by a prosecutor who we pay and a judge who we pay and jurors who we pay a pittance.

I absolutely agree with Marshaul's assessment that your argument only provides freedom to the rich. How can one of us defend ourselves against the state without risking going broke? And which one of us would rather gain $20,000 in a victory versus lose $100,000 in a loss? I don't know about everybody else, but I don't have an extra 100k laying around waiting to be spent on something.

If police didn't have district attorney's to step up and defend them for free, I'm sure they wouldn't be so quick to violate our rights. Likewise, if the district attorney's had to bring forth cases in which constitutional violations obviously occurred, then we'd see a lot more officers thinking about the constitution rather than scoffing at it. Maybe if there was a lawyer equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath where lawyers would be compelled to bring forth winning rights violation cases...that might work.

As it is today, the police are not afraid of the citizens, and so we're having our rights violated left and right. And as we all know, "A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!"

imported post

marshaul wrote:

OK, I don't know where to start.

First of all, I think you misunderstood what I mean by "morally, not practically'. Yes, today we need to fight for our rights because they're under attack. But that fact is, in and of itself, wrong. Your defense of it because "that's the way it is" is morally bankrupt. Morally, yes you're right, nobody's rights should be violated. I completely agree that it would be far easier if LEO's simply stopped violating people's rights, but it is pie in the sky because LEO's are people and people make mistakes, whether intentionally or unintentionally. So defending those rights when violated is necessary to protecting them. If you're poor and cannot then clearly you're at a disadvantage and would need someone to help you out whether people donate money to aid your litigation or a lawyer takes your case pro-bono.

Your silly platitude "freedom isn't free" may have practical truth, but to defend such a situation as morally justifiable merely because it exists is ludicrous to the extreme. And money is the only thing that counts. Poor black dude in the ghetto wants to OC, there is NOTHING he can fight for that right with. Is it effectively not a right for him. For him, "freedom costs" more than he can ever afford.

Secondly, the ACLU isn't going to help you sue unless you're about to go to jail. I don't know of a single group who exists to fund lawsuits for routine violation of rights (especially 4th amendment rights). Your "odd period of time" argument has no connection with reality. There never has been such a group. At one time, it didn't matter, because "the state" rarely, if ever, actually served as a criminal plaintiff. The few who are helped by the likes of the ACLU are the most extreme cases. The ACLU doesn't fund day-to-day rights litigation, they merely provide a bulwark against the Joe Arpaio's of the world, the worst of the worst offenders.

Finally, your second paragraph makes no sense. We shouldn't make it easy to sue police, because "good luck" getting them to stop violating rights? What kind of circular reasoning is that? You want to train them? What the hell for? Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. I never said anything about not making it easier to sue police. I am all for it, especially when civil liberty violation situations arise. I just said there is no way I would vote to fund a taxpayer funded program so they could be sued free of charge or even little charge. Find some other way. Yes, I want to train them, and so should you. How about, when in doubt uphold the Constitution instead of constraining the people with grey area, circular language, gotcha, crap penal codes. How about that kind of training program?

For all your talk about "fighting" for "freedom" which "isn't free", you display a remarkable unwillingness to pay a price which would allow violated citizens to seek punitive recompense against those very people who are responsible for the abrogation of rights in the first place. No, just a remarkable unwillingness to pay your price.

I think I can safely say you make no sense at all.

Click to expand...

I am speaking practically. Like it or not inequalities exist and they cannot always be dealt with. Some other comments above.

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

If police didn't have district attorney's to step up and defend them for free, I'm sure they wouldn't be so quick to violate our rights. Likewise, if the district attorney's had to bring forth cases in which constitutional violations obviously occurred, then we'd see a lot more officers thinking about the constitution rather than scoffing at it. Maybe if there was a lawyer equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath where lawyers would be compelled to bring forth winning rights violation cases...that might work.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that, its actually a good idea. They should not be afforded free counsel for civil cases. Criminal cases, yes just like everyone else. Again good idea for compulsory DA action on civil rights violations. These things can be done without hitting the taxpayer up directlysuch asprograms that would bring every nut job out of the woodwork trying to sue the government for whatever on the taxpayer's dime.

imported post

NCjones wrote:

...who taught history to Bill Clinton...



That told me all I needed to know about the article right there without reading more than the first line.

Click to expand...

The author is a hard core libertarian. The likely reason for that particular line is to try and keep any lefty readers long enough to try and get the arguments across. Ironic that it drove you off immediately. Try opening your mind from time to time. You might learn something.

imported post

Disarming police is just as wrong as disarming civilians. Rights have to go both ways.

imported post

inbox485 wrote:

Disarming police is just as wrong as disarming civilians. Rights have to go both ways.

