Question for a LEO...

SgtScott31 · Dec 9, 2011

user said:
1) Never rely on legal advice from someone who is not your attorney, especially cops, deputy sheriffs, and clerks of court.

2) Remember five little letters, write them on the fingers of one hand, if necessary: K Y B M S. Keep Your Big Mouth Shut. Ask to speak to your attorney and then KYBMS.

3) Call their bluff - if they say they have to arrest you and interrogate you at the police station, go with them and put up with the nonsense. Better to spend a couple nights in jail than twenty years in the penitentiary.

4) "I want my lawyer!" - and KYBMS.

5) Did I mention that you ought to keep your big mouth shut? Most of the people I've represented who got convicted for whatever shot themselves in the foot, figuratively speaking, by talking to cops, who will then rewrite, rearrange, and recharacterize what you say in order to get probable cause where none existed, and to get a conviction on the basis of a "confession" that wasn't. Think of it as clever marketing. If you give them ammunition, they can, and will use it against you in a court of law. So, and while I'm at it let me mention, you ought to Keep Your Big Mouth Shut.

Now, you want to know how I really feel?

In my 10 years as a LEO, Sergeant, and FTO (and part-time academy instructor), I've never had to rearrange, rewrite, and recharacterize anything to get a conviction. I don't have to bend the truth or fabricate probable cause and I don't know of anyone I work with that has either. If it's anyone that does it on a daily basis it's your clients. Why else do 95%+ of arrests end in plea bargains. Surely not because THEY'RE GUILTY. Give me a break.

Citizen · Dec 9, 2011

SgtScott31 said:
In my 10 years as a LEO, Sergeant, and FTO (and part-time academy instructor), I've never had to rearrange, rewrite, and recharacterize anything to get a conviction. I don't have to bend the truth or fabricate probable cause and I don't know of anyone I work with that has either. If it's anyone that does it on a daily basis it's your clients. Why else do 95%+ of arrests end in plea bargains. Surely not because THEY'RE GUILTY. Give me a break.

Any state and the nation is quite a bit bigger than your own department and personal experience. If you and your co-workers kept it clean, well done and thank you.

But, the evidence of police abuse is extensive, and growing with advent of DVRs recording police.

Freedom 1st · Dec 9, 2011

tletourneau said:
This, as with many things, depends on the laws in your state. In MN you are required by law to render aid to the person that you shot.

Sent from my EVO 4G using Tapatalk.

Officer: How did the BG, get a bullet wound under the chin and blow the top of his head off?

citizen: Officer I was attempting to cover the bad guy and do chest compressions, while administering CPR...... Nuff said.

SgtScott31 · Dec 9, 2011

Any state and the nation is quite a bit bigger than your own department and personal experience. If you and your co-workers kept it clean, well done and thank you.

But, the evidence of police abuse is extensive, and growing with advent of DVRs recording police.

You are correct. The state & nation is extensively bigger. Problem is, your kind and the media tend to focus on the .05% of officers that cause problems versus the 99.95% that are doing the job right. Corrupt LEOs or those that attempt to bend the rules account for a fraction of a percent of those that live by the oath and do the best they can to enforce the laws your elected officials put on the books. I have no problems with video, but it's not necessarily the solution either. A large majority of the viewing public only get to see the amount of video the person filming wants them to see. Only when the entire episode is shown in the courtroom does the truth normally come out.

It is interesting that you mention conviction. These ordinance 'violations' rarely result in a 'conviction' when applying them to a lawfully armed citizen exercising their 2A right in public, but increasingly result in LEO remedial training to 'get up to speed on the law'. I do agree that the vast majority of LEOs likely do not need to 'to rearrange, rewrite, and re-characterize anything to get a conviction' because those citizens arrested likely did violate the law.

If you know the law regarding the lawful exercise of a citizens 2A right in your jurisdiction do your fellow officers know what you know? Do they follow the law? Or, do they apply a law and let a judge work it out later? I find the later to be the case and not the former.

I didn't know we were specifically referring to firearm-related calls, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that's the focus of the argument on this forum. There really hasn't been an issue in my state. You're required to have a permit to carry. Having a permit is only a defense to carrying, so LEOs can stop to verify permit/legal status to go armed. As far as officers "charging" and letting the judge work it out later, that does not happen often. Compare it to the amount of arrests every day, I'm sure it's also less than 1% of those that enter the courtroom.

