View Full Version : 250 Connecticut LEO's Refuse To Enforce New Gun Laws
platoonDaddy
03-10-14, 02:02
Interesting development if accurate.
Gun rights legal expert and activist David Hardy reported Friday that 250 law enforcement officers in Connecticut have signed an open letter stating that they will not enforce the new anti-gun and magazine laws, which they consider to be a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws
Edit: Just located this: At least one Branford, CT, cop is itching to try to enforce Connecticut’s blatantly unconstitutional gun ban, and has told Cinque that he “cannot wait to get the order to kick your door in.”
http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-cop-i-cant-wait-to-get-the-order-to-kick-your-door-in/?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
EDIT: looks now like a hoax:
Hardy told TheBlaze he is “probably 90 percent sure the story is false, because there doesn’t appear to be a Connecticut Peace Officer association … and the person who sent me the article did not address my question when I asked him if it was a hoax.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/10/rumor-check-are-connecticut-police-refusing-to-enforce-gun-laws/
Moose-Knuckle
03-10-14, 03:17
Interesting development if accurate.
Gun rights legal expert and activist David Hardy reported Friday that 250 law enforcement officers in Connecticut have signed an open letter stating that they will not enforce the new anti-gun and magazine laws, which they consider to be a violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.examiner.com/article/conn-police-refuse-to-enforce-new-gun-laws
Outstanding!
Mass civil-disobedience (aka not registering firearms by owners) and LEOs who uphold their oaths = a win - win.
Magic_Salad0892
03-10-14, 04:15
Respect. They have mine.
Eurodriver
03-10-14, 09:30
I don't really like the idea of this. Cops should enforce *every* law that is on the books without personal prejudice.
There are many exceptions, such as letting the guy with a roach go to get to the big dealer, but I don't like a world where LEOs pick and choose laws they want to enforce.
Grand58742
03-10-14, 09:44
I don't really like the idea of this. Cops should enforce *every* law that is on the books without personal prejudice.
There are many exceptions, such as letting the guy with a roach go to get to the big dealer, but I don't like a world where LEOs pick and choose laws they want to enforce.
Even if those laws are leading to an utter violation of the 4th and 2nd Amendments?
No, I'd much rather have LEOs out there that actually think about what they are doing as well as upholding the Constitution rather than a bunch of automatons that just follow orders that violate the rights of the people they are supposed to protect.
VooDoo6Actual
03-10-14, 09:52
Here's a good dialogue & to think that he was threatened by another brother in blue (Firefighter / LEO) who said "I can't wait to kick your door in & confiscate your guns" says it all for me. Yes, I absolutely 100% believe him too.
It has a good message:
**Branford Cop To John Cinque ~ "I Cannot Wait To Get The
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUwbVxxL3y7H0l8clJWo58_Q&v=Fzhz8YTXz_I#t=13
Eurodriver
03-10-14, 09:53
Even if those laws are leading to an utter violation of the 4th and 2nd Amendments?
No, I'd much rather have LEOs out there that actually think about what they are doing as well as upholding the Constitution rather than a bunch of automatons that just follow orders that violate the rights of the people they are supposed to protect.
What the hell do we have laws for if LEOs get to pick and choose which ones they will enforce? What if the headline read: "250 LEOs refuse to give speeding tickets to registered Democrats" or "250 LEOs refuse to arrest blacks robbing whites for reparation money."
I get what you're saying, and "just following orders" while committing heinous acts doesn't fly with me. But I'd much rather not have the laws be passed in the first place...
There is being on the wrong side of history, and I sincerely HOPE that ours will be the right one... "I was just following orders," has proven to be an insufficient defense in the case of war. If this is anything less than a war on our rights, I don't know what is.
What kills me is that many of the people who will blatantly use drugs (particularly marijuana) because they feel the laws are antiquated and unjust, are the ones screaming for these bans...
Grand58742
03-10-14, 10:13
What the hell do we have laws for if LEOs get to pick and choose which ones they will enforce? What if the headline read: "250 LEOs refuse to give speeding tickets to registered Democrats" or "250 LEOs refuse to arrest blacks robbing whites for reparation money."
I get what you're saying, and "just following orders" while committing heinous acts doesn't fly with me. But I'd much rather not have the laws be passed in the first place...
You're getting a tad ridiculous there with the examples. So you are saying it's better they follow what could be a clear violation of the Constitution rather than stand up for what's right?
Yes, you damn skippy they should be picking and choosing what laws they want to enforce. Because a tyrant won't care about the Rights or the Constitution if the ones enforcing the law don't question the motives.
