Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Standing armies, police, and the California Constitution

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Article 1, Section 5 of the California Constitution reads:

    The military is subordinate to civil power. A standing army may not be maintained in peacetime. Soldiers may not be quartered in any house in wartime except as prescribed by law, or in peacetime without the owner's consent.
    1. How can California have military bases which are always in use and not violate this section of the constitution?

    2. What is the difference between a standing army and a police force? If you feel there is a difference, what would a police force have to do in order to become a standing army?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Article 1, Section 5 of the California Constitution reads:

    The military is subordinate to civil power. A standing army may not be maintained in peacetime. Soldiers may not be quartered in any house in wartime except as prescribed by law, or in peacetime without the owner's consent.
    1. How can California have military bases which are always in use and not violate this section of the constitution?

    2. What is the difference between a standing army and a police force? If you feel there is a difference, what would a police force have to do in order to become a standing army?
    More political interference would be needed.

    The military fights wars, politicians loose them.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Since nobody is taking my bait, I'll just argue my point in hope to inflame somebody to respond.

    Standing armies have historically been cursed things. The reason why our country launched into our revolutionary war is because the British King had taxed our ancestors and enforced unjust taxes by placing soldiers in our towns and cities. Today we have a very similar scenario. Armed men roam the streets of our cities and towns, enforcing just and unjust laws onto the citizenry. These men (and women) are distinct from everybody else. They have explicit permission from the government to obtain weapons that normal people cannot have. They speed through the streets without fear that they will be accused of putting the public at risk. They violate our constitutionally protected rights without so much of a blink of an eye, and when they know they have done us wrong, they don't even bother to apologize.

    How has the procurement of a simple job, a job which usually requires nothing more than a high school diploma, divide the people into different classes? We look to these people for permission to do what they can do without permission, but why? Why have we become serfs in the land of the free? And who legitimately polices those who police?

    During the constitutional conventions in this country there was a great deal of talk about the dangers of a standing army. In Blackstone's Commentaries, Henry St. George Tucker said,

    Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
    I ask of you, what difference is there today from what we commonly think of as a standing army, and our omnipresent police force? Their weapons are the same, their armor is the same, their tactics are the same. Where is the difference? Police departments have helicopters, huge tank-like vehicles, airplanes, mobile headquarters. SWAT teams are seemingly in every major city, just look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States .

    Standing armies roam our streets today, just under a different name and without camouflage. Our government has slowly but surely transformed Barney Fife into Jack Bauer. The Posse Comitatus Act is a joke, preventing military of one name from doing something that the military of another name can. There is no doubt about it, we are second class citizens because we chose the wrong profession. Look no further than the disparity in punishment between a person who is employed as a police officer versus somebody who is not. Same act, different punishment. Are we not meant to have laws applied to us equally?

    We the people are in power. Make no mistake about it. The government does not have the ability to restrict some of us and not all of us. If we are to believe that our constitutions are more than just subterfuge to allay fears of the lowly hoi polloi, then we must look to our state constitution and cry out over the violations that are so blatant and clear. The military, by any name, is subordinate to civil power. Let us not forget that, for we are the freest people on this planet, and we have become quite complacent with these transgressions.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    So. Orange County CA, California, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    Agreed!

    I had a very similar conversation yesterday. About how essentially everything that our Government is doing and is trying to do is highly illegal.

    It would just take a lot of money and an atty w/ HUGE nuts to litigate.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Can you say "Martial Law Rule"?

    The U.S. has been under it since the Civil War!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :what:

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    Hey Toe. What's up with you today? Get a speeding ticket? Been watchinga Glen Beck marathon? Been doing lunch with Citizen? Trying to twist tails on purpose?

    The difference between a standing army and police is that the standing army is used to kill them barbarous foreigners while police are intended to supress little folks like you with a minimum of killing. If you weren't sharp enough to get that government job and be given your shiny tin star and high cap magazines then that's your own fault. Anyway we need a standing army. Could you imagine having to train up a whole newarmy from scratch everytime we decided that someone needed stomping.

    Military and police tactics are the same you say? Butchers and brain surgeons both use knives but I'm not sure I want to go down to my local meat market the next time I get a brain tumor.A smart marine (oxymoronI know)once described his job as killing people and breaking things. Smart cops believe in breaking things without killing people. For dumb cops we have qualified immunity.

    As far as full time military bases are concerned, the state needs to have someplace under its control from which it can launch offensive opperations. Why right in Los Alamitos on the LA County / Orange County border they've been flying daily missions over the south land for years. Airborne Medeteranian Fruit Fly Death From Above! Oh yeah! they also have disaster preparadness stuff there too.

    I really think its cute how you seem to think that we the people are the true power. Its a good thing our corporate masters don't overtlyrespond when you rabble rousers start trying to rouse the rabble.You might want to check your credit score though.

    Didn't you read that part that says "pursuit of happiness"? You may be guaranteed the right to pursue but nothing says you have a rigt to capture. If you want to speed and wear armor and play with machine guns you have to be willing to lease out a bit of your soul and either enlist or get a highschool diploma and become a cop.