Citizen · Dec 10, 2011

SgtScott31 said:
You are correct. The state & nation is extensively bigger. Problem is, your kind and the media tend to focus on the .05% of officers that cause problems versus the 99.95% that are doing the job right. Corrupt LEOs or those that attempt to bend the rules account for a fraction of a percent of those that live by the oath and do the best they can to enforce the laws your elected officials put on the books. I have no problems with video, but it's not necessarily the solution either. A large majority of the viewing public only get to see the amount of video the person filming wants them to see. Only when the entire episode is shown in the courtroom does the truth normally come out.

My kind? (chuckle)

Point oh five percent? Hahahahaha! That horse won't run anymore. Your industry and its apologists have been waving that in citizens' faces for decades, hoping nobody will look beyond, nor apply critical thinking skills.

Lets start with--oh, my! what's this?--an expose in Florida on thousands--thousands!--of cops who remain on the job despite (insert offense here).

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20111204/ARTICLE/111209980/2416/NEWS?p=1&tc=pg

I found it here: http://www.theagitator.com/ An entry for Thursday 12-8-11. The blogger focuses on police misconduct, among other things. Lots of usual information to help see through your .05% smokescreen apology.

There is another website out there, maintained by a lawyer I think, that posts newspaper articles on rights-violator cops. Tons of links, practically weekly. If any reader knows it, feel free to mention its name.

Then there is the whole picture where command covers up or minimizes police abuses. And, the whole police union angle about keeping bad cops on the job (see the linked story above for some of that.)

Oh, and lets not forget the Blue Wall of Silence. Hmmmmm. Very interesting. Even so-called good cops cover up or look the other way on bad cops.

You might not mind citizen video, but your industry sure does. There's been a whole running spate of citizens arrested, or their video seized and deleted over the last year or so. With the police making the most blatantly specious arguments to justify their actions in the absence of law making it clearly illegal.

Oh, and where was the outrage from police officers nationwide over those video arrests, camera seizures, and deletions? Oh, I'm sorry, there was one cop--exactly one--who wrote an article/essay supporting citizens and their 1A right. Where was the rest of the 99.05% of "good" cops?

Lets take a look at a couple incidents.

The fella at the Maryland college who was beaten by several cops, who claimed it was justified. This was the beating after a game, outside, after dark, with mounted cops. Readers will remember. The security camera video magically disappeared. Eventually it turned up, proving the victim's side of the story. Now, two little questions. First, what are the odds that the only six bad cops in that whole town all just happened to be on that exact street corner, all at the same time? And, second, of the remaining cops present, what are the odds that all of them developed amnesia such that they couldn't report the truth once the police side of the story made it into the press? Hmmmmm?

Then there was the homeless guy literally beaten to death. Recall the hospital bed photo from before he died? The guy wasn't recognizeable. Citizen video recorded him calling out feebly for his dad, and begging the cops to stop. It was at a bus terminal at night. Same two little questions. What are the odds the only four bad cops in that whole department happened to be at that bus terminal at that exact time? And, what are the odds the remaining cops developed amnesia such that they couldn't clear up the matter?

Videos only show the full truth when they get to court? Yeah, right. Like there was never any videos that showed behavior so egregious, there was no justification, whole video or not. Heh, heh, heh. I bet you were hoping I didn't think of the other side of the coin: the police videos that disappear or have "technical problems", a phenomenom so common that a state Supreme Court or Court of Appeals took notice of it last year in an official opinion. Mississipi or Alabama, I forget.

There are a number of "my kind" who don't buy the .05% excuse anymore. And, our numbers are growing thanks to video and the internet giving us access to the big picture. The evidence is too extensive, and it requires no leap of logic to figure out that so-called good cops aren't doing anywhere near enough about it, nor to figure out that if this is what we see, there must be quite a bit more unseen, thanks to the Blue Wall of Silence.

SouthernBoy · Dec 10, 2011

okboomer said:
Almost but didn't happen ... this time the cops were called and I wore the silver bracelets for a while that night.

Then the DA got froggy and tried to make me out to be the BG.