Click to expand...

Police have no "right" to force the public to employ them on any terms.

Obviously, at home and in their daily lives every citizen has a right to be armed.

But, as with any job, your employer may require you to be unarmed. He may also require you to not use profanity, although you also have a right to use profanity. The ability to make such stipulations on those employed is the right of an employer, especially in an employ-at-will state (not that California is one).

Kindergarten teachers don't have a "right" to carry on the job (although they should probably be allowed to as a matter of good policy). Astronauts don't have a "right" to carry a gun while in space, where it has little function and could endanger things the astronaut is paid to risk his life to maintain.

Strippers have a right to bear arms, too. But, by definition, the very nature of their job would preclude being armed while on-duty (with a few theoretically feasible exceptions). A stripper has a right to be armed, but she doesn't have a "right" to force her employer to allow her to be armed, which would literally prevent her from doing her job (taking everything off).

Edit: Besides, that argument is hypocritical in the extreme when you consider the present reality of who is permitted their "right" to be armed and to what degree, and who enforces that reality. :quirky

Just out of curiosity, by analogy, do you believe that murderers have a "right" to life?

imported post

marshaul wrote:

The ability to make such stipulations on those employed is the right of an employer, especially in an employ-at-will state (not that California is one).

Click to expand...

Actually it is:
http://research.lawyers.com/California/Employment-Law-in-California.html

I signed a form once acknowledging this.

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

marshaul wrote:

The ability to make such stipulations on those employed is the right of an employer, especially in an employ-at-will state (not that California is one).

Click to expand...

Actually it is:
http://research.lawyers.com/California/Employment-Law-in-California.html

I signed a form once acknowledging this.

Click to expand...

Wow, good call. Thanks for the cite.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

inbox485 wrote:

Disarming police is just as wrong as disarming civilians. Rights have to go both ways.

Click to expand...

Police have no "right" to force the public to employ them on any terms.

Obviously, at home and in their daily lives every citizen has a right to be armed.

But, as with any job, your employer may require you to be unarmed. He may also require you to not use profanity, although you also have a right to use profanity. The ability to make such stipulations on those employed is the right of an employer, especially in an employ-at-will state (not that California is one).

Kindergarten teachers don't have a "right" to carry on the job (although they should probably be allowed to as a matter of good policy). Astronauts don't have a "right" to carry a gun while in space, where it has little function and could endanger things the astronaut is paid to risk his life to maintain.

Strippers have a right to bear arms, too. But, by definition, the very nature of their job would preclude being armed while on-duty (with a few theoretically feasible exceptions). A stripper has a right to be armed, but she doesn't have a "right" to force her employer to allow her to be armed, which would literally prevent her from doing her job (taking everything off).

Edit: Besides, that argument is hypocritical in the extreme when you consider the present reality of who is permitted their "right" to be armed and to what degree, and who enforces that reality. :quirky

Just out of curiosity, by analogy, do you believe that murderers have a "right" to life?

Click to expand...

What I was getting at was that the idea of telling police to blow a whistle and hope an armed citizen responds is annalogous to asking civilians to call 911 and hope the police get their on time. And:

Workplace Safety

Federal and state laws require that most employers furnish a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. In most instances, an employee may anonymously complain about an unsafe work environment and be protected against employer reprisals.

Click to expand...

The hypocrisy I see is being indignant about being disarmed as a civilian and wanting to disarm another class of people instead of simply enjoying an equal playing field. It is a little to reminiscent of the reverse racism aspects of the civil rights movement.

And no I don't believe a murderer has a right to life. I don't believe anybody has a right to life. I believe everybody has a right to not be deprived of life without due process of law.

imported post

Well, the Declaration of Independence declares a right to life.

Rights are not derived from the bill of rights, after all.

Anyway, I don't see it as hypocritical. My reasons for believing cops ought to scale down their use of arms is a practical one.

However, if we are going to consider hypocrisy, who are the ones who enforce immoral and unconstitutional gun laws?

In the same way a thief doesn't have a right to possess stolen property (although he has a right to property otherwise), I don't believe police possess a "right" to bear arms at the expense of the peoples' genuine RKBA (which is exactly the position we're in now).

I'm not a hypocrite because I don't deny rights to anyone. However, I see little problem in depriving employees -- whose jobs are defined by the professional abrogation of right -- of a privilege which they so happily deny as a right to the citizen.

If police didn't enforce unconstitutional gun laws, they might have an argument about hypocrisy. As it stands, the only person denying a real, genuine right are the police. Even my position would not deny a right.