This is honestly terrifying. The point of Law enforcement is to apply all laws equally. Just because you don't like laws doesn't mean you get to not enforce them.
This is honestly terrifying. The point of Law enforcement is to apply all laws equally. Just because you don't like laws doesn't mean you get to not enforce them.
I'm pretty sure the entire US legal system is set up in a way where no one is required to enforce the law. From prosecutorial discretion to law enforcement officers not seeming to have any legal...
I'm pretty sure the entire US legal system is set up in a way where no one is required to enforce the law. From prosecutorial discretion to law enforcement officers not seeming to have any legal requirements to enforce laws or protect citizens.
My hometown had a particularly egregious (in my opinion) example of this. A party with a bunch of 18-20s drinking got broken up by the cops and a bunch of them got caught. Following this, a bunch...
My hometown had a particularly egregious (in my opinion) example of this. A party with a bunch of 18-20s drinking got broken up by the cops and a bunch of them got caught.
Following this, a bunch of the people (who just so happened to go to the same church as the cops) got taken to their homes and punished by "letting the parents take care of it" while the minorities that didn't happen to go to that church got records.
I didn't say it before, but the fact that there is no requirement means that those who would enforce it can protect their friends and punish those they wish to. Considering the origins of our...
I didn't say it before, but the fact that there is no requirement means that those who would enforce it can protect their friends and punish those they wish to. Considering the origins of our legal system are from the United Kingdom, this seems its origins might have been because those of the upper class were actually above the law. But here in the US it definitely allowed racists to target black people.
"Now here's a likkle truth, open up your eye While you're checkin' out the boom-bap, check the exercise Take the word overseer, like a sample Repeat it very quickly in a crew, for example...
"Now here's a likkle truth, open up your eye
While you're checkin' out the boom-bap, check the exercise
Take the word overseer, like a sample
Repeat it very quickly in a crew, for example
Overseer, overseer, overseer, overseer
Officer, officer, officer, officer
Yeah, officer from overseer"
Sound of da police - KRS One
The basis of our legal system came from the UK, but the police as law enforcement is an American grown tradition.
I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't open up departments to abuses but this is actually another part of the seperation of powers in the US. There is nothing legally binding sheriffs or anyone...
I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't open up departments to abuses but this is actually another part of the seperation of powers in the US. There is nothing legally binding sheriffs or anyone from upholding laws and IMO these people should be free to disregard unjust laws. To argue that law enforcement must apply all laws without question is to argue that they should also apply tyranical laws. It was the law seventy years ago in many states that black people were not afforded the same civil rights as white people and any Sheriff who did not want to uphold those laws would definitely have had my vote.
There are other systems in place to temper abuses by Sheriffs: prosecutors, state legislations, state governments, local and county councils or governments, all of which are often elected by the population. Are these particular Sheriffs drifting towards something extreme? Perhaps, but be careful what arguments you put forward to counter them. Saying that law enforcement must exercise the law, no matter what, is not the solution. Vote them out, vote in prosecutors who will bring charges against them or those they abett, elect local and state governments that can temper their power or bring actions against them.
There are many problems with LEOs picking and choosing what laws to enforce like they're grazing at a buffet. While I admit that this is a nuanced topic, I also feel there are incredibly dangerous...
There are many problems with LEOs picking and choosing what laws to enforce like they're grazing at a buffet.
While I admit that this is a nuanced topic, I also feel there are incredibly dangerous implications and dangerious results if rank and file LEOs can simply ignore whole branches of our government.
Uneven enforcement based on which group you belong to or based on which political party passed the law is problematic in a myriad of ways, just for starters. That is tyranny also. Separate rules for you and your kind and other rules for me and my kind doesn't build a healthy society. That cannot be framed under the guise of unconstitutional laws.
This is another push to undermine our society. Unironically, the "law and order" party is suddently anti law and order since they just can't stop defending their cult leader. They're intentionally breaking down all mores, values and traditional faith in our institutions as well as separation of powers. Long before Trump attacked the system directly he broke the system by not adhering to long established traditions and by extention social mores. This is no different.
Do you think that LEOs would have been as generous and hands off if the BLM protestors showed up at state capitols with their AR-15s as they treated the lockdown loons demanding Applebee's and haircuts? They used tear gas on old ladies to one side and handed out water to the other. THAT is tyranny.
Sheriffs are elected officials, so I 100% agree the best way to stop this would be to vote them out. The problem is their constituents WANT this mentality, and you aren't going to reason those...