If a DA was of a mind to bring charges against a true victim of a deadly attack who chose to respond in kind to the attack that would, in my mind, be criminal and should result in his removal from that position. By true, I mean a real and honest use of deadly force to protect oneself from an attack. There are DA's who just do not like citizens to carry firearms for their protection and look for an axe to grind in the form of a defensive shooting to show that if the gun were not present, the BG would not have been shot. Strange mental state.

The county in which I live has an aggressive CA who does not like the idea of criminals preying upon the innocent. He has put a lot of them on death row and doesn't hesitate to do what needs to be done with BG's. My guess is that he would look with favor upon a citizen who was forced to use deadly force and not disdain.

MilProGuy · Dec 10, 2011

Citizen said:
Want and ask do not mean the same thing.

Ah...got me on a technicality.

Still...it was the OP who was wanting input from LEOs. :dude:

okboomer · Dec 10, 2011

SouthernBoy said:
If a DA was of a mind to bring charges against a true victim of a deadly attack who chose to respond in kind to the attack that would, in my mind, be criminal and should result in his removal from that position. By true, I mean a real and honest use of deadly force to protect oneself from an attack. There are DA's who just do not like citizens to carry firearms for their protection and look for an axe to grind in the form of a defensive shooting to show that if the gun were not present, the BG would not have been shot. Strange mental state.

The county in which I live has an aggressive CA who does not like the idea of criminals preying upon the innocent. He has put a lot of them on death row and doesn't hesitate to do what needs to be done with BG's. My guess is that he would look with favor upon a citizen who was forced to use deadly force and not disdain.

Yep, DA doesn't think anyone other than a LEO should be carrying, and according to the police reports filed that night (got later, FOIA), they also made it sound like I had been the aggressor. However, I had several cops (not there, they work the day shift) who privately told me there was a pretty deep schism in the PD over how I was treated. As it is, the other civilian witness statements (from the BG +3) could not even agree between themselves about the sequence of events, whereas me and my 2 witness' statements were just about point-for-point in agreement ... small details due to point of view were different.

Now, since then, we have had a change in Governor and State Attorney General who both are pro-gun and the DAs stance has changed accordingly ... he does want to be re-elected next year.

This wasn't a "BG out to rob and got the drop" type of situation ... it was a "meeting" that went bad and escalated from there. That is all I can or will say, but I was in the right and had State and Federal statute to back me up, I just had to take it to court and the judge had to rule before the DA would admit he was in an untennable position.

SgtScott31 · Dec 10, 2011

Citizen said:
My kind? (chuckle)

Point oh five percent? Hahahahaha! That horse won't run anymore. Your industry and its apologists have been waving that in citizens' faces for decades, hoping nobody will look beyond, nor apply critical thinking skills.

Lets start with--oh, my! what's this?--an expose in Florida on thousands--thousands!--of cops who remain on the job despite (insert offense here).

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20111204/ARTICLE/111209980/2416/NEWS?p=1&tc=pg

I found it here: http://www.theagitator.com/ An entry for Thursday 12-8-11. The blogger focuses on police misconduct, among other things. Lots of usual information to help see through your .05% smokescreen apology.

There is another website out there, maintained by a lawyer I think, that posts newspaper articles on rights-violator cops. Tons of links, practically weekly. If any reader knows it, feel free to mention its name.

Then there is the whole picture where command covers up or minimizes police abuses. And, the whole police union angle about keeping bad cops on the job (see the linked story above for some of that.)

Oh, and lets not forget the Blue Wall of Silence. Hmmmmm. Very interesting. Even so-called good cops cover up or look the other way on bad cops.

You might not mind citizen video, but your industry sure does. There's been a whole running spate of citizens arrested, or their video seized and deleted over the last year or so. With the police making the most blatantly specious arguments to justify their actions in the absence of law making it clearly illegal.

Oh, and where was the outrage from police officers nationwide over those video arrests, camera seizures, and deletions? Oh, I'm sorry, there was one cop--exactly one--who wrote an article/essay supporting citizens and their 1A right. Where was the rest of the 99.05% of "good" cops?

Lets take a look at a couple incidents.