    If you are really that unhappy with the way things are you do have options. You could move out of San Fransisco for a start. Maybe buy a compound out in Montana. Start a revolution perhaps. Hows about running for office and changing things from the inside. I hear that voting sometimes helps too.

    Sorry, I gotta stop typing now. The tin foil is aggravating my dandruff.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    Hey Toe. What's up with you today? Get a speeding ticket? Been watchinga Glen Beck marathon? Been doing lunch with Citizen? Trying to twist tails on purpose?
    None of those, maybe a bit of the last one. Nobody replied so I figured I'd rant without reservations to see if I could get somebody to come up with a response.

    The difference between a standing army and police is that the standing army is used to kill them barbarous foreigners while police are intended to supress little folks like you with a minimum of killing. If you weren't sharp enough to get that government job and be given your shiny tin star and high cap magazines then that's your own fault. Anyway we need a standing army. Could you imagine having to train up a whole new army from scratch everytime we decided that someone needed stomping.
    Military and police tactics are the same you say? Butchers and brain surgeons both use knives but I'm not sure I want to go down to my local meat market the next time I get a brain tumor.
    What's confusing me between the police and the army is that today our army is acting more like a police force, and our police more like an army. Our goal in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't to kill everybody, it is to get rid of the trouble makers without hurting the locals. That sounds pretty similar to what a police force does.

    I'm not entirely sure we need an army. If citizens were allowed to form militias and to train themselves, then they could be equipped with a great deal of knowledge about warfare. I can see the argument that a standing army would be much better prepared to do the job, and I think that as well. Unfortunately, it also gives our government the ability to send our troops overseas without much hesitation. This can be a good thing, but recently this has only proven to be a bad thing; we end up in military engagements we should have never have been in.

    If our government really cared about having trained soldiers, then our state wouldn't outlaw citizen militias.

    A smart marine (oxymoron I know) once described his job as killing people and breaking things. Smart cops believe in breaking things without killing people. For dumb cops we have qualified immunity.
    Dumb cops shouldn't get qualified immunity in my opinion. Equal protection of the laws is what is called for by the constitution. Just because a person has a job teaching, or pumping gas, or running a company doesn't put an asterisk next to his name. The laws are supposed to be applied equally. If I don't get qualified immunity, then why should somebody else? All men are created equal.

    As far as full time military bases are concerned, the state needs to have someplace under its control from which it can launch offensive opperations. Why right in Los Alamitos on the LA County / Orange County border they've been flying daily missions over the south land for years. Airborne Medeteranian Fruit Fly Death From Above! Oh yeah! they also have disaster preparadness stuff there too.
    My point here was that the California Constitution says standing armies are unlawful. So how do we allow standing armies in our state? Change the constitution or remove the armies.

    I really think its cute how you seem to think that we the people are the true power.
    I hated history when I was in high school. Now that I'm out of school, I love it. I'm pretty sure the fact that "We the people" is five times larger than the rest of the text of the constitution means something important. Call me an idealist if you will.

    Didn't you read that part that says "pursuit of happiness"? You may be guaranteed the right to pursue but nothing says you have a rigt to capture. If you want to speed and wear armor and play with machine guns you have to be willing to lease out a bit of your soul and either enlist or get a highschool diploma and become a cop.
    Goes back to equal protection I believe. We all have the same rights. I don't need to sign a piece of paper, or chew with my mouth closed, or enjoy coca-cola to have my rights. They are "self evident" to quote the Declaration. They exist always for everyone. Even an idealist ****** like myself. To me, that's exactly what makes this country great. The fact that we are all independent beings with inalienable rights that are protected absolutely.

    I definitely agree with the pursuit vs. capture point. I'm not entitled to a job or to a house or to health care. I'm not entitled to harm others even if it is required for my pursuit of happiness. But I am entitled to be treated equally under the law. I don't think that's very much to ask.

    If you are really that unhappy with the way things are you do have options. You could move out of San Fransisco for a start. Maybe buy a compound out in Montana. Start a revolution perhaps. Hows about running for office and changing things from the inside. I hear that voting sometimes helps too.
    I will be moving out of SF before the big peak oil collapse. Montana seems a bit too cold for me though, I'm more of a gardener than most and I don't think growing snow is as enjoyable as tomatoes. I might stick around for the long haul in this state if we can continue our forward momentum.

    I started a thread over at calguns asking people if anybody planned on running for office, because I was considering it at the time. The lovely bwiese told me to save my time and money because I didn't have a chance. Not that I really thought I had a chance, but I thought I could get a few people to think.

    In the long-term, I don't see our government being able to continue on with their little power-grab. They will fail and lose and the people will be in charge once again. It's inevitable really.

    Anyway, sorry for the delay in responding. I appreciate your input, as always sir.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    Hi Toe. you are so much better a playmate than some others we share the sand box with. I like you.