Sheriffs are elected officials, so I 100% agree the best way to stop this would be to vote them out. The problem is their constituents WANT this mentality, and you aren't going to reason those people out of it.
not all. NYC and Denver's sheriffs are appointed by the mayors. Miami-Dade, Nassau County, Westchester County are appointed by county comission. there are others but i'm tired of swapping back and...
Sheriffs are elected officials, so I 100% agree the best way to stop this would be to vote them out.
not all. NYC and Denver's sheriffs are appointed by the mayors. Miami-Dade, Nassau County, Westchester County are appointed by county comission. there are others but i'm tired of swapping back and forth browser windows. check the wiki
Yup, it's true. Unjust/Unconstitutional laws are meant to be fought, everyone has a right to civil disobedience. And if this is still about those dumb gun laws then, yeah it is against an unjust law.
Yup, it's true.
Unjust/Unconstitutional laws are meant to be fought, everyone has a right to civil disobedience.
And if this is still about those dumb gun laws then, yeah it is against an unjust law.
We've already seen this play out a bit in states with Red Flag laws. Certain County sheriff's have basically said they won't enforce those laws because tYrAnNy. People will get hurt or worse...
We've already seen this play out a bit in states with Red Flag laws. Certain County sheriff's have basically said they won't enforce those laws because tYrAnNy.
People will get hurt or worse because of these people "fighting for our freedoms"
That kind of mentality has been exported to Canada, especially places like Alberta who are trying to do basically the same thing; refuse to implement or countenance laws from the federal...
That kind of mentality has been exported to Canada, especially places like Alberta who are trying to do basically the same thing; refuse to implement or countenance laws from the federal government that they themselves decide are "unconstitutional".
What is the proper (from a moral sense, not constitutional legalese) solution when the voters in a state (or county) pass a law that contradicts Federal law? When I lived in Wisconsin, we had a...
What is the proper (from a moral sense, not constitutional legalese) solution when the voters in a state (or county) pass a law that contradicts Federal law?
When I lived in Wisconsin, we had a situation where the state symbolically passed some legislation to nullify some popular Obama policy, and several local areas passed resolutions stating their municipality or county would ignore state law and align enforcement with the feds.
It likely depends on what the contradictions are. For example a bunch of states legalized cannabis even though the federal government still considers it a chedule I substance. Generally, if the...
It likely depends on what the contradictions are. For example a bunch of states legalized cannabis even though the federal government still considers it a chedule I substance.
Generally, if the feds care enough, they will show up and enforce the law. DEA has raided "legal" farms before as an example.
Quite frankly, this is an intended part of the US system. People in power are obligated to not enforce unjust/unconstitutional laws (just like how "just following orders" is not a valid excuse to...
Quite frankly, this is an intended part of the US system.
People in power are obligated to not enforce unjust/unconstitutional laws (just like how "just following orders" is not a valid excuse to escape blame), and the government has to work it out with them from there in negotiations. If it comes down to it, the national guard/army gets called in.
Right now there are ongoing lawsuits from sherriffs offices about the constitutionality of this law. Why would they enforce what they believe violates constitutional rights while fighting to not enforce it?
This is not alarming, it's happened many times before, and for much more grandiose issues as well.
When I read these responses I'm reminded how few people outside the US understand not just being beholden to your government helplessly.
This is a form of protest, at least in the US. You're saying government officials aren't allowed to protest laws they find unfair.
Ask yourself, would you really be complaining if this was a left wing group refusing to enforce abortion bans, or just something else plain unconstitutional like enforcing students to read out the pledge of allegiance in schools? This is just the flip side of that coin.
And in this case I do personally think their law is very unconstitutional,
The legislation requires a permit from law enforcement for people to purchase firearms.
Applicants would need to complete an approved, in-person firearm safety course, pay a fee, provide personal information, submit to fingerprinting and photographing, and pass a federal criminal background check to qualify for a permit. These would be processed by local police chiefs, county sheriffs or their designees.
It may sound good to you at first, but it makes gun ownership may-issue which takes away the right and makes it a privilege at the government's discretion, not to mention requires a fee (to further limit who can get it) and invades the privacy of every person wanting to buy a gun by enforcing fingerprinting.
It also bans large-capacity magazines over 10 rounds which reeks of a very shallow understanding of guns, as well as apparently doesn't offer any funding for the program that these sherriffs are supposed to run to accomplish this.
As they say,
"I believe Measure 114 is a violation of the United States Constitution and is contrary to current federal court precedent," Pollock wrote in a statement posted on the agency's Facebook page on Monday. "I have read this measure. It is poorly written and does not actually address the current criminal crisis our state currently faces."
There's nothing wrong with this, there's no violence, this is civil disobedience, and it'll be worked out with the government from here.
