[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Corrupt Government Title: Support Your Local Police? (25 Reasons to Say "No") “Law and order” conservatives: When they are right, they are so right; but when they are wrong, they are so wrong. They are right when they decry the militarization of local police. They are right to point out that the DOD 1033 program has transferred over $5 billion worth of military equipment from the Defense Department to local police forces. They are right to oppose more federal laws and mandates relating to local police. They are right to oppose a federal police “czar” like the Congressional Black Caucus has called for. They are right to oppose nationalizing the local police. They are right to point out that the Constitution only provides for the federal government to punish the crimes of treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. They are right to decry all the federal police in the alphabet soup of federal agencies. They are right to oppose making the police like a branch of the U.S. armed forces. They are right to oppose federal funding of local law enforcement. They are right to oppose federal control over local law enforcement. But does this mean that Americans should always support their local police? To the contrary, most of the problems with local police have nothing to do with the federal government. Here are twenty-five questions to consider before making a blanket statement like “Support your local police.” Do all local police in American cities and counties do all of these things? Of course not. Do most local police in American cities and counties do most of these things? Perhaps not. Do many local police in American cities and counties do many of these things? Probably so. Do some local police American cities and counties do some of these things? Certainly so. And way too many. The first reply is that the local police are just doing their jobs. Sure they are—just like guards at concentration camps were just doing their jobs. How quickly will those who say that the local police are just doing their jobs change their tune when one of their disgruntled neighbors gives the local police they support an anonymous tip that they might have illegal drugs in their house and the local police they support break down their front door in the middle of the night, shoot their dogs, and tase them and their family for the non-crime of asking what all this is about? The second reply is that the local police are just following the law. How quickly will those who say that the local police are just following the law change their tune when their local police enforce a law that requires roadside anal exams of everyone pulled over for traffic stops to make sure they have no hidden drugs or weapons? I haven’t said that all cops are bad. I haven’t said that there shouldn’t be any police. I haven’t said that libertarians shouldn’t be cops. I haven’t said that a libertarian society wouldn’t have any police. I haven’t said that Christians shouldn’t be cops. I haven’t said that police detectives don’t solve crimes. I haven’t said that a police presence doesn’t deter crime. I haven’t said that the police don’t perform a valuable service. I am merely pointing out that the main problem with local police is not that they have been centralized, federalized, militarized, or nationalized. I am merely pointing out that conservatives should not be making blanket statements like “Support your local police.” After all, you can’t have a police state without police—local police. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
What's the alternative -- allowing the police to decide which laws they will enforce and which laws they won't? Is that what we want? How about this? If people don't want the police to issue tickets to motorists for not wearing seatbelts the people could vote TO CHANGE THE LAW!?
You dumb cop worshiper - the "people" HAVE NO CHOICE. This was rammed down our throats. The Fraud of Seat-Belt Laws Seat-Belt Laws Infringe a Person's Constitutional Rights While the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in support of seat-belt laws has been a horrendous financial burden to society, the greatest cost is really not money. It’s the loss of freedom. Seat-belt laws infringe a person’s rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and the Ninth Amendments, and the civil rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws are an unwarranted intrusion by government into the personal lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine one’s own individual personal health-care standard. While seat-belt use might save some people in certain kinds of traffic accidents, there is ample evidence that in other kinds, people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because they used seat belts. Some people have been saved from death in certain kinds of accidents only because a seat belt was not used. In those cases, the malicious nature of seat-belt laws is further revealed: such persons are subject to fines for not dying in the accident while using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians. The state has no authority to subject people to death and injury in certain kinds of traffic accidents just because it hopes others will be saved in other kinds of accidents merely by chance. The state has no authority to take chances with a person’s body, the ultimate private property. As for the promise that seat-belt laws would reduce auto insurance rates, there is no record of any insurance company ever reducing its rates because a seat-belt law was passed. A study released in August 1988 by the Highway Loss Data Institute compared auto-accident injury claims before and after the enactment of seat-belt laws in eight states and could find no clear-cut evidence that belt-use laws reduced the number of injuries. “These results are disappointing,” the report added.7
Of course they do. You're just upset because not enough of them choose what YOU want. So you demand that the cops not enforce the law.
Of course they do. Good grief man - you think they are suddenly going to stop with seatbelt checkpoints? It's a major cash cow for them - always has been. It's not about "safety" as I have already pointed out. You live in a dream world where politicians serve the people. Here's a news flash - they DON'T. Politicians exist to serve themselves and the corrupt moneyed interests that tell them how to vote.
Seatbelt checkpoints? I thought we were discussing the seatbelt law. Which the people want. Case closed.
There are no replies to Comment # 17. End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|