    -Tail twisting and ranting are much maligned and wrongfully so. Go for it. The Contitution says you still can and I enjoy when you do.

    -I agree with you on some of your points about soldiers being misused as police. Having been both a soldier and a cop I can tell you that the mindsets for each are not always compatible. It takes major effort and lots of mistakes (frequently lethal ones) to make an infantryman into a peace keeper and it's never exactly what folks hope it will be. As for Iraq and Afganistan all I can say is that our politicians are idiots. Afganistan deserved nothing more than the sudden and frightful application of targeted violence followed by a heads held high withdrawal. Screw nation building. How stupid are we to believe that we can take a tribal society and rebuild it into a fuctional republic with the appointment of just the right few chosen men. If anything we should have supported the traditional tribal structure and helped the tribes that were willing to kill our enemies. Iraq. We should never have gone there in the first place. We as a society just plain don't have the roman sized balls that might let us crucify the troublemakers and install a strong military governor who can exploit the native resources to our benefit. Yet again we act like jackasses and try to convince folks who do not have a history and habit of thinking like us that they will live better if only they will do things our way.

    -I've got to disagree with you about cops becoming more soldier like. Cops have never been entirely what folks like to think they used to be back in the golden age whenever that was. As a group theyhave always run the full gamut of what is possible for people to be. That same nice, gentle smily Norman Rockwell cop that rescued the puppy was also perfectly happy taking a sap to the head of the drunk, crook, minority, etc that happened to need beating at the time. Uniforms and tools do not by themselvesmake cops more soldier like. BDUs have useful pockets, cost way less tax payer moneythan wool uniforms and don't stink like wet sheep when it rains. Wool uniforms just plain suck in the wet. Heavy armor looks mean as all get out but it sure helps keep tham pesky bullets from making a mess of the tax payer's BDUs. 38Spl led round nose bullets in a 6" wheel gun just don't cut it any more when the bad guys have learned that big guns and armor are good cop deterrents. Bring on the evil black rifles. Tactics don't make the cop a soldier either. Speed, surprise and violence of action combined with a dash of shock and awe have saved many a violent bad guy's life. The last time I heard of a classic "L" shapped ambush being used to kill a crook was when Bonnie and Clyde had their afternoon drive so rudely interrupted. SWAT and military looking tactics save lives many more times than they take them.

    -Citizen militias are cool if our aim is strictly defensive but we havn't lived in that world since 1940 something.

    -Qualified Immunity.Is it poorly applied sometimes? Yep. Is it really needed? Yep. Go look in the law section of your local library and then tell me that the guy whogoes into the dark to settle a bit of chaos should be held liable for every last bit of it every single time. If a surgeon does his best with the tools and knowledge he has at the time should he face the loss of his livlihood and freedomjust because the patient is rude enough todie on the table? Neither you nor I really want to live in a place where the law is applied perfectly every time with no regard for the fact that human beings are involved. Many a sci-fi writer has shown us why that is.

    -CA Constitution and standing armies. The State of CA is not allowed a foreign policy either but it sure has one. If the state were to try toboot outthe standing army of the larger state of which it is merely a component, wouldn't that amount to a declaration of succession. We as citizens have responsibilities as well as rights and so does the state.

    -WE THE PEOPLE was written well before corporations were legally people. Remember the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

    I'm curious as to which government power grab you are refering. If I remember right that bastard tyrant Washington started it all when he crushed the whisky rebelion back in 1794. Damned tax and spend ... Too bad Washington didn't have a party affiliation. It would round out my sillyness quite well.

    The biggest problem we have now is that too many of us really and truly believe that the government is "them". The sad truth is that money is "them" and that "them" have convinced us and paid usto do stuff that hurts us and benefits "them". I still truly believe that if/when "them" in the government fail it's really "us" the people who have failed. Too many of us believe that freedom and democracy and capitalism areall one. They are not. Unrestrained capitalism has made justas many slaves and killed just as many people asfascism, communism and organized religion ever have.

    For what it's worth I'm an idealist too. That's why I've gotten so cynical at the most ancient age of 42.

    I'm tired now and can't brain anymore. It's your turn Toe.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415

    Post imported post

    Translation: I am old, and did not like my time as a soldier. Listen to me elevate the role of peace officer, and subtly include derogatory comments about the aptitude of the military.

    Thats just what I read.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    slowfiveoh wrote:
    Translation: I am old, and did not like my time as a soldier. Listen to me elevate the role of peace officer, and subtly include derogatory comments about the aptitude of the military.

    Thats just what I read.
    Correction: I'm 42. That ain't old and I loved my time as a soldier. Playing with tanks and patching up Rangers and drinking with the occasional Marine or Bundeswehr Panzer Grenadier was some of the most fun I've ever had. If you want to hear me elevate cops above the rest of us just ask. I'll flat tell you that Ibelieve that your average cop really deserves more praise for the job he does than doesthe average butcher, baker or candle stick maker. I'll also gladly criticize the ones that screw up. If you want a cop free paradise I hear that Mogadishu is a real buyer's market right now. If you want me to trash talk those scoundrel politicians and scumbag capitalist pigs, just ask and I can do that too.

