[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"

"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"

Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles

Title: Support Your Local Police? (25 Reasons to Say "No")
Source: Lew Rockwell
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10 ... -m-vance/support-local-police/
Published: Oct 27, 2015
Author: Laurence M. Vance
Post Date: 2015-10-27 07:52:16 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3213
Comments: 28

“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.”

  1. Should we support our local police when they issue tickets to motorists for not wearing seatbelts?
  1. Should we support our local police when they forcibly extract DNA, urine, and blood from suspects?
  1. Should we support our local police when they pull over more motorists in order to meet their monthly ticket quotas?
  1. Should we support our local police when they shoot people who try to defend themselves from police brutality?
  1. Should we support our local police when they go online and pretend to be crack whores trying to pimp out their teenage daughters?
  1. Should we support our local police when they equip themselves with weapons powerful enough to conquer a small country?
  1. Should we support our local police when they drive around in vans equipped with X-ray scanners to secretly search vehicles?
  1. Should we support our local police when they conduct undercover sting operations to entrap people?
  1. Should we support our local police when they tase people who are offering no resistance?
  1. Should we support our local police when they conduct “no-knock” raids in the middle of the night?
  1. Should we support our local police when they arrest people for victimless crimes like prostitution and gambling?
  1. Should we support our local police when they dress up as prostitutes and try to entice people to solicit them?
  1. Should we support our local police when SWAT teams are deployed in situations where a search warrant is being executed to just look for drugs?
  1. Should we support our local police when they drive around in unmarked older vehicles in order to ensnare unsuspecting motorists?
  1. Should we support our local police when the enrich themselves by seizing property and cash from people who have not even been charged with a crime?
  1. Should we support our local police when they assert that someone might have a weapon as a pretense to search someone without any warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion?
  1. Should we support our local police when they plant evidence like weapons and drugs?
  1. Should we support our local police when they strip-search people who have been arrested even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying “contraband”?
  1. Should we support our local police when they lock people in cages for possessing substances that the government doesn’t approve of?
  1. Should we support our local police when they hide at the bottom of a hill, off the side of the road, or just after a speed limit change in order to collect revenue under the guise of enforcing traffic laws?
  1. Should we support our local police when they dismiss charges of police abuse as alleged and charges of police brutality as greatly exaggerated, and most of the time never investigate any of these charges?
  1. Should we support our local police when they enter homes without search warrants?
  1. Should we support our local police they go undercover and lie so as to beguile people to commit some crime?
  1. Should we support our local police when they major in ticketing and tasering instead of protecting and serving?
  1. Should we support our local police when they buy up all the fresh coffee and donuts at Dunkin’ Donuts?

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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

1.Should we support our local police when they issue tickets to motorists for not wearing seatbelts?

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!?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-10-27   10:20:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

It's obvious. Police should ignore the law and enforce libertarian philosophy at gunpoint. Because freedom.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-10-27   10:24:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Roscoe (#2)

It's obvious. Police should ignore the law and enforce libertarian philosophy at gunpoint. Because freedom.

Should we support our local police when they go online and pretend to be crack whores trying to pimp out their teenage daughters?

Should we support our local police when they equip themselves with weapons powerful enough to conquer a small country?

Should we support our local police when they drive around in vans equipped with X-ray scanners to secretly search vehicles?

Should we support our local police when they tase people who are offering no resistance?

Should we support our local police when the enrich themselves by seizing property and cash from people who have not even been charged with a crime?

Should we support our local police when they plant evidence like weapons and drugs?

Should we support our local police when they strip-search people who have been arrested even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying “contraband”?

Should we support our local police when they hide at the bottom of a hill, off the side of the road, or just after a speed limit change in order to collect revenue under the guise of enforcing traffic laws?

Should we support our local police when they dismiss charges of police abuse as alleged and charges of police brutality as greatly exaggerated, and most of the time never investigate any of these charges?

Should we support our local police when they enter homes without search warrants?

Deckard  posted on  2015-10-27   11:21:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Deckard (#6)

Should we support our local police when they go online and pretend to be crack whores trying to pimp out their teenage daughters?

Yes you pedophile supporter.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-27   11:39:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: A K A Stone (#7)

you pedophile supporter.

You mean the cops when they go online and pretend to be crack whores trying to pimp out their teenage daughters?

Yes I agree.

Deckard  posted on  2015-10-27   11:54:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Deckard (#11)

You mean the cops when they go online and pretend to be crack whores trying to pimp out their teenage daughters?

Yes I agree.

Sounds like you support pedophiles not getting caught by the police.

When the pedophiles are trolling online. They are looking for under age girls.

You don't want the government to do anything about it.

So you're ok with letting a guy go who is trying to pick up 12 year olds.

That makes you a pedophile supporter. It makes the police honorable trying to protect kids from monsters who would prey on them.

Some of your list might have some legitimacy. Not the couple of things I pointd out.

I mean I reduced you fighting for a pedophiles rights to be left alone.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-27   11:58:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#12) (Edited)

So you're ok with letting a guy go who is trying to pick up 12 year olds.

Nope, but apparently you are in favor of cops bending the law and arresting innocents along the way.

...you fighting for a pedophiles rights..

Uh - no again.

Is that the only retort you have : "you must be a pedophile enabler" if you don't support cops breaking the law to pad their number of arrests.

That shit gets real old real fast.

Good grief - you didn't even bother to look at the facts in the two links I posted.

A yearlong investigation by 10 Investigates reveals many of the men whose mugshots have been paraded out by local sheriffs in made-for-TV press conferences were not seeking to meet children online. Instead, they were minding their own business, looking for other adults, when detectives started to groom and convince them to break the law.

While detectives used to post ads suggesting an underage teen or child was available for sex, they now routinely post more innocuous personal ads of adults on traditional dating sites. When men – many of them under 25 with no criminal history - respond, officers switch the bait and typically indicate their age is really 14 or 15 years old. However, sometimes the storyline isn't switched until the men, who were looking for legal love, already start falling for the undercover agent.

According to arrest affidavits inspected by 10 Investigates, law enforcement is also now routinely making first contact with men who have done nothing wrong, responding to their ads on dating sites like PlentyOfFish.com. After men start conversing with what they think are adults, officers change the age they claim to be, but try to convince the men to continue the conversation anyway.

Other examples include undercover officers showing interest in a man, then later introducing the idea of having sex with the undercover's "child." If the men indicate they weren't interested, they were still often arrested for just talking to the adult.

Critics of the stings, including a number of prominent Tampa Bay law enforcement leaders, tell 10 News the operations make for better press conferences than they do crime fighting. Many of the men who are arrested for sexual predator crimes see little jail time.

But Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, when asked about over-aggressive detectives, instead went on the offensive: "The concern (I have) is that you inflate your investigative reporting to make it glitzy."

Judges have also been very critical of some of the tactics used in the stings, which violate Internet Crimes Against Children guidelines. Among the comments from judges in recent entrapment decisions (case numbers withheld to protect the defendants):

  • "It was the agent who repeatedly steered the conversation back to sexual activity with a minor."
  • "The government made a concerted effort to lure him into committing a crime."
  • "The undercover officer failed to follow the procedures …"
  • "The law does not tolerate government action to provoke a law-abiding citizen to commit a crime."

The judge in one dismissed case criticized the undercover officer for failing to follow procedures and "the officer controlled the tone, pace and subject matter of online conversation, pushing toward a discussion of sexual activity."

Deckard  posted on  2015-10-27   20:04:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 25.

        There are no replies to Comment # 25.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com