Magic_Salad0892
03-10-14, 10:21
Damnit Eurodriver. That's actually a pretty good argument. I'm not convinced, but pretty damn close.
I'm not... There is no constitutional protection for the freedom to drive whatever speed you feel like. There is a constitutional protection against being deprived of property without due process (which robbery lacks). Both of those examples are terrible, and I rarely disagree with Euro, but here we are miles apart,
Magic_Salad0892
03-10-14, 10:29
I'm not... There is no constitutional protection for the freedom to drive whatever speed you feel like. There is a constitutional protection against being deprived of property without due process (which robbery lacks). Both of those examples are terrible, and I rarely disagree with Euro, but here we are miles apart,
Good point.
Eurodriver
03-10-14, 10:30
You're getting a tad ridiculous there with the examples. So you are saying it's better they follow what could be a clear violation of the Constitution rather than stand up for what's right?
Am I? This country passes laws via representatives elected by the majority of the people, and judges appointed by those representatives test for Constitutionality. If the courts rule the laws are Constitutional (they have), then your argument that the LEOs are violating the constitution is invalid.
Yes, you damn skippy they should be picking and choosing what laws they want to enforce. Because a tyrant won't care about the Rights or the Constitution if the ones enforcing the law don't question the motives.
I agree that automatron LEOs enforcing the laws of tyrants are not a good thing at all, one need not look any further than Reserve Police Battalion 101 for evidence (http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068). Just remember that there are two sides to the argument you're making and you might not like the side LEOs choose to put you on one day.
ETA: P.S. Don't let the bolded parts fool you into thinking I'm taking anything personal. Just trying to have a discussion with intelligent folks (That even includes you, Magic Salad). ;)
Magic_Salad0892
03-10-14, 10:39
(That even includes you, Magic Salad). ;)
You sure know how to make a man feel special. ;D
4x4twenty6
03-10-14, 10:48
ok Eurodriver, if your state decides to pass a law making it a felony to openly criticize government officials and that law gets enforced when you write on facebook that your state elected official is an asshole. Do you support your police when they drag your ass to jail?
Our Constitution clearly states we have freedom of speech does it not?
I am a police officer and believe the laws passed by Connecticut are a violation of our second amendment rights. I would not enforce those laws. We have enough gun laws on the books that can be enforced. This is agenda driven and an attempt by the left to disarm Americans.
Grand58742
03-10-14, 10:53
ETA: P.S. Don't let the bolded parts fool you into thinking I'm taking anything personal. Just trying to have a discussion with intelligent folks (That even includes you, Magic Salad). ;)
I can agree with the Constitutional implications, but the fact the CT or even CO laws haven't seen the courtroom yet means the laws are extremely questionable right now. And until a hearing is completed, the laws might be "law" but are they legal?
The FOPA forbids government agencies from keeping a database of firearms registrations. And the verbiage includes "States" in 18 USC SS 926. So in effect, CT enacting any type of registration of any particular kind firearms is illegal.
ETA: I wasn't attempting to make this personal either. The CT laws have been annoying me since they got passed even though I don't live there. They do nothing more than embolden those that can't wait to strip more basic civil rights from the people for their own gain.
Eurodriver
03-10-14, 10:57
ok Eurodriver, if your state decides to pass a law making it a felony to openly criticize government officials and that law gets enforced when you write on facebook that your state elected official is an asshole. Do you support your police when they drag your ass to jail?
Our Constitution clearly states we have freedom of speech does it not?
I am a police officer and believe the laws passed by Connecticut are a violation of our second amendment rights. I would not enforce those laws. We have enough gun laws on the books that can be enforced. This is agenda driven and an attempt by the left to disarm Americans.
Of course I wouldn't be cool with the police carting me off to jail, and I hope I've made it clear that I believe the laws in CT to be a violation of our rights.
I just feel the people should work to elect representatives that will change the law, rather than LEOs picking and choosing what they get to enforce based on what they "believe" is a violation of the Constitution.
BoringGuy45
03-10-14, 11:01
I don't really like the idea of this. Cops should enforce *every* law that is on the books without personal prejudice.
There are many exceptions, such as letting the guy with a roach go to get to the big dealer, but I don't like a world where LEOs pick and choose laws they want to enforce.