The fella at the Maryland college who was beaten by several cops, who claimed it was justified. This was the beating after a game, outside, after dark, with mounted cops. Readers will remember. The security camera video magically disappeared. Eventually it turned up, proving the victim's side of the story. Now, two little questions. First, what are the odds that the only six bad cops in that whole town all just happened to be on that exact street corner, all at the same time? And, second, of the remaining cops present, what are the odds that all of them developed amnesia such that they couldn't report the truth once the police side of the story made it into the press? Hmmmmm?

Then there was the homeless guy literally beaten to death. Recall the hospital bed photo from before he died? The guy wasn't recognizeable. Citizen video recorded him calling out feebly for his dad, and begging the cops to stop. It was at a bus terminal at night. Same two little questions. What are the odds the only four bad cops in that whole department happened to be at that bus terminal at that exact time? And, what are the odds the remaining cops developed amnesia such that they couldn't clear up the matter?

Videos only show the full truth when they get to court? Yeah, right. Like there was never any videos that showed behavior so egregious, there was no justification, whole video or not. Heh, heh, heh. I bet you were hoping I didn't think of the other side of the coin: the police videos that disappear or have "technical problems", a phenomenom so common that a state Supreme Court or Court of Appeals took notice of it last year in an official opinion. Mississipi or Alabama, I forget.

There are a number of "my kind" who don't buy the .05% excuse anymore. And, our numbers are growing thanks to video and the internet giving us access to the big picture. The evidence is too extensive, and it requires no leap of logic to figure out that so-called good cops aren't doing anywhere near enough about it, nor to figure out that if this is what we see, there must be quite a bit more unseen, thanks to the Blue Wall of Silence.

You can cite as many allegations/media stories of police abuse/wrongful arrests as you want. When you actually put ALL of these incidents combined against the amount of total arrests that occur in a year in this country it is still miniscule. Just as a quick example, the 2010 UCR report shows just under 11,000,000 crimes reported. The UCR is compiled by arrests turned in by agencies nationwide. That's how they generate the "crime report." So let's go big (even though it's no where near this number) and say 10,000 of them were "wrongful" arrests. 10,000 "bad" arrests out of 11,000,000 total arrests = .0009%. Wow, there are corrupt cops everywhere (insert sarcasm here).

Your herald tribune article is comical at best. I don't believe their paper deserves to be capitalized so it's not a grammatical error on my part. Most of the story is generalizations and also includes correctional officers. Most state correctional systems have lower hiring standards because the pay is almost the lowest in the country and they can't find anyone to work in the prisons. Although there are solid cases of police misconduct, it falls in the .0009% I mentioned above. People can video tape us all day long. Agencies have increased their hiring standards significantly in the last 10 years, requiring formal education, psych evals, credit checks, and cleaner backgrounds. Regardless, there's always going to be some bad apples that are able to squeeze in. There's nothing that can be done about that, no matter how many tests the applicant is put through. I have no problem sitting here and telling you that there will always be some corrupt LEOs among the thousands that are hired every year. The agencies can only do so much to try and detect them and keep them off the street. With that said, you can preach until you're blue in the face, but statistically those bad apples still make up only a fraction of a percent of those officers that put their lives on the line every day. For every 10 stories you want to throw on here about an officer abusing his authority, I could throw in 1,000 stories of officers risking their lives for a stranger somewhere in this country.

p.s. When I say "your kind" I'm referring to those who attempt to overexaggerate the amount of police misconduct just because you and a few of your cronies had a bad encounter with a LEO involving your open carry agenda.

SgtScott31 · Dec 10, 2011

It appears that you are in favor of citizens being required to have state permission to exercise their constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

You are correct. I have no problem with the current laws (regulation) in place in my state. My opinion is in line with the US Supreme Court, who also says that some regulation enforced by the states is not unconstitutional. Your opinion (along with many others here I'm sure) is that it's an infringement. I'm sure it's based on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Your interpretation differs from mine and most of the judges/justices that sit on the bench in this country.

user · Dec 11, 2011

SgtScott31 said:
In my 10 years as a LEO, Sergeant, and FTO (and part-time academy instructor), I've never had to rearrange, rewrite, and recharacterize anything to get a conviction. I don't have to bend the truth or fabricate probable cause and I don't know of anyone I work with that has either. If it's anyone that does it on a daily basis it's your clients. Why else do 95%+ of arrests end in plea bargains. Surely not because THEY'RE GUILTY. Give me a break.