    Subtle? SUBTLE?! SUBTLE!?!?!? I take umbrage at your insinuation that my digs at the military are subtle and bite my thumb at you. I fully and openly intend for my "derogatory comments"to be plain enough for even a Second Lieutenant to understand. Any service man, past present or future who can't handle a bit of loving abuse needs to man up and grow some thicker skin. :P

    Maybe next time I'll try my hand at arguing the other side of the equation. That could be fun too.

  11. #11
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    Hi Toe. you are so much better a playmate than some others we share the sand box with. I like you.
    It certainly appears that way sometimes.

    -Tail twisting and ranting are much maligned and wrongfully so. Go for it. The Contitution says you still can and I enjoy when you do.
    Right-o.

    -I agree with you on some of your points about soldiers being misused as police. Having been both a soldier and a cop I can tell you that the mindsets for each are not always compatible. It takes major effort and lots of mistakes (frequently lethal ones) to make an infantryman into a peace keeper and it's never exactly what folks hope it will be. As for Iraq and Afganistan all I can say is that our politicians are idiots. Afganistan deserved nothing more than the sudden and frightful application of targeted violence followed by a heads held high withdrawal. Screw nation building. How stupid are we to believe that we can take a tribal society and rebuild it into a fuctional republic with the appointment of just the right few chosen men. If anything we should have supported the traditional tribal structure and helped the tribes that were willing to kill our enemies. Iraq. We should never have gone there in the first place. We as a society just plain don't have the roman sized balls that might let us crucify the troublemakers and install a strong military governor who can exploit the native resources to our benefit. Yet again we act like jackasses and try to convince folks who do not have a history and habit of thinking like us that they will live better if only they will do things our way.
    I've been neither a soldier nor a cop, but when I was little I wanted to be both. Sadly I don't think this makes me an expert on the subject. It would be nice if our politicians would stop singing the song of nation building and just fess up and say it's about the oil and that stuff is strategic and Iraq still has a bunch. Lemme know when Pelosi mans up.

    -I've got to disagree with you about cops becoming more soldier like. Cops have never been entirely what folks like to think they used to be back in the golden age whenever that was. As a group they have always run the full gamut of what is possible for people to be. That same nice, gentle smily Norman Rockwell cop that rescued the puppy was also perfectly happy taking a sap to the head of the drunk, crook, minority, etc that happened to need beating at the time. Uniforms and tools do not by themselves make cops more soldier like. BDUs have useful pockets, cost way less tax payer money than wool uniforms and don't stink like wet sheep when it rains. Wool uniforms just plain suck in the wet. Heavy armor looks mean as all get out but it sure helps keep tham pesky bullets from making a mess of the tax payer's BDUs. 38Spl led round nose bullets in a 6" wheel gun just don't cut it any more when the bad guys have learned that big guns and armor are good cop deterrents. Bring on the evil black rifles. Tactics don't make the cop a soldier either. Speed, surprise and violence of action combined with a dash of shock and awe have saved many a violent bad guy's life. The last time I heard of a classic "L" shapped ambush being used to kill a crook was when Bonnie and Clyde had their afternoon drive so rudely interrupted. SWAT and military looking tactics save lives many more times than they take them.
    My reply to this is a picture of police at the last G20 protest, which I would argue looks mightily militaryesque.



    And while clothes don't make the man, seeing police dressed as robocop army men doesn't win the hearts and minds of the lowly citizens. What ends up happening is that a rift develops between the two factions. Normal citizens stop trusting police officers, and in turn, police officers end up with a much tougher job. It really is a downward spiral of deepening class division where none should exist to begin with.

    It's a shame really, being a cop used to be such an honorable profession and now the powers that be are transforming them into hired goons in some cases. And what do "normal" citizens like myself see of police officers on a regular basis? It isn't the good work that police officers are doing on a daily basis. It is things like the G20 protests, or the BART cop shooting a guy kneeling down, or a guy getting tased for seemingly no reason. People on this forum get to hear about fourth amendment rights violations, about how police departments regularly read up on our completely legal activities here, and about selective enforcement of laws.

    Cops need a big PR boost to save their kind, but nobody is stepping up to admit fault where it lies, and to take on responsibility to re-form the alliance between police and the community at large. So the downward spiral shall continue.

    -Citizen militias are cool if our aim is strictly defensive but we havn't lived in that world since 1940 something.
    Very true. I think our country would be in a lot better shape if we stopped with all of these "military engagements" and just stuck to legitimate wars.