LEOs can pick and choose already. It's already left up to their discretion to give a citation at a traffic stop, or just a written warning, or even just a verbal warning. You can do that with a lot of crimes. An example that I was given once was if, say, you stop a guy for a traffic violation. You find out that he has an outstanding warrant for an unpaid fine years ago. You inform him and he says that he thought he had already paid it and everything was taken care of. You also find out that he's a recovered drug addict who has been clean for a year and has been working a steady job. However, due to his history, if he gets arrested for anything, he's fired. So, what should you do? Do you say the law is the law and it leaves no room for mercy, and arrest him? Or, do you give him a summons, tell him to be in court at eight tomorrow morning to clear this up, or he'll have a failure to appear warrant, but for now, here's a warning for the traffic violation, have a good night? Perhaps you could, and maybe, by the letter of the law, should arrest him, but if you do, he loses his job, maybe he gets depressed, goes back to old "friends" and falls back into using again. Now he goes from being a productive member of society to a drain on the system.
In the same way, what does a police officer do to help society by taking law abiding citizens who were not causing any unrest or violence in the community, raiding their homes, throwing them into prison, breaking up their family, and taking away all ability to do just about anything above minimum wage work ever again?
Also, this isn't an issue of whether or not a cop arrests a guy for pot because he doesn't think there's anything wrong with it, or decides not to ticket his favorite group of people as a whole, but cites everyone else. This is an issue of LEOs refusing to do what they believe is illegal and, to my knowledge, there is no mandatory arrest statute for this law (yet), so they have the right to say that they won't choose to arrest people who they find to be in violation of this law.
4x4twenty6
03-10-14, 11:06
I don't know what to say other than that's the craziest position I have ever heard.
I will say that I took an oath to Defend The Constitution and if my state decides to make a law that violates said Constitution because it is filled with a bunch of ass hats, then I will choose to stand by the oath I made.
High Tower
03-10-14, 11:08
Police pick and choose all the time what laws they will and will not enforce. There are extremely few cases where they have a duty to arrest. In some states, that is only in the case of domestic violence. This is no different and I'm glad to see so many taking a stand against the traitors in our own government.
If you want the police to enforce every law, everyone who got pulled over would have about $12K in traffic tickets before the stop was over.
Of course I wouldn't be cool with the police carting me off to jail, and I hope I've made it clear that I believe the laws in CT to be a violation of our rights.
I just feel the people should work to elect representatives that will change the law, rather than LEOs picking and choosing what they get to enforce based on what they "believe" is a violation of the Constitution.
I agree with you on this one. The problem with a culture of nullification by government (or jury for that matter) is that it always leads to heterogenous inforcement of the laws to the detriment of personal liberty. If you don't believe me, look at how Obama has selectively enforced the healthcare law to preserve a Democrat power base. Sheltering portions of the populace from the negative consequences of bad laws only serves to erode the public will to castoff tyrannical legislation. The end result is an ever expanding armamentarium of bad laws for the next tyrant to selectively use against his enemies.
montanadave
03-10-14, 11:44
I agree with you on this one. The problem with a culture of nullification by government (or jury for that matter) is that it always leads to heterogenous inforcement of the laws to the detriment of personal liberty. If you don't believe me, look at how Obama has selectively enforced the healthcare law to preserve a Democrat power base. Sheltering portions of the populace from the negative consequences of bad laws only serves to erode the public will to castoff tyrannical legislation. The end result is an ever expanding armamentarium of bad laws for the next tyrant to selectively use against his enemies.
Strong argument.
What the hell do we have laws for if LEOs get to pick and choose which ones they will enforce? What if the headline read: "250 LEOs refuse to give speeding tickets to registered Democrats" or "250 LEOs refuse to arrest blacks robbing whites for reparation money."
I get what you're saying, and "just following orders" while committing heinous acts doesn't fly with me. But I'd much rather not have the laws be passed in the first place...
Agreed Leo's don't pick and choose they uphold any more than the executive brand gets to pick and choose what the legislative branch sends them.
Eurodriver
03-10-14, 12:45
I agree with you on this one. The problem with a culture of nullification by government (or jury for that matter) is that it always leads to heterogenous inforcement of the laws to the detriment of personal liberty. If you don't believe me, look at how Obama has selectively enforced the healthcare law to preserve a Democrat power base. Sheltering portions of the populace from the negative consequences of bad laws only serves to erode the public will to castoff tyrannical legislation. The end result is an ever expanding armamentarium of bad laws for the next tyrant to selectively use against his enemies.
This is exactly what I was trying to get at.