Actually, most of the cases I've handled, I think, ended in acquittals, nolle prosequi's, or dismissals; I strongly discourage plea-bargains. That doesn't mean that your basic point is wrong, though, because there are lots and lots of cases in which people are charged with five crimes in order to get them to plead to one or two, or where damage control really is their only hope; I meant only that my own experience is a little different from the average criminal defense attorney. And frankly, most of those are because my clients were put on trial not because they were actually guilty of a crime but because some jackass cop went off on an agenda of his own, and tried to implement his own idea about what the law ought to be (including criminalization of people he doesn't happen to like). I say this because I think your own experience may be different from that of "most" cops; there's probably a reason why you were selected to teach at the academy.

I've seen lots of cases in which cops did rearrange, rewrite, and recharacterize statements for the specific purpose of getting a conviction. That's because they're not all like you. Cops are like criminal defense attorneys, plumbers, or car mechanics, or any other collection of humans: some are really good (as, no doubt you and all the cops you know and have had reason to keep careful track of such as to be able to report on their purity of mission), some are really bad (and I've seen a good many of those in action), and most are average. I've seen a good many other cases in which cops were well-meaning, emotionally stable, and highly professional individuals. I've known a good many who were exemplary citizens by any criterion. But they're not the ones who are a threat to national security - it's the "bad apples", as you put it, and the citizen on the street who gets stopped by a cop has to assume that he's potentially dealing with a "bad apple", just as the cop executing a traffic stop has to approach the car with the assumption that the driver is a dangerous fleeing felon, and for exactly the same reason.

user · Dec 11, 2011

SgtScott31 said:
You are correct. I have no problem with the current laws (regulation) in place in my state. My opinion is in line with the US Supreme Court, who also says that some regulation enforced by the states is not unconstitutional. Your opinion (along with many others here I'm sure) is that it's an infringement. I'm sure it's based on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Your interpretation differs from mine and most of the judges/justices that sit on the bench in this country.

I'm with you on that one. The United States has no authority to regulate what the states may do that is consistent with their own constitutions, as long as they have a "republican form of government". That includes the imposition of the Bill of Rights upon the states. State governments are different kinds of governments from the United States and exist on a parallel plane, not on a hierarchically inferior plane. So if Illinois wants to have gun control, and that is consistent with their own constitution, or for that matter, if the citizens of Utah want to make the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints the official state religion, that's no problem for me. The Bill of Rights was intended to be absolute and self-executing as to the United States; there is no room for "reasonable regulation". But as to a state government, well, the reason you can have laws against defamation is because they have the police power to enforce inappropriate speech, which the United States does not have. The whole reason for the Supreme Court's having treated all governments as subject to the same set of regulations is to expand the power of the United States as against both the states and individual citizens. The recent Heller decision was not a big win for the right of self-defense; it was the final nail in the coffin of federalism; we all lost the last vestige of our rights with that decision.

SouthernBoy · Dec 11, 2011

user said:
I'm with you on that one. The United States has no authority to regulate what the states may do that is consistent with their own constitutions, as long as they have a "republican form of government". That includes the imposition of the Bill of Rights upon the states. State governments are different kinds of governments from the United States and exist on a parallel plane, not on a hierarchically inferior plane. So if Illinois wants to have gun control, and that is consistent with their own constitution, or for that matter, if the citizens of Utah want to make the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints the official state religion, that's no problem for me. The Bill of Rights was intended to be absolute and self-executing as to the United States; there is no room for "reasonable regulation". But as to a state government, well, the reason you can have laws against defamation is because they have the police power to enforce inappropriate speech, which the United States does not have. The whole reason for the Supreme Court's having treated all governments as subject to the same set of regulations is to expand the power of the United States as against both the states and individual citizens. The recent Heller decision was not a big win for the right of self-defense; it was the final nail in the coffin of federalism; we all lost the last vestige of our rights with that decision.

Well written, user. And you can bet that most Americans not only do not know these facts, but would be appalled at their very idea were they to be taught that this is the Original Intent the Founders designed into our system. They just do not understand nor believe that this was and is how it is supposed to be.