    -Qualified Immunity. Is it poorly applied sometimes? Yep. Is it really needed? Yep. Go look in the law section of your local library and then tell me that the guy who goes into the dark to settle a bit of chaos should be held liable for every last bit of it every single time. If a surgeon does his best with the tools and knowledge he has at the time should he face the loss of his livlihood and freedom just because the patient is rude enough to die on the table? Neither you nor I really want to live in a place where the law is applied perfectly every time with no regard for the fact that human beings are involved. Many a sci-fi writer has shown us why that is.
    I actually agree with you on this to a point. Qualified immunity is needed, but in my opinion it is applied to broadly. A police department will always stand by their officers, and that isn't what is always needed. Sometimes cops screw-up because, as you said, they're human. If that screw-up was an honest mistake, fine, qualified immunity is perfect. When that screw-up is a sign that this person shouldn't be a cop and should be fired immediately and tried as a citizen, then that's what should be done. Except that doesn't happen.

    A good recent case of this is the DC cop who brandished his weapon at a snowball fight. He's not going to lose his job and be tried for brandishing, but he should. Another case which comes to mind is a Berkeley cop who stole stuff from the evidence locker. He was (rightly) fired. But then he appealed because he was in the union and some other police officer was investigated differently than he was. End result? The thief gets his job back. There's just no excusing that. He should be in prison but instead he is back on the streets "protecting and serving"? Clearly something is VERY wrong with how these things work.

    -CA Constitution and standing armies. The State of CA is not allowed a foreign policy either but it sure has one. If the state were to try to boot out the standing army of the larger state of which it is merely a component, wouldn't that amount to a declaration of succession. We as citizens have responsibilities as well as rights and so does the state.
    We'd only be booting them out now because we failed to prevent them from coming in to begin with. I don't think disallowing active military from training within your state's borders amounts to succession. The states shouldn't feel like they are forced into the United States, they should want to be part of them and the federal government should respect our state regulations.

    -WE THE PEOPLE was written well before corporations were legally people. Remember the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
    You're such a practical idealist. For the record I'm all for removing corporate personhood.

    I'm curious as to which government power grab you are refering. If I remember right that bastard tyrant Washington started it all when he crushed the whisky rebelion back in 1794. Damned tax and spend ... Too bad Washington didn't have a party affiliation. It would round out my sillyness quite well.
    There's no one thing, but if I had to point to one thing it would be the liberal interpretation of Congress' enumerated powers. Congress has no authority to do most of the stuff it does, and so our country is going down the tubes. I'm sure most of congress feel like our founding fathers were a bunch of idiots with all of these restrictions they put in place. But they're running this ship into the ground, so who are the real idiots?

    The biggest problem we have now is that too many of us really and truly believe that the government is "them". The sad truth is that money is "them" and that "them" have convinced us and paid us to do stuff that hurts us and benefits "them". I still truly believe that if/when "them" in the government fail it's really "us" the people who have failed. Too many of us believe that freedom and democracy and capitalism are all one. They are not. Unrestrained capitalism has made just as many slaves and killed just as many people as fascism, communism and organized religion ever have.
    I feel that government is them AND money is them. It doesn't take much searching to realize that our representatives are rich and we are comparatively poor. For example: http://www.redefinechange.org/2009/1...rage-american/

    Do they represent our interests or their own?

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    I actually agree with you on this to a point. Qualified immunity is needed, but in my opinion it is applied to broadly.
    I don't think I agree with this. In their day, constables had no qualified immunity. Why would one need qualified immunity if one was not an abuser? If one genuinely acted in an upright manner, there is nothing one will need to be "immune" from. A lack of "immunity" doesn't mean that every mistake is instantly punished with utmost severity. A presence of "immunity", on the other hand, pretty much guarantees that no mistake will ever be punished.

    I, as a non-Law-Enfarcing citizen, genuinely feel comfortable not having any sort of immunity. Why, then, should police, who are supposedly held to a "higher standard", need any? I'm not sure what "immunity" one needs against arresting actual, real criminals in accordance with due process.

    In fact, I'm quite sure one needs no "immunity" to arrest actual, real criminals in accordance with due process.


    grumpycoconut wrote:
    SWAT and military looking tactics save lives many more times than they take them.
    LOL! You're a funny guy.

    Now cite.

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    Anyway we need a standing army. Could you imagine having to train up a whole new army from scratch everytime we decided that someone needed stomping.
    Wow, way to miss the point of our entire history. The point is that we should not be able to just up and decide "someone needs stomping". This creates entanglements, and is never a good idea.

    When we've actually needed to defend ourselves (against, say, the Japanese), we've been able to build up as we go. Hell, we were even able to stop a Holocaust in the process. Nothing to be said for "standing armies" there. The American Giant wouldn't have been "sleeping" had we standing armies, ready to go.

    No, we don't "need" to violate the constitution for any reason in this regard.

    Citizen militias are cool if our aim is strictly defensive but we havn't lived in that world since 1940 something.
    Of course, this has nothing whatever to do with the whims of our "corporate masters", and their need to "stomp someone" every time they see new opportunities for profit. No, nothing at all.

    WE THE PEOPLE was written well before corporations were legally people. Remember the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
    Creating special privileges for corporations, necessarily in violation of the rights of others, is where modern American "capitalism" deviated from the "free market" needed in a truly free society.