I figure I can also mention that the law passed by a fraction, about a .65 of a percent. That's a majority only by a technicality, this was bound to be controversial.
Unjust and unconstitutional mean two different things. LEO absolutely should be held to a higher expectation of following and enforcing laws equally versus picking and choosing. Rather than being...
Unjust and unconstitutional mean two different things. LEO absolutely should be held to a higher expectation of following and enforcing laws equally versus picking and choosing. Rather than being beholden to a more centralized authority, your suggestion puts people at the mercy of the whims and opinions of whichever local/regional cop that happens to hold power. Cops are who we need protection from and this kind of thinking is why.
To me, unconstitutional is just a subset of unjust. There are plenty of things that are wrong and should absolutely be resisted, without being in the constitution. You say this as if it were...
To me, unconstitutional is just a subset of unjust. There are plenty of things that are wrong and should absolutely be resisted, without being in the constitution.
Rather than being beholden to a more centralized authority, your suggestion puts people at the mercy of the whims and opinions of whichever local/regional cop that happens to hold power.
You say this as if it were inherently a bad thing, but that's literally the entire concept of the 50-seperate-but-united-states.
Entire states have refused to enforce federal laws before and that's not an infrequent occurrence at all, this is the same concept at a smaller scale where effectively certain counties are refusing to enforce a law.
Prigg v Pennsylvania is one decent example at the state level for why this a good thing:
The Pennsylvania legislature passed laws in 1788 and 1826 prohibiting the removal of Negroes out of the state for the purpose of enslaving them. In 1832, a black woman named Margaret Morgan moved from Maryland to Pennsylvania. Although she was never formally emancipated, her owner John Ashmore granted her virtually full freedom. Ashmore's heirs wanted her returned as a slave and sent Edward Prigg to capture her in Pennsylvania. After returning Morgan to Maryland, Prigg was convicted in a Pennsylvania court for violating the 1826 law. Prigg unsuccessfully argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that both the 1788 and 1826 laws violated the constitutional guarantee of extradition among states and the federal government's Fugitive Slave Law of 1793.
The Supremacy Clause assured that federal laws prevailed over the state laws. The decision did not wholly end asylum across state lines for slaves. Story granted that the state laws put in place by slave states to recapture slaves in free states only had to be enforced by federal officials, and not state magistrates.
Effectively, federal laws must use federal resources to enforce them, and this was used to at least partially prevent escaped/freed slaves from being dragged from Pennsylvania back into the hell of slavery.
Is this wrong in your opinion for the state of Pennsylvania to go against the federal law?
Police/government officials are allowed to have morals as well, and refuse to follow things that they believe to be illegitimate. That's a protest, and like I said, the higher tiers of government will work it out with them, or just roll in the guard and then they're removed from office and probably put in prison depending.
The sheriffs are part of their community, not just overseers (at least they should be). They should care and have a human touch rather than stripping all humanity and objections down the chain from government. It's the system of checks and balances all the way down.
So I ask you again, would you really be complaining if this was a left wing group refusing to enforce abortion bans, or just something else plain unconstitutional like enforcing students to read out the pledge of allegiance in schools?
Or if, back to a similar vein to the Prigg v Pennsylvania example we went full conserva-dystopia and brought back Jim Crow, would you be on the side telling the police to enforce it even if they think it's wrong?
This situation is definitely lesser scale by a large margin, but it's the same exact principles.
You're literally telling them "stay in line, even if you think this is wrong".
There should be a distinction between picking and choosing which laws to enforce, and picking and choosing whom to enforce laws on. The latter tends to be illegal discrimination, and the former...
There should be a distinction between picking and choosing which laws to enforce, and picking and choosing whom to enforce laws on.
The latter tends to be illegal discrimination, and the former is, for better or worse, pretty much a necessary part of our legal system. There are so many insane laws still in effect in all kinds of jurisdictions that none of us want enforced.
For anyone that wants to learn a bit more about exactly why it's so dangerous, 1A had an episode about this movement 5 years ago and it's only gotten worse recently...
For anyone that wants to learn a bit more about exactly why it's so dangerous, 1A had an episode about this movement 5 years ago and it's only gotten worse recently
I wonder if we can marvel at the moment of the brave reporting by these reporters. We are so fortunate to have a free press that includes those who would dare stand up to power and expose what...
I wonder if we can marvel at the moment of the brave reporting by these reporters. We are so fortunate to have a free press that includes those who would dare stand up to power and expose what that power would rather keep hidden.
This is honestly terrifying. The point of Law enforcement is to apply all laws equally. Just because you don't like laws doesn't mean you get to not enforce them.