In the 1960's Playboy magazine, of all sources, contracted a simple survey of a kind where they re-worded our three founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights) into contemporary speech, verbiage, and flow, and using the then current president's in place of the king of England. They simplified the documents then presented them to random people on the street to see what their reactions were and requesting them to sign them if they agreed with their content. Most were aghast at the concepts proposed and outlined in the documents and refused to sign with some getting angered and vulgar. The fact that they didn't even recognize the connection to our real Founding documents and thereby signed their approval is astounding but not beyond understanding.

For years, people have been slowly weened away from the concepts and ideas that founded this nation and have adopted a centralized mentality. And one of the biggest single factors attributing to this is the concept of interpretation as it applies to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The problem with interpretation is that it gets all muddied up with contemporary thought. It becomes nearly impossible to view these documents in their Original Intent because to do so does not serve the interests of what is believed by so many to be proper and correct in modern society. And people actually support this view to the extent that these documents become further and further removed from the life of contemporary America. This only makes it that much easier to thread in pretty much anything they want into the wordings, or remove pretty much anything with which they disapprove.

Interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is killing the Great Experiment. Khrushchev was right. We will destroy ourselves from within.

SgtScott31 · Dec 12, 2011

user said:
Actually, most of the cases I've handled, I think, ended in acquittals, nolle prosequi's, or dismissals; I strongly discourage plea-bargains. That doesn't mean that your basic point is wrong, though, because there are lots and lots of cases in which people are charged with five crimes in order to get them to plead to one or two, or where damage control really is their only hope; I meant only that my own experience is a little different from the average criminal defense attorney. And frankly, most of those are because my clients were put on trial not because they were actually guilty of a crime but because some jackass cop went off on an agenda of his own, and tried to implement his own idea about what the law ought to be (including criminalization of people he doesn't happen to like). I say this because I think your own experience may be different from that of "most" cops; there's probably a reason why you were selected to teach at the academy.

I've seen lots of cases in which cops did rearrange, rewrite, and recharacterize statements for the specific purpose of getting a conviction. That's because they're not all like you. Cops are like criminal defense attorneys, plumbers, or car mechanics, or any other collection of humans: some are really good (as, no doubt you and all the cops you know and have had reason to keep careful track of such as to be able to report on their purity of mission), some are really bad (and I've seen a good many of those in action), and most are average. I've seen a good many other cases in which cops were well-meaning, emotionally stable, and highly professional individuals. I've known a good many who were exemplary citizens by any criterion. But they're not the ones who are a threat to national security - it's the "bad apples", as you put it, and the citizen on the street who gets stopped by a cop has to assume that he's potentially dealing with a "bad apple", just as the cop executing a traffic stop has to approach the car with the assumption that the driver is a dangerous fleeing felon, and for exactly the same reason.

I'm going to simplify my argument and just say that those "bad apples" are minuscule when it comes to the majority of LEOs in this country. As far as rearranging or rewriting to get a conviction, how exactly to do you know that? Because it contradicts your client's testimony or do you have valid evidence to support it? Not that I think you're making it up, but I hope it's the latter and you're not basing this upon what your clients are telling you. You and I both know that there's an old saying that "20% of the criminals commit 80% of the crime," i.e. they're either career-criminals or repeat offenders. Many have profound tendency to lie to the cops, their attorneys, and the judges. I'm not trying to say that ALL officers are saints by any means, but when it comes to good vs. bad, I believe the good is 98%+ in this country. Although bad publicity regarding LEOs is broadcast every day on our TVs, let's not forget the media's purpose: to bring in ratings and "shock" value. I've dealt with even the local networks enough to know what their agenda is. Anything that can be "Breaking News" is what matters to them, regardless of whether they get the facts straight or not. Problem is, very few in this country stay with the story and go to the courthouse (civil or criminal) to see how it plays out in the end.

SgtScott31 · Dec 12, 2011

user said:
I'm with you on that one. The United States has no authority to regulate what the states may do that is consistent with their own constitutions, as long as they have a "republican form of government". That includes the imposition of the Bill of Rights upon the states. State governments are different kinds of governments from the United States and exist on a parallel plane, not on a hierarchically inferior plane. So if Illinois wants to have gun control, and that is consistent with their own constitution, or for that matter, if the citizens of Utah want to make the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints the official state religion, that's no problem for me. The Bill of Rights was intended to be absolute and self-executing as to the United States; there is no room for "reasonable regulation". But as to a state government, well, the reason you can have laws against defamation is because they have the police power to enforce inappropriate speech, which the United States does not have. The whole reason for the Supreme Court's having treated all governments as subject to the same set of regulations is to expand the power of the United States as against both the states and individual citizens. The recent Heller decision was not a big win for the right of self-defense; it was the final nail in the coffin of federalism; we all lost the last vestige of our rights with that decision.

