A sheriff speaks out.

In response, an ignorant judge rules against Arpaio:




Hmm... Ok. If this is true, then local law enforcement agencies shouldn't enforce any federal laws. :lol: Heck, even cooperating with federal authorities might be seen as "enforcement," so perhaps that should be frowned upon, as well.

since9 said:

In response, an ignorant judge rules against Arpaio:

""Local law enforcement agencies, such as MCSO, may not enforce civil federal immigration law," Snow said in his written opinion."​

Hmm... Ok. If this is true, then local law enforcement agencies shouldn't enforce any federal laws. :lol: Heck, even cooperating with federal authorities might be seen as "enforcement," so perhaps that should be frowned upon, as well.

Click to expand...

Actually, the judge is correct. Under normal circumstances, Local and State law enforcement do not have the jurisdictional authority to enforce federal law, just like the feds, under normal circumstances cannot enforce state or local law

Another SC Sheriff tells women to Get You a Gun

This is one of those stories that make you sick. One sheriff in this article says to women (and men) to get a CWP (he has to say that as he can't say what he really thinks ). This is one story that if the lady had only had a gun in her console, which is perfectly legal in SC with or without a CWP, then the ending would have been different.

http://www2.scnow.com/news/pee-dee/...esterfield-county-assaulted-and-k-ar-2936268/

since9 said:

In response, an ignorant judge rules against Arpaio:

""Local law enforcement agencies, such as MCSO, may not enforce civil federal immigration law," Snow said in his written opinion."​

Hmm... Ok. If this is true, then local law enforcement agencies shouldn't enforce any federal laws. :lol: Heck, even cooperating with federal authorities might be seen as "enforcement," so perhaps that should be frowned upon, as well.

Click to expand...

That's how it used to be, many many years ago. Local law enforcers would only cooperate with feds at the direct command to do so. There's an article about New Mexico somewhere where the sherrifs and mayors are doing just that.

People wanted to cut trees to make a fire break on their property to save their home in case of wildfire. EPA said they would arrest anyone who did so, local Sherriff said he'd arrest anyone cooperating with the EPA for false arrest if the EPA tried to do so.

The trees got cut, noone got arrested.

A mayor there hasn't filed tax forms with the IRS for about ten years. He pays his taxes directly to the treasury. They keep threatening him but he told them if they could find a judge to enforce it, he'd do it.

Nothing has happened because of his refusal to file to date.


It goes on like this. Not saying we should all follow suit, but I was all "Hellz yeah" when I read the article.



Sent using tapatalk

hermannr said:

Actually, the judge is correct. Under normal circumstances, Local and State law enforcement do not have the jurisdictional authority to enforce federal law...

Click to expand...

Wanna bet?

I, along with every other citizen in the United States, have the authority to enforce federal law. I can detain, and even arrest someone for violating certain federal laws. Step two is calling the feds (FBI, DEA, ICE, etc.) to proceed from there, as only they have jurisdiction to proceed further. Only they can make the decision to book them, incarcerate them, or release them.

...just like the feds, under normal circumstances cannot enforce state or local law

Click to expand...

Like all U.S. citizens, the feds can similarly detain or arrest someone for violating a state, county, or local law. They, too, are responsible for calling the law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction to take charge of the suspect and proceed from there.

Read more about Citizen's Arrest, here, keeping in mine that all federal, state, county, and local law enforcement officers are themselves U.S. Citizens.

Read more about Detention, including detention by a citizen, here.

Want to fight crime?

Penn & Teller has it right, issue all women a pistol (a pink one)!

Link

At $400 for each pistol, and census 2010 data has women 18+ at 120,727,881, cost would be approx $48 Billion.
Those women who "opt out" get a cash voucher for other defense use (ie taser, pepper spray, home alarm, etc).

1,854,980 violent crimes against women in 2010 (sorce DOJ).
Number vary, but it's around $22-25K per year per prison inmate (not counting police, forensics, and court costs to get them there).
Mid-2010, there were 1.4 million prisoners, so approx $30-35 Billion for a single year of their prison time.

So it would cost the same as US prison housing costs of 1.5 years to equip all women with a self defense pistol.
After the initial cost, the money would be re-couped over the years by fewer violent criminals in prison and lower police / court costs.
This would also ease prison over crowding, allowing for criminals to serve ALL their time; no early out due to prison overcrowding, no need to build more prisons.

And like Penn says, if even only 50% of women were armed, it would make criminals think twice when they have a coin flip chance to get shot.

alas, NC does not allow any type of citizen's arrest

so might be hard for north carolinians to hold someone while awaiting for the federales to arrive...

tis quite a disturbing concept actually...

wabbit

ncwabbit said:

so might be hard for north carolinians to hold someone while awaiting for the federales to arrive...

Click to expand...

That's why I included the links, ncwabbit, which mention: "Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen..."

When are you going to get that changed?

Lord Sega said:

And like Penn says, if even only 50% of women were armed...

Click to expand...

What would Penn say if 80% of all perps were shot dead while committing their felonies, never to suck taxpayer dollars paying their jail time?