    If you want a cop free paradise I hear that Mogadishu is a real buyer's market right now.
    Bringing up Somalia is super-trendy right now. You can pretty much tell anytime a person tries to compare Somalia to "anarchy", or otherwise suggests that Somalia is what happens when this or that government control is lost (in this case, police) that that person has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

    Actually, wait, what am I talking about, you're 100% correct. America was exactly like Somalia throughout the entire 18th century. I dunno what I was thinking. :quirky

    Sorry, Law Enfarcement doesn't get to take any credit at all for America being nothing like Somalia.

    Edit: By the way, lunch with Citizen is something I've suggested for the next time I'm in Virginia. Sounds like a good idea to me. :P

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote: a lot of stuff

    Hi Marshaul,

    Welcome to the shindig. So where to start.

    Mogadishu- A fine example of intentional hyperbole that one was. Mogadishu's condition has nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of police. It has nothing to do with the lack of a functioning government of any sort at all. It has to do with raw power and who has the cash and guns and muscle and stones to grab it for himself and his family and his tribe. The biggest difference between the US at any timein it's history and Somalia is the mindset/philosophy that has permitted us to exist for over 200 years withouta military coup.We all have agreed to subordinate ourselves to a set of commonly accepted rules set by a group bigger than our own little tribe about how we can't just take everything we want at gun point just becasue we can.

    Standing Armies and the Constitution- The original discussion was about the California State Constitution. The State of California is prohibited from forming a standing army as are the other 49 states in the Union. Nothing prohibits the US from maintaining a standing army. The founders may have hated/distrusted the very idea of a standing army but they did not prohibit one.What they did instead is limit the power of a standing armyby puttingits purse strings in the hands of the congress critters. That way the citizenry, through its elected representatives, could say yes or no to war. For good or bad evolution happens and our war making decisions have been ceeded by the greedy cowards we put in congress to the president. Sice then we've found ourselves fighting wars of questionalble morality since we decided that the Indians and the Mexicans needed to be removed from land they were silly enough to think was theirs by right of occupation. Come to think of it, those decisions were profit driven too. Boy, things sure were better back in the 1800s.

    Mean looking uniforms and tactics- Find your own cites. I have a life to live and prefer anecdotes anyway. Its easy to find the stats on things that have gone wrong. Finding the stats on things that went right andare therefor non-events is a mite tougher. Show me the stats on the number of successful uses of firearms in self defense that did not require discharge of the weapon. Better yet show me the number of car crashes that were avoided in any city of your chosing on any given day. Of course we all "know" that our guns keep us safe from the ravening hordes and are gobsmacked that the gun grabbers don't take us at our word.

    On to the anecdotes. 1. I didn't have to entera motel room and force a potentially lethalconfrontation with a pistol armed 3rd striker kidnapping rapist because my partners and I dressed up in our heavy armor and sheilds and black riflesand formed a visible perimeter (AKA seige and show of overwhelming force) that convinced our delicate flower of a rapist that he didn't want to get into a shootout. His means of surrender may have been a self inflicted new hole in the head but at least he didn't throw any more of his trash on anyone else. 2. I didn't have to shoot the attempted murderer nazi skin head with at least 3 suspected bodies to his credit because I snuck up on him and hit him before he knew he was wanted (AKA ambush). Maybe I should have given him fair warning and let him square off on me like a man. 3. I didn't have to shoot or even beat up the drug dealer who slept with his loaded shotgun because my partners dropped a flash bang or three through his front door just moments before I dragged him out of bed to answer for his sins. (AKA speed, surprise and violence of action as applied to urban combat)I'm sure he would have been perfectly friendly and would have submitted himself to the will of the state had I knocked on his door at mid day with my clip on tie pinned to my collar and my notebook in hand. Hows about them poor innocent G8, 20, whoever protesters that always seem to get their crowns split by Darth Vader looking JBTs. I'm sure you as a tax payer wouldn't mind paying for all the extra injuries acrued by traditionally attired cops when they try to keep the poor harmless folks with oppinions from smashing greedy shop keeper's windows and burning down half the town. Better yet, maybe a handfulofcops with no real plan can quell the next college football riot without having to resort to tactics that anyMacedonian Phalangitewould recognized.

    Qualified Immunity - You focus so much on the immunity that you don't seem to see the Qualified that precedes it. That immunity only holds so long as there is no showing of intentional wrong doing. Would you or anyone you know accept a job that carried with it the state sanctioned power of death without some assurance that you were at least somewhat pretected if you had to do what the state said you could do? Has it been misused and abused? Yes. Does it need constant review? Yes. Should it be scrapped in favor of a pollyannaish belief that only abusers need fear sanction? Sure, let's give it a try. To answer your question about what immunity is needed if you are just making a lawful arrest in full compliance with the bill of rights and department policy I pose this scenario. You go to arrest a badguy and he jumps in his car and leads you on a merry chase. You, being the conscientious and upstanding public servant that you are, obey every law and policy in every particular. He hits a car full of a mom and her three cute little towheaded offspring. Mom and spawn burst into flames. Oh the humanity! Should you as the legally pursuing officer have your freedom and fiscal well being imperiled because Mr. Badguy didn't just give up when you asked him to and your boss, the tax payer, has lots of cash for the grieving family to go after? Without qualified immunity the answer to that question is yes. How does that square with your idea of equal protection under the law?