What this country desperately needs are officers like Deputy Dingbat who "can't wait to kick your door in". In fact, I wish every police department in the country was filled with them. Because not until fence-sitting-voter-Joe gets his front door kicked in for having a 40 year old revolver heirloom will people wake up and stop putting up with this "for the children" bullshit. These 250 LEOs not enforcing the law are doing a disservice to the community by not allowing them to see how tyrannical their elected representatives actually are.
I also agreed in my first post that LEOs are granted exceptions to making arrests. But we're not talking about traffic tickets. Stats run the show and if your colleagues are bringing in dozens of felons and all you've got are outstanding warrants for unpaid traffic violations you're not going to be on the force for very long anyway. Eventually...maybe many decades from now, these 250 law abiding freedom loving LEOs are going to find their kind out of a job.
Grand58742
03-10-14, 12:54
This is exactly what I was trying to get at.
What this country desperately needs are officers like Deputy Dingbat who "can't wait to kick your door in". In fact, I wish every police department in the country was filled with them. Because not until fence-sitting-voter-Joe gets his front door kicked in for having a 40 year old revolver heirloom will people wake up and stop putting up with this "for the children" bullshit. These 250 LEOs not enforcing the law are doing a disservice to the community by not allowing them to see how tyrannical their elected representatives actually are.
I also agreed in my first post that LEOs are granted exceptions to making arrests. But we're not talking about traffic tickets. Stats run the show and if your colleagues are bringing in dozens of felons and all you've got are outstanding warrants for unpaid traffic violations you're not going to be on the force for very long anyway. Eventually...maybe many decades from now, these 250 law abiding freedom loving LEOs are going to find their kind out of a job.
On the flip side of that equation is the fact that 250 LEOs decided to sit this one out. Public perception in this one can go a long way. Just look at the Sheriffs in Colorado refusing to implement the gun laws that were just passed out there. 55 out of 62 refused to do so and it made big news.
So if it becomes a movement of LEOs doing their own civil disobedience by refusing to enforce laws they feel are unconstitutional, it will shed light on the overall illegitimacy of the laws on record. Now I surely don't trust the media to accurately portray this sort of thing in a positive light, but it certainly will draw attention to the overall problem and have others looking into the issue. And it most certainly will get the politicians to be a little wary of those they entrust to fulfill their tyranny.
Eurodriver
03-10-14, 12:59
On the flip side of that equation is the fact that 250 LEOs decided to sit this one out. Public perception in this one can go a long way. Just look at the Sheriffs in Colorado refusing to implement the gun laws that were just passed out there. 55 out of 62 refused to do so and it made big news.
So if it becomes a movement of LEOs doing their own civil disobedience by refusing to enforce laws they feel are unconstitutional, it will shed light on the overall illegitimacy of the laws on record. Now I surely don't trust the media to accurately portray this sort of thing in a positive light, but it certainly will draw attention to the overall problem and have others looking into the issue. And it most certainly will get the politicians to be a little wary of those they entrust to fulfill their tyranny.
Agreed fully, make no mistake that I'm a huge fan of all LEOs that take their oath seriously and I respect them greatly for it.
However, I feel that LEOs not enforcing these laws are driving us down the one-way road to the cliff at 30mph as opposed to 100 mph. Eventually these LEOs are going to be fired if they don't do what the boss tells them to. (The exception would be the elected county sheriff, but can't the state AG replace them in some states?)
What the hell do we have laws for if LEOs get to pick and choose which ones they will enforce? What if the headline read: "250 LEOs refuse to give speeding tickets to registered Democrats" or "250 LEOs refuse to arrest blacks robbing whites for reparation money."
I get what you're saying, and "just following orders" while committing heinous acts doesn't fly with me. But I'd much rather not have the laws be passed in the first place...
So you don't want the Police to use their judgement and choose not to enforce laws that are unconstitutional? Does their oath to uphold the constitution not trump orders given to enforce unconstitutional laws?
What about laws regarding other amendments? You you be upset about Police officers choosing not to uphold a law that was not congruent with the first amendment?
I would take issue with police officers creating their own laws, but the idea you would not want the Police to practice civil disobedience to protect the constitution comes across as ignorant especially coming from a gun owner.
Sure we don't want these laws in the first place, but they are here. The last line of defense against tyranny is civil disobedience.
Grand58742
03-10-14, 13:14
Agreed fully, make no mistake that I'm a huge fan of all LEOs that take their oath seriously and I respect them greatly for it.
However, I feel that LEOs not enforcing these laws are driving us down the one-way road to the cliff at 30mph as opposed to 100 mph. Eventually these LEOs are going to be fired if they don't do what the boss tells them to. (The exception would be the elected county sheriff, but can't the state AG replace them in some states?)