I'm pretty sure the entire US legal system is set up in a way where no one is required to enforce the law. From prosecutorial discretion to law enforcement officers not seeming to have any legal requirements to enforce laws or protect citizens.
My hometown had a particularly egregious (in my opinion) example of this. A party with a bunch of 18-20s drinking got broken up by the cops and a bunch of them got caught.
Following this, a bunch of the people (who just so happened to go to the same church as the cops) got taken to their homes and punished by "letting the parents take care of it" while the minorities that didn't happen to go to that church got records.
I didn't say it before, but the fact that there is no requirement means that those who would enforce it can protect their friends and punish those they wish to. Considering the origins of our legal system are from the United Kingdom, this seems its origins might have been because those of the upper class were actually above the law. But here in the US it definitely allowed racists to target black people.
"Now here's a likkle truth, open up your eye
While you're checkin' out the boom-bap, check the exercise
Take the word overseer, like a sample
Repeat it very quickly in a crew, for example
Overseer, overseer, overseer, overseer
Officer, officer, officer, officer
Yeah, officer from overseer"
Sound of da police - KRS One
The basis of our legal system came from the UK, but the police as law enforcement is an American grown tradition.
Four hundred years later, I learned about my roots,
And how they traded in their white sheets for badges and blue suits
~Onyx, "Getto Mentalitee"
I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't open up departments to abuses but this is actually another part of the seperation of powers in the US. There is nothing legally binding sheriffs or anyone from upholding laws and IMO these people should be free to disregard unjust laws. To argue that law enforcement must apply all laws without question is to argue that they should also apply tyranical laws. It was the law seventy years ago in many states that black people were not afforded the same civil rights as white people and any Sheriff who did not want to uphold those laws would definitely have had my vote.
There are other systems in place to temper abuses by Sheriffs: prosecutors, state legislations, state governments, local and county councils or governments, all of which are often elected by the population. Are these particular Sheriffs drifting towards something extreme? Perhaps, but be careful what arguments you put forward to counter them. Saying that law enforcement must exercise the law, no matter what, is not the solution. Vote them out, vote in prosecutors who will bring charges against them or those they abett, elect local and state governments that can temper their power or bring actions against them.
There are many problems with LEOs picking and choosing what laws to enforce like they're grazing at a buffet.
While I admit that this is a nuanced topic, I also feel there are incredibly dangerous implications and dangerious results if rank and file LEOs can simply ignore whole branches of our government.
Uneven enforcement based on which group you belong to or based on which political party passed the law is problematic in a myriad of ways, just for starters. That is tyranny also. Separate rules for you and your kind and other rules for me and my kind doesn't build a healthy society. That cannot be framed under the guise of unconstitutional laws.
This is another push to undermine our society. Unironically, the "law and order" party is suddently anti law and order since they just can't stop defending their cult leader. They're intentionally breaking down all mores, values and traditional faith in our institutions as well as separation of powers. Long before Trump attacked the system directly he broke the system by not adhering to long established traditions and by extention social mores. This is no different.
Do you think that LEOs would have been as generous and hands off if the BLM protestors showed up at state capitols with their AR-15s as they treated the lockdown loons demanding Applebee's and haircuts? They used tear gas on old ladies to one side and handed out water to the other. THAT is tyranny.
Sheriffs are elected officials, so I 100% agree the best way to stop this would be to vote them out. The problem is their constituents WANT this mentality, and you aren't going to reason those people out of it.
not all. NYC and Denver's sheriffs are appointed by the mayors. Miami-Dade, Nassau County, Westchester County are appointed by county comission. there are others but i'm tired of swapping back and forth browser windows. check the wiki
Yup, it's true.
Unjust/Unconstitutional laws are meant to be fought, everyone has a right to civil disobedience.
And if this is still about those dumb gun laws then, yeah it is against an unjust law.
Exactly. Federal courts exist for a reason; random sheriffs don't get to decide they think laws are "tyranny" and refuse to uphold them.
We've already seen this play out a bit in states with Red Flag laws. Certain County sheriff's have basically said they won't enforce those laws because tYrAnNy.
People will get hurt or worse because of these people "fighting for our freedoms"
That kind of mentality has been exported to Canada, especially places like Alberta who are trying to do basically the same thing; refuse to implement or countenance laws from the federal government that they themselves decide are "unconstitutional".
What is the proper (from a moral sense, not constitutional legalese) solution when the voters in a state (or county) pass a law that contradicts Federal law?
When I lived in Wisconsin, we had a situation where the state symbolically passed some legislation to nullify some popular Obama policy, and several local areas passed resolutions stating their municipality or county would ignore state law and align enforcement with the feds.