    And who says we shouldn't be able to just up and stomp someone who threatens our economic well being? If they get stomped its their own fault for not being more reasonable at the negotiating table. If our government won't stomp folks on our behalf perhaps we should get off our moral high horses and let private companies (which are composed of individual people by the way)engage the services of mercenaries to protect and further their mercantile interests.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    slowfiveoh wrote:
    Translation: I am old, and did not like my time as a soldier. Listen to me elevate the role of peace officer, and subtly include derogatory comments about the aptitude of the military.

    Thats just what I read.
    Correction: I'm 42. That ain't old and I loved my time as a soldier. Playing with tanks and patching up Rangers and drinking with the occasional Marine or Bundeswehr Panzer Grenadier was some of the most fun I've ever had. If you want to hear me elevate cops above the rest of us just ask. I'll flat tell you that Ibelieve that your average cop really deserves more praise for the job he does than doesthe average butcher, baker or candle stick maker. I'll also gladly criticize the ones that screw up. If you want a cop free paradise I hear that Mogadishu is a real buyer's market right now. If you want me to trash talk those scoundrel politicians and scumbag capitalist pigs, just ask and I can do that too.

    Subtle? SUBTLE?! SUBTLE!?!?!? I take umbrage at your insinuation that my digs at the military are subtle and bite my thumb at you. I fully and openly intend for my "derogatory comments"to be plain enough for even a Second Lieutenant to understand. Any service man, past present or future who can't handle a bit of loving abuse needs to man up and grow some thicker skin. :P

    Maybe next time I'll try my hand at arguing the other side of the equation. That could be fun too.
    I am a combat vet. First wave OIF I, March 20th 2003. I likewise served "mit die bundeswehr". Ich bin halb Deutsch, und liebe sud Bayern.

    Sorry man, but most cops I have met are glorified hall guards. Social interactivity training, imo, does not make a police officer better at defending a bowl of cracker jacks, if he does not have the integrity, honor, or discipline his role mandates. Unfortunately, that is a lot of the Officers I have met. Soft squishy things that like to portray how hard they are. It's not that I do not respect the role, it's just thatI typically do not respect the officer. I could name a few social encounters to show specifically why, but this isn't show'n'tell.

    Nice to meet another service member. In regards to the 2LT thing,...didn't they issue you guys color crayons for filling out your counseling statements? 2LT's find iteasier to understand them that way.



    Prost!
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    Hi Slow,

    I was a medic andwas statesideduring Desert Shield / Storm. I've seen 2Lts hurt themselves with crayons. Noses and ears a delicate crayon sized holes don't ya know. I always found it best to just talk slowly and use small words when dealing with them until they grow into real officers.

    Its unfortunate that you've had bad luck in the cops you've met. I've met some bad cops and I've met some stupid cops but fortunately most of the cops I've met both on and off the job have been good folks trying to do what has become a thankless job. For what it's worth at least half of my partners over the years were prior service. If they were soft it's because of good living and the realization that "hard" is best used like a special purpose tool that is saved for special social occasions. Unlike fire laddies, who are always welcome to visit, cops don't have the luxury of dropping by when everything is hunky dory. Usually folks meet cops when they are having a real bad day to start with. Then, just to add insult to injury, those damn coppers frequentlyhave to do stuff that somebody at the party is guaranteed to be unhappy with.It ain't pretty but that's just the way it is.



    Marshaul / Big Toe,

    Both of youare in the bay area. Are you sure the two of you aren't also in the same skull and just taking turns posting?

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Sure we're sure. There's at least one photo on here which includes both of us, so it'd have to be a bigger trick than just using two screen names.

    Edit:



    If you're real good, maybe you can even guess. :P

    I'll give you a hint: I'm the one with a dumb look on his face.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    Hows about them poor innocent G8, 20, whoever protesters that always seem to get their crowns split by Darth Vader looking JBTs. I'm sure you as a tax payer wouldn't mind paying for all the extra injuries acrued by traditionally attired cops when they try to keep the poor harmless folks with oppinions from smashing greedy shop keeper's windows and burning down half the town. Better yet, maybe a handfulofcops with no real plan can quell the next college football riot without having to resort to tactics that anyMacedonian Phalangitewould recognized.
    If all the G20 police were doing was dressing up in case of physical confrontation, I could live with that. It's when they roll out armored vans equipped with ear piercing crowd dispersal devices, or when they tell a lawful crowd to disperse that I lose any appreciation for any real good they may be doing. I'm not a lawyer, nor a law student, nor a paralegal. However I can read the first amendment, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of it. We have a right to assemble.