Think it's a State by State thing.
But otherwise, revolts start with the few. And you should know as tyrannical politicians get more and more desperate, their actions reflect the inner despot so eager to get out. And firing a bunch of LEOs that refuse to follow orders against their conscience and replacing them with others that will swing the iron fist does more to support the cause of liberty than allowing them to stay on the force.
In World War 2 we rounded up and imprisoned Japanese-Americans and placed them in camps. The majority of the country supported it. The courts OK'd it.
Did the same to Native Americans about 100 years earlier.
Blacks were enslaved and the courts said no problem.
Perhaps if more government agents (whether LEOs, soldiers, or calvary) had said hell no, we won't do this, our history would be a little more enlightened.
MountainRaven
03-10-14, 13:14
If all laws need to be equally enforced, I hope everyone is punching up WestLaw to turn themselves in for however many crimes they have committed.
It has been stated - and I do not feel that it was hyperbole - that it is impossible to live in the United States without breaking the law.
I view a LEO's ability to choose to not enforce a law as part of checks and balances. As part of a governmental system intentionally designed to make it as difficult as possible to pass laws and to effect them and thereby prevent tyranny. And no different than the president's decision to not enforce marijuana laws in those states where it has been legalized for medicinal and/or recreational purposes.
davidjinks
03-10-14, 15:15
It isn't even worth the time.
Grand58742
03-10-14, 15:22
edited
Keep the discussion about issues, not people. This is the only warning this thread will receive.
I don't really like the idea of this. Cops should enforce *every* law that is on the books without personal prejudice.
There are many exceptions, such as letting the guy with a roach go to get to the big dealer, but I don't like a world where LEOs pick and choose laws they want to enforce.
You do realize cops also here to protect and to follow the constitution as well right...?
I praise these police for following their oath. This is a good sign that our country hasn't completely lost it's marbles, and one hell of a good sign that LEO's are not here to hurt innocent people, but to let freedom live and protect at the same time. Koodos
I don't really like the idea of this. Cops should enforce *every* law that is on the books without personal prejudice.
There are many exceptions, such as letting the guy with a roach go to get to the big dealer, but I don't like a world where LEOs pick and choose laws they want to enforce.
While I understand the sentiment, the concept you are suggesting is pretty slippery slope-ish. History is replete with people claiming they were only following orders and enforcing laws on the books. Historically, the end result is us usually not something you want to be on the receiving end of. Think Nazi's killing jews, KGB killing anyone they wanted. Even in the US we have many atrocities that can be attributed to people blindly following orders. Think slavery, native Americans getting wiped out, Japanese people being rounded up.
The reason why out officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and not just the orders of their superiors is the last check and balance in the system.
IMO its sad that we have degraded our political leadership to the state where individuals are forced to act as the last balance against oppression.
IMO this country will be far better off if MORE people used their brain cells instead of less.
VooDoo6Actual
03-10-14, 16:45
When you selectively enforce ROL w/o equality or checks & balances the below happens. You slip into tyranny....
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/Mobile%20Uploads/truth445675_zps43b28199.jpg (http://s40.photobucket.com/user/teehee321/media/Mobile%20Uploads/truth445675_zps43b28199.jpg.html)
Doc Safari
03-10-14, 16:49
As far as LEO's refusing or not refusing to enforce a certain law, weren't we all taught that there is such a thing as refusing to enforce an unjust law? Isn't there a higher concept called "justice" that the written law itself sometimes violates?
If a certain law is likely to cause the violence and anarchy it supposedly seeks to prevent, then isn't it the duty of law enforcement to ignore it?
VooDoo6Actual
03-10-14, 17:28
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/ct-cop-joseph-peterson-who-threatened-gun-owners-gets-suspended-but-not-before-pointing-out-what-gun-registration-is-all-about/#0ticWZqHK8ChL00G.99
"The Branford Police Department has launched an Internal Investigation into the allegation that an officer, while off duty, made certain comments during a conversation on Facebook that were later posted on the internet.
Chief Kevin Halloran confirmed the allegation and said, “We treat every allegation concerning our agency with the utmost of seriousness. This, like any other allegation will be thoroughly investigated and if any law, departmental rule or regulation has been violated the officer will be held accountable.”
Chief Halloran noted that the officer involved currently is on an extended Workers’ Compensation Leave."
Any inquires can be addresses to:
Captain Geoffrey Morgan
Administrative Division / P.I.O.
Office: 203-315-3914
Hmmm, let's set the Wayback machine to 19April1775. Location: Lexington, MA. LEOs, duly appointed by the government are on their way to the town to enforce a recently enacted tax (on gunpowder). They are attacked by local residents who disagree with this new tax - shots are fired, people die.
So, were these LEOs following just orders? What about those who attacked these LEOs - were they in the wrong? After all, this tax was enacted by the governing body and the soldiers were the law enforcement of the day.
Maybe these LEOs in CT don't believe strongly enough in an unconstitutional law to participate in an activity that is bound to be suicidal for some of them - some folks are bound to shoot back, you go kicking doors in. I know I wouldn't want to be first through the door on these raids.
I've said it before - you politicians want to take my guns? Have the balls to try to take them personally, don't send some schmuck minion to do your dirty work!
platoonDaddy
03-10-14, 20:55
Looks like this is a hoax:
Hardy told TheBlaze he is “probably 90 percent sure the story is false, because there doesn’t appear to be a Connecticut Peace Officer association … and the person who sent me the article did not address my question when I asked him if it was a hoax.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/10/rumor-check-are-connecticut-police-refusing-to-enforce-gun-laws/
I'm a for the selective enforcement of laws that violate constitutional principle. There is a difference between not enforcing such a law, and a tyrant selectively enforcing laws to benefit himself/his party/ideology. What the tyrant does is wrong, refusing to enforce an unjust or unconstitutional law is right. I'm glad these officers are able to make the distinction and I hope their community supports their actions.
Looks like this is a hoax...
I haven't done a lot of digging but this (http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-police-launch-internal-investigation-over-facebook-threats-made-by-off-duty-officer-to-gun-owners/) makes it sounds legit…
Branford Police have launched an Internal Investigation into the allegations that an officer made written comments during a Facebook conversation that has alarmed citizens’ after the comment was posted publicly on the internet. The comment was made between the complainant and the officer, while off duty, during a fervent debate between the two over current and proposed gun laws.
The officer in question is Joe Peterson, who engaged in a heated debate on Facebook regarding gun control with a series of Facebook “friends.”
Branford police noted that the comments were made by Peterson while he was off-duty, and he has been out on an extended Workers Compensation Leave.
Chief Kevin Halloran confirmed the allegation and said, “We treat every complaint to our agency concerning our officers with the utmost of seriousness. This, like any other allegation will be thoroughly investigated and if any law, departmental rule or regulation has been violated the officer will be held accountable.”
http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/4f11ba0dce385-image_.jpg
Interesting…
http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Untitled.png
And the winner…
http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Untitled5.jpg
I'm a for the selective enforcement of laws that violate constitutional principle. There is a difference between not enforcing such a law, and a tyrant selectively enforcing laws to benefit himself/his party/ideology. What the tyrant does is wrong, refusing to enforce an unjust or unconstitutional law is right. I'm glad these officers are able to make the distinction and I hope their community supports their actions.
x2. I'm not sure why anyone is arguing over this. Just because something is legal and lawful doesn't mean it is constitutional.
To be in LE and not be a practitioner of the law on some greater than average level is negligent IMO.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
x2. I'm not sure why anyone is arguing over this. Just because something is legal and lawful doesn't mean it is constitutional.
To be in LE and not be a practitioner of the law on some greater than average level is negligent IMO.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Agreed wholeheartedly.
What the hell do we have laws for if LEOs get to pick and choose which ones they will enforce? What if the headline read: "250 LEOs refuse to give speeding tickets to registered Democrats" or "250 LEOs refuse to arrest blacks robbing whites for reparation money."
I get what you're saying, and "just following orders" while committing heinous acts doesn't fly with me. But I'd much rather not have the laws be passed in the first place... Oath to uphold the constitution is not so much picking and choosing. Agreed on not passing the law in the first place, but this is far from picking and choosing arbitrarily.
Interesting…
And the winner…
I can't imagine this being a faked exchange. No surprise this cat is a Work comp case too.
I can't imagine this being a faked exchange. No surprise this cat is a Work comp case too.
He certainly comes across as that officer on light duty who implies he's itching to get back on the streets with the crew but has an excuse for every instance where the Doc just won't release him to duty.
I don't really like the idea of this. Cops should enforce *every* law that is on the books without personal prejudice.
There are many exceptions, such as letting the guy with a roach go to get to the big dealer, but I don't like a world where LEOs pick and choose laws they want to enforce.
Well no because they are not supposed to be mindless soldiers, they should adhere to their oath .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.