It likely depends on what the contradictions are. For example a bunch of states legalized cannabis even though the federal government still considers it a chedule I substance.
Generally, if the feds care enough, they will show up and enforce the law. DEA has raided "legal" farms before as an example.
Quite frankly, this is an intended part of the US system.
People in power are obligated to not enforce unjust/unconstitutional laws (just like how "just following orders" is not a valid excuse to escape blame), and the government has to work it out with them from there in negotiations. If it comes down to it, the national guard/army gets called in.
Right now there are ongoing lawsuits from sherriffs offices about the constitutionality of this law. Why would they enforce what they believe violates constitutional rights while fighting to not enforce it?
This is not alarming, it's happened many times before, and for much more grandiose issues as well.
When I read these responses I'm reminded how few people outside the US understand not just being beholden to your government helplessly.
This is a form of protest, at least in the US. You're saying government officials aren't allowed to protest laws they find unfair.
Ask yourself, would you really be complaining if this was a left wing group refusing to enforce abortion bans, or just something else plain unconstitutional like enforcing students to read out the pledge of allegiance in schools? This is just the flip side of that coin.
And in this case I do personally think their law is very unconstitutional,
https://www.newsweek.com/oregon-sheriffs-defy-voters-refuse-enforce-gun-control-measure-1759954
It may sound good to you at first, but it makes gun ownership may-issue which takes away the right and makes it a privilege at the government's discretion, not to mention requires a fee (to further limit who can get it) and invades the privacy of every person wanting to buy a gun by enforcing fingerprinting.
It also bans large-capacity magazines over 10 rounds which reeks of a very shallow understanding of guns, as well as apparently doesn't offer any funding for the program that these sherriffs are supposed to run to accomplish this.
As they say,
There's nothing wrong with this, there's no violence, this is civil disobedience, and it'll be worked out with the government from here.
I figure I can also mention that the law passed by a fraction, about a .65 of a percent. That's a majority only by a technicality, this was bound to be controversial.
Unjust and unconstitutional mean two different things. LEO absolutely should be held to a higher expectation of following and enforcing laws equally versus picking and choosing. Rather than being beholden to a more centralized authority, your suggestion puts people at the mercy of the whims and opinions of whichever local/regional cop that happens to hold power. Cops are who we need protection from and this kind of thinking is why.
To me, unconstitutional is just a subset of unjust. There are plenty of things that are wrong and should absolutely be resisted, without being in the constitution.
You say this as if it were inherently a bad thing, but that's literally the entire concept of the 50-seperate-but-united-states.
Entire states have refused to enforce federal laws before and that's not an infrequent occurrence at all, this is the same concept at a smaller scale where effectively certain counties are refusing to enforce a law.
Prigg v Pennsylvania is one decent example at the state level for why this a good thing:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/41us539
Effectively, federal laws must use federal resources to enforce them, and this was used to at least partially prevent escaped/freed slaves from being dragged from Pennsylvania back into the hell of slavery.
Is this wrong in your opinion for the state of Pennsylvania to go against the federal law?
Police/government officials are allowed to have morals as well, and refuse to follow things that they believe to be illegitimate. That's a protest, and like I said, the higher tiers of government will work it out with them, or just roll in the guard and then they're removed from office and probably put in prison depending.
The sheriffs are part of their community, not just overseers (at least they should be). They should care and have a human touch rather than stripping all humanity and objections down the chain from government. It's the system of checks and balances all the way down.
So I ask you again, would you really be complaining if this was a left wing group refusing to enforce abortion bans, or just something else plain unconstitutional like enforcing students to read out the pledge of allegiance in schools?
Or if, back to a similar vein to the Prigg v Pennsylvania example we went full conserva-dystopia and brought back Jim Crow, would you be on the side telling the police to enforce it even if they think it's wrong?
This situation is definitely lesser scale by a large margin, but it's the same exact principles.
You're literally telling them "stay in line, even if you think this is wrong".
Yeah, that exact type of "you can't make me" thinking is why America is such a mess.
There should be a distinction between picking and choosing which laws to enforce, and picking and choosing whom to enforce laws on.
The latter tends to be illegal discrimination, and the former is, for better or worse, pretty much a necessary part of our legal system. There are so many insane laws still in effect in all kinds of jurisdictions that none of us want enforced.
For anyone that wants to learn a bit more about exactly why it's so dangerous, 1A had an episode about this movement 5 years ago and it's only gotten worse recently
https://the1a.org/segments/2018-07-31-sheriffs/
I wonder if we can marvel at the moment of the brave reporting by these reporters. We are so fortunate to have a free press that includes those who would dare stand up to power and expose what that power would rather keep hidden.