I don't agree. The Bill of Rights could not have been absolute considering the evolution of our society. The founders could not have possibly predicted how things were going to be today and to me it's only appropriate that some things should be open to interpretation to do what's best for the U.S. Now obviously with politics, there are differences of opinions on interpretation of what that is, hence the different viewpoints from the 9th Circuit versus other U.S. Appellate courts. The founders wanted what was right for the American people. The state Constitutions can be more strict in some respects, but states cannot write legislation or form a Constitution that is directly in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Am I correct in my assumption that by your argument it would be more beneficial to have no states or state Constitutions? No state boundaries? I'm curious as to what your answer is about firearm carry in this country and if any restrictions on firearms are necessary for the protection of the rest of the non-carrying public.

Aknazer · Dec 12, 2011

user said:
I'm with you on that one. The United States has no authority to regulate what the states may do that is consistent with their own constitutions, as long as they have a "republican form of government". That includes the imposition of the Bill of Rights upon the states. State governments are different kinds of governments from the United States and exist on a parallel plane, not on a hierarchically inferior plane. So if Illinois wants to have gun control, and that is consistent with their own constitution, or for that matter, if the citizens of Utah want to make the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints the official state religion, that's no problem for me. The Bill of Rights was intended to be absolute and self-executing as to the United States; there is no room for "reasonable regulation". But as to a state government, well, the reason you can have laws against defamation is because they have the police power to enforce inappropriate speech, which the United States does not have. The whole reason for the Supreme Court's having treated all governments as subject to the same set of regulations is to expand the power of the United States as against both the states and individual citizens. The recent Heller decision was not a big win for the right of self-defense; it was the final nail in the coffin of federalism; we all lost the last vestige of our rights with that decision.

I agree in that the Constitution and BoR as originally written can't be forced onto the states as it outlines the power and restrictions on the Federal government. My question is, how does the 14th Amendment play into all of this? To my uneducated eyes Section 1 looks like it forces the same restrictions onto the states as have been placed on the Federal government in regards to peoples rights.

SgtScott31 said:
I don't agree. The Bill of Rights could not have been absolute considering the evolution of our society. The founders could not have possibly predicted how things were going to be today and to me it's only appropriate that some things should be open to interpretation to do what's best for the U.S. Now obviously with politics, there are differences of opinions on interpretation of what that is, hence the different viewpoints from the 9th Circuit versus other U.S. Appellate courts. The founders wanted what was right for the American people. The state Constitutions can be more strict in some respects, but states cannot write legislation or form a Constitution that is directly in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Am I correct in my assumption that by your argument it would be more beneficial to have no states or state Constitutions? No state boundaries? I'm curious as to what your answer is about firearm carry in this country and if any restrictions on firearms are necessary for the protection of the rest of the non-carrying public.

It is absolute. But as you said the founders couldn't have possibly predicted how things were going to be in the future. And to handle that they put in a method to alter the Constitution; amendments. If something has become outdated then an amendment should be passed to remove it. You should NOT just twist the interpretation to mean what you want it to mean. Also when you read the documents there isn't even anything that can be left to interpretation. The stuff is pretty clear unless you choose to change the meaning over the years. But again, that is someone twisting what it meant in order to make it mean what they want it to mean.

While I can't comment for user, I'll still comment on your second paragraph as well. No it would not be better to have no states or state Constitutions. States help people to govern theirselves and choose what is best for them as opposed to having someone not from their community (and I use the term loosely) dictate to them what to do. But sadly that is what is currently happening in that the Federal government is unconstitutionally growing to a point where state boundaries don't matter and the Feds pretty much try to dictate to the states what they will do and how they will do it.

And no, restrictions aren't needed to "protect" the non-carrying public from the carrying public. Criminals are going to break the law regardless of what "restrictions" you put in place and they should be appropriately punished to disuade/prevent them from commiting the crime in the future. If the person isn't a criminal then the public doesn't need to be protected from them. If the public is "scared" of the gun, well too bad that doesn't mean that it is a threat, illegal, or criminal. If anyone needs restrictions it would be the government and it's agencies (including LEAs).

Of course this is assuming that our (in)Justice system were to work correctly and properly rehabilitate/remove criminals. If someone can't be trusted with their rights then they shouldn't be allowed to go free. We need better punishments to help turn people from their criminal ways, while also helping to turn them into a valuable member of society. Instead we have a system that doesn't properly rehabilitate people, that restricts their rights even after they have served their time, and that releases people who shouldn't be released.

slowfiveoh · Dec 12, 2011

...and thus you have the impetus for the "us vs. them" occurring in society in general.

User has successfully defended clients in court under the type of drummed up circumstances alluded to by "bad cops" via this thread, and, other historical referendum.

I have had this conversation in great detail with SgtScott in another thread. He is incapable of having a historical, scientifically derived conversation substantiating his opinion of a "living, breathing Constitution". He bowed out not so gracefully last time, and I am sure he will do so here as well.

SgtScott, for us to have laws worth the paper they are written on, they must be as close to solid in intent, purpose, and meaning as possible. Any sort of research conducted on your behalf into the ratification of the Constitution will lead you to the same conclusion as the vast majority of Constitutional scholars. It makes 0 sense to make foundational law that waves like fields of wheat in the lightest judicial breeze. Research will help you greatly here.

Until you conduct research, and can make citations with historical referendum, particularly framer comments supporting your position, your opinion on the matter is no more valuable than the bath tissue I wipe my posterior with.

Good day.

Aknazer · Dec 12, 2011

OC for ME said:
Your premise is predicated on the position, shared by the Brady coalition, that 'reasonable' firearm restrictions as defined by the anti-2A faction of this country, are necessary/required for the protection of the non-carrying public. How is a properly holstered firearm, OCed by a law abiding citizen, a threat to the non-carrying public?

Exactly. The whole premise of the arguement is a solution ("reasonable regulation" of law abiding citizens) looking for a problem where one doesn't exist. If one is law abiding then there's no issue. If one is a criminal then your laws don't matter (criminals don't obey the law; if they did they wouldn't be criminals) and they should be punished appropriately.

1245A Defender · Dec 13, 2011

wow, well, huh?

user said:
I'm with you on that one. The United States has no authority to regulate what the states may do that is consistent with their own constitutions, as long as they have a "republican form of government". That includes the imposition of the Bill of Rights upon the states. State governments are different kinds of governments from the United States and exist on a parallel plane, not on a hierarchically inferior plane. So if Illinois wants to have gun control, and that is consistent with their own constitution, or for that matter, if the citizens of Utah want to make the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints the official state religion, that's no problem for me. The Bill of Rights was intended to be absolute and self-executing as to the United States; there is no room for "reasonable regulation". But as to a state government, well, the reason you can have laws against defamation is because they have the police power to enforce inappropriate speech, which the United States does not have. The whole reason for the Supreme Court's having treated all governments as subject to the same set of regulations is to expand the power of the United States as against both the states and individual citizens. The recent Heller decision was not a big win for the right of self-defense; it was the final nail in the coffin of federalism; we all lost the last vestige of our rights with that decision.

If all you say here is true?
then heller would not have been needed to support the 2A in D.C.
And we all should want to move and live in DC, because its the only place in the USA
where the constitution and the BOR actually should apply to all the people all of the time.

Aknazer · Dec 13, 2011

1245A Defender said:
If all you say here is true?
then heller would not have been needed to support the 2A in D.C.
And we all should want to move and live in DC, because its the only place in the USA
where the constitution and the BOR actually should apply to all the people all of the time.

The Constitution and BoR apply to everyone all the time, but only in regards to the Federal government. The states each have their own Constitutions which govern the powers and restrictions of the states. The issue is that much like the feds, the states have been doing their best to ignore their own Constitutions. The other question I have is how the 14th Amendment relates to the states and if it places the same restrictions on the states as are placed on the Feds in regards to rights and priviledges.

Question for a LEO...

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member