    If 95% of an assembly are not breaking the law, then those 95% of the assembly don't have to go anywhere. The police can come and arrest the 5%, and they can do it in full riot gear and I'd be fine with it. Roll out indiscriminate crowd dispersal vans and that makes me upset. I can't believe that telling a crowd to disperse because there are a few troublemakers in that crowd is constitutional. I can't fathom how a police officer can carry out orders to suppress speech and assembly and still believe they are acting ethically. It makes me weep for my country.

    That picture was back in the day when the second amendment was incorporated in California. I yearn for such a time again. BTW, I'm the one with the dumb look on his face.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    That picture was back in the day when the second amendment was incorporated in California. I yearn for such a time again.


    bigtoe416 wrote:
    I can't fathom how a police officer can carry out orders to suppress speech and assembly and still believe they are acting ethically. It makes me weep for my country.
    Solemn words, but the truth if I've ever encountered it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    I choose to believe that the so called photo you present as evidence that you are in fact two people is a Photoshop job.I know that I saw some one in that crowdwith three hands.:?

    On a serious note I agree with you thatrousting a crowd of 100 law abiding folks in orderto get to the 5 real problem children is problematic. You can lay that blame squarely on the Supremes and our benevolent elected overlords. Do you honestly expect the cops to rise up en mass andjust say no when the order comes down from on high that it's time for hats and bats.Cops don't crave power the way many folks think.Most copsdeeply desire stability. Any skull cracking that comes along with reasserting order is just a bonus.

    Come up with a way to separate the sheep from the rams and you can make a bundle by selling out to the man. Maybe we can just convince the law abiding folks to lay their picket signs along side the heads of the brick throwers and then drag them to the cops camped out at the edge of the crowd for clean up. Well maybe not. Who wants to be a rat and a snitch just to protect one's rights.


  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    Photoshop :P
    Damn! You figured out the secret.

    Two internet aliases + photoshop = free identity

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    If 95% of an assembly are not breaking the law, then those 95% of the assembly don't have to go anywhere. The police can come and arrest the 5%, and they can do it in full riot gear and I'd be fine with it. Roll out indiscriminate crowd dispersal vans and that makes me upset.
    I agree with you in theory, as my standard for deciding right and wrong is based on the Non-aggression Principle, and wearing combat garb does not in and of itself constitute an act of aggression.

    I think the problem, though, is that in practice the clothes have a whole lot to do with the attitude (militaristic is how you initially defined it, and I'm inclined to agree, although I don't have the firsthand experience of coconut here). And the attitude does have a lot to do with why police have become so out of control. Self-evidently, I would think.

    For example, while there's nothing unreasonable about wearing body armor to a high likelihood of a gunfight, or as well bringing a rifle or a submachine gun, much of it has nothing to do with bodily self-defense. Wearing balaclavas to instill doubt and fear into what can only be described as their enemy ("bad guy" is an almost-euphamism)? Seriously, that's not how any citizen not yet convicted of a crime ought to ever be treated.

    Also, consider the Federal aspect. Where do the cops get all these neat toys from (tacticool gear and guns I'm not allowed to own)? The Federal government has no shortage of programs designed to hook local PDs and SDs up with military-style gear and training, which is where they get the idea to unconstitutionally raid Ryan Frederick's house, get one of their own tragically killed in a patently legitimate act of self-defense, and then go whining about it all the way to the innocent American's sentencing hearing. It's not like the PDs woke up one way and said "you know what we really need to budget for today, is new assault rifles and complete combat body armor rigs for every officer!", and then woke up another day and said "and today we need to assault our victims using shock tactics!". No, these things were installed into them "in one fell swoop" using Federal money, hand-in-hand, part of a package deal designed to circumvent Posse Comitatus Act.

    I guess my point is just that I don't think very many cops would actually want to dress that way and/or behave that way if they weren't inculcated with this pseudo/proto-military attitude (no offense to coconut, who apparently does like to do the whole battle rattle thing).

    Should we ban tacticool helmets and armor for cops? I don't see why; I'm more interested in putting a leash on their use of weapons in low-risk encounters.

    But the tacticool gear goes hand in hand with the actual tactics that are being employed, which do need to be stopped. Those tactics range from no-knock raids to acoustic area-effect weapons, none of which is an acceptable way to treat free, innocent-until-proven-guilty citizens.

  22. #22
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I think the problem, though, is that in practice the clothes have a whole lot to do with the attitude (militaristic is how you initially defined it, and I'm inclined to agree, although I don't have the firsthand experience of coconut here). And the attitude does have a lot to do with why police have become so out of control. Self-evidently, I would think.
    Ah, an excellent point. Very Stanford prison experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) or Milgram experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). Dress people up to be prepared for full-contact policing and they'll do full-contact policing, especially if they get orders to crack some skulls.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    You got it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Size is not adjustable. Nobody wants one that's too tight.



  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    yelohamr wrote:
    Size is not adjustable.* Nobody wants one that's too tight.
    This, coming from the guy who thinks Arpaio is good model for LEOs. :P

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •