Emmanuel Goldstein

The COVID thread

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I expect they felt that he was violating personal spacing issues or some item like that.  

Feelings aren't reasons for authority to deprive someone of liberty.   You are either violating a consitutional law or you are not.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Feelings aren't reasons for authority to deprive someone of liberty.   You are either violating a consitutional law or you are not.

I suppose, let's put this into a military situation.

Most of the time you have rules of engagement.  They define when you are allowed to engage, what measures and many times the type of response.

We are in an area of operations.  One rule of engagement is that you must be fired upon before firing back.

In an area of operations a temporary rule comes down.  There will be curfew at night.  Any vehicles on the roads between cities will not be subject to the normal rule of engagement where you must be fired upon first.  Instead, if it is at night, you will immediately fire upon any vehicles that are not solitary.  If it is a single vehicle, it may be questioned or other measures and you should not fire upon it unless the occupants start attacking you first.  If there are two or more vehicles in close proximity, that appear to be in a convoy, or together in travel, you are too attack and destroy the vehicles and either kill or capture the occupants.

You are a Battalion commander. 

One night, a platoon of your soldiers shoot up a vehicle.  The reason they gave was that it appears it was travelling in conjunction with another vehicle.  They captured the individual driving it.

He argues that he was not travelling in conjunction with the other vehicle.  He was actually a hundred yards away from it and they were just travelling in the same direction.  They had originated and started in the same neighborhood at the same time and were traveling in the same direction and taking the same roads, but he argues they were not together.  He does not know if the other vehicle would have gone to the same location as he would have and continued taking the same route, or so he argues.  One of his kids were killed when your soldiers shot his vehicle.

Who is at fault here?  Is it the soldiers?  Did they operate on their 'feelings' in this matter or do you feel they were trying to obey the orders they were given to the best of their ability?

Who do you punish?  Who do you believe?

Is this a good enough reason to throw the soldiers in the brig without doing more investigating first?

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I suppose, let's put this into a military situation.

Most of the time you have rules of engagement.  They define when you are allowed to engage, what measures and many times the type of response.

We are in an area of operations.  One rule of engagement is that you must be fired upon before firing back.

In an area of operations a temporary rule comes down.  There will be curfew at night.  Any vehicles on the roads between cities will not be subject to the normal rule of engagement where you must be fired upon first.  Instead, if it is at night, you will immediately fire upon any vehicles that are not solitary.  If it is a single vehicle, it may be questioned or other measures and you should not fire upon it unless the occupants start attacking you first.  If there are two or more vehicles in close proximity, that appear to be in a convoy, or together in travel, you are too attack and destroy the vehicles and either kill or capture the occupants.

You are a Battalion commander. 

One night, a platoon of your soldiers shoot up a vehicle.  The reason they gave was that it appears it was travelling in conjunction with another vehicle.  They captured the individual driving it.

He argues that he was not travelling in conjunction with the other vehicle.  He was actually a hundred yards away from it and they were just travelling in the same direction.  They had originated and started in the same neighborhood at the same time and were traveling in the same direction and taking the same roads, but he argues they were not together.  He does not know if the other vehicle would have gone to the same location as he would have and continued taking the same route, or so he argues.  One of his kids were killed when your soldiers shot his vehicle.

Who is at fault here?  Is it the soldiers?  Did they operate on their 'feelings' in this matter or do you feel they were trying to obey the orders they were given to the best of their ability?

Who do you punish?  Who do you believe?

Is this a good enough reason to throw the soldiers in the brig without doing more investigating first?

That's not an equal example.  In this case, an American citizen was minding his own business in complete compliance with the law.  Police officers didn't like that, didn't read the sign right there that STATED the citizen was in compliance, didn't follow their OWN rules, and not only deprived him of liberty but violated the very rules they claimed to be enforcing, WITHOUT PPE, and put the citizen and his family at risk.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That's not an equal example.  In this case, an American citizen was minding his own business in complete compliance with the law.  Police officers didn't like that, didn't read the sign right there that STATED the citizen was in compliance, didn't follow their OWN rules, and not only deprived him of liberty but violated the very rules they claimed to be enforcing, WITHOUT PPE, and put the citizen and his family at risk.  

 

I'm not sure, I haven't seen the videos on it.  I have a hard time believing an officer would disregard their own rules of engagement.

Today, most police departments (Actually, all that I have interacted personally) are very similar to the military in orders and how they are to act.  They have rules of engagement from everything from the routine (when and then how to pull over someone in a traffic stop, where to stand, what to say, etc) to the severe (how to respond to a murder in progress, how to approach, when you may shoot or not shoot, when to take down, etc). 

The organizations are run very similar to the military these days which is one reason why many departments appreciate being able to have those who are ex-military.  They already understand how things such as orders and rules of engagement are supposed to operate and take them seriously.

Breaking these rules of engagement can be a serious item.  Who are we to believe, the officers or the individual they approached?  They most likely used the rules of engagement as they were instructed in this instance?

If you would not simply side with the individual that your soldiers took into custody by following the rules of engagement, why would you automatically side with the individual who the police officers took into custody by following the rules of engagement?

If you do not think the soldiers disobeyed the rules of engagement automatically, why would you think trained officers would have disobeyed? 

Why would you say more investigation is needed in one when not the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not sure, I haven't seen the videos on it.  I have a hard time believing an officer would disregard their own rules of engagement.

 

I can't help what you do or don't believe.  I can only comment on what is reported to be factual, which appears to be substantiated by the fact that the department apologized, the citizen was released without charge, and the allegations weren't denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Everyone here is all for holding police accountable for overstepping their authority or abusing their power.

The BLM movement was primarily founded upon the mob mentality of falsely assuming the police abused their power in the Michael Brown case.  It is based on accusing police of wrong-doing based on nothing but the race of the person being arrested.  This is why we disagree with the BLM movement.  The police officer in the Michael Brown case was cleared of all wrong doing.  But ask anyone from BLM, how long did it take for anyone from that movement to realize "oops, I guess we were wrong?"

We as the voting (and judging) public also have a responsibility.  We're held up to the standard of reserving judgment until the facts are in.  Sure, we will naturally make initial judgments.  But we always need to be open to correction once further facts are in.  The police officer in the Michael Brown case was not only judged guilty by BLM with virtually NO facts, but even when they facts were revealed, most of them still spread the lie that the police officer was guilty.

It's based on the wrong cases.  It causes people to jump to false conclusions. 

In the case I posted earlier, most of the facts were in.  Nothing about it "didn't pass the smell test."  It had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the actual facts of the case.  And we're now finding out that the original assessment was, indeed, correct.  But if the fact proved otherwise, I'd have to say,"Oh, I guess I was wrong.  Sorry."  

If BLM has ever apologized for a high profile case against a police officer, I'd like to see the link.  I do believe I heard of ONE apology which was essentially a non-apology -- saying in effect:

I'm ALWAYS for holding police accountable.  I'm NOT for falsely accusing them of anything simply because of the race of the person being arrested.

I'm willing to concede the point that BLM advocates can be over-zealous and agenda-driven to the point of losing objectivity. However, that doesn't mean that their primary concern -that institutional racism is alive and well in this country, and that it results in a disproportionate number of wrongful stops, arrests, and shootings of people of color- is incorrect. I get it, it's hard to see the truth behind a movement that isn't always intellectually honest, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an objective truth in there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I can't help what you do or don't believe.  I can only comment on what is reported to be factual, which appears to be substantiated by the fact that the department apologized, the citizen was released without charge, and the allegations weren't denied.

I have not seen that the allegations were validated either.  There is an investigation going on which means there are questions.  If it was open and shut it probably wouldn't have as much going on.  If the officers had actually committed a crime and they knew blatantly they had, not only would there be an investigation they would already be locked up.  If we take the view of government overview and prejudice (which I don't necessarily agree with, but this is the point we are trying to define) It is not clear to me that the officers were actually at fault.  On the otherhand, it could be the government you have issues with.

In the military situation, there have been times when individuals in the situation described were let free (at least during the Vietnam era).  This is not because they were necessarily believed, but because keeping them would cause more problems and difficulties then retaining them, especially if there was nothing else to go on beyond what I just listed.

In this, I see very similar situations.  The investigations hopefully will reveal more.

If we go by feelings, my basic overview (or what I feel is more likely to have occurred) is that the police were doing what they felt they were supposed to be doing.  The ONLY reason the items of apologizing has occurred is due to public outcry.  I think there is more to the story than is being told.  Most likely they were not close to home (thus breaking the stay close to home orders), had no reason to be that far from home, and there were others in the park or area besides that family (though it may not have been within 6 feet, just the fact that there were others in the park could have associated to the officers that this was breaking the guidelines given).

Most likely they approached the individuals and asked them to leave.  Rather than leave the individuals pointed out they were more than 6 feet from others and refused to, at which point the officers chose to enforce by arrest rather than continue to argue the point.

That's my gut feelings of what probably happened.  I know of NO officer (and yes, that's anecdotal related to my personal experiences with them) that would risk career, personal morals and ethics, just to go arrest someone because they had a personal vendetta, personal interpretation way off kilter of what they had been instructed, or any other personal reasons that one may come up with rather than follow official guidance and rules the best they could. 

They have to take annual, and at times quarterly and monthly training just to instill in them that they follow orders and instructions to the letter if possible.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

  If the officers had actually committed a crime and they knew blatantly they had, not only would there be an investigation they would already be locked up. 

I never said they committed a crime.  Unfortunately, it's typically not considered a crime for an officer to deprive an innocent civilian of liberty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I never said they committed a crime.  Unfortunately, it's typically not considered a crime for an officer to deprive an innocent civilian of liberty.  

True, but they can be fired rather rapidly if they do not follow the rules of engagement, and in some instances, it can actually be a crime for the officer (where it would not be a crime for someone who was not a police officer).

Simply going around and falsely arresting someone is not smiled upon within the police.

The officer has not been fired (from what I know yet) and there is nothing saying that what he did was actually wrong either, from what I can read.

But I think it's missing the greater point, unless I have missed your point of view.

The viewpoint I understood you were looking at is the idea that the rules and regulations that have been set out due to the coronavirus pandemic within various communities is a portal to being able to utilized in the future to abridge the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the United States. 

This seems to go contrary to the things we have been discussing regarding this case though, where you seem to be saying it is upon the individual officer rather than the orders and instructions of those above him.

Thus, it appears to me that you are blaming the officers (or soldiers) and lower ranking individuals rather than their Officers (or Commanders) that gave the orders in the first place.  Above that, instead of looking at giving the orders, you could even look above that and say it is upon the Government that issued the orders which is really at fault.  In this way you are negating the idea that the government is setting a precedence for the future.

Instead, from what you presented you seem to be saying that the onus is upon the individual officer.  From that vantage, it would be that the officer is individual at fault automatically (and by officer, he probably is more the rank of a corporeal or sergeant rather than an actual officer of the rank of Lt. or above) rather than the government that created the rules and put them in that situation in the first place.

Which begs the question I asked at first, why is it right to deprive the police of their liberty and not the citizen?

Especially, if one is arguing that the problem with the entire new rules and regulation is due to the threat it creates for the government to set a precedence whereby it can fall back upon to deprive that liberty in the future.  If the onus is upon an individual officer rather than the government, than that seems to be placing the blame on the individual, rather than from whom the ideas and orders came from in the first place.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

Simply going around and falsely arresting someone is not smiled upon within the police.

The officer has not been fired (from what I know yet) and there is nothing saying that what he did was actually wrong either, from what I can read.

I didn't say "arrest", either.  Officers are allowed to deprive liberty without an arrest.  

Nothing to say what he did was wrong?  Are you familiar with the case?  Some things are facts:

The citizen was following the rules which were posted at the park and designed to protect citizens through social distancing (whether those rules are constitutional is another issue)

The authorities approached him, without ANY PPE which they claim the department requires during this pandemic, putting him and his family at risk.

Most of the event was videoed by a former city councilor.

The police department apologized and stated it is evident that it was overreach by the officers involved.  ETA:  This means they assumed authority they didn't have, yet the citizen was required to obey under threat of violence and/or death.

There is no question, except maybe you, that they did something wrong.   NOBODY gave the "order" to deprive someone of liberty who was. following the rules.  Even the department admits that.

 

 

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I didn't say "arrest", either.  Officers are allowed to deprive liberty without an arrest.  

Nothing to say what he did was wrong?  Are you familiar with the case?  Some things are facts:

The citizen was following the rules which were posted at the park and designed to protect citizens through social distancing (whether those rules are constitutional is another issue)

The authorities approached him, without ANY PPE which they claim the department requires during this pandemic, putting him and his family at risk.

Most of the event was videoed by a former city councilor.

The police department apologized and stated it is evident that it was overreach by the officers involved.  ETA:  This means they assumed authority they didn't have, yet the citizen was required to obey under threat of violence and/or death.

There is no question, except maybe you, that they did something wrong.   NOBODY gave the "order" to deprive someone of liberty who was. following the rules.  Even the department admits that.

 

 

Yesterday's article update on the situation from a Denver Paper

Quote

On Sunday, at about 4:30 p.m., officers were dispatched to respond to a complaint from a concerned citizen about a large group of people gathering at Donelson Park," the release contends. "Upon arrival, officers encountered a group of about twelve-to-fifteen people who appeared to be playing softball. Although the officers asked them to disperse due to the park being closed, which was incorrect, dispersement was needed due to the state’s public health order regarding group gathering." Get-togethers involving ten people or more are currently off-limits.

Wallin's video shows no such collection of folks, and the Brighton police deliver no explanation for why the officers on the scene determined that Mooney was among these supposed scofflaws. But while the department release notes that an internal investigation is under way, it also says that "it is evident there was an overreach by our police officers."

Why? The BPD alludes to the constantly shifting rules and regulations put in place to fight the novel coronavirus, and the confusion that can result for the folks charged with enforcing them: "As officers are required to interpret several layers of state public health orders and local closures as they change, there may have been a misunderstanding about the park closure. It is imperative that we improve communication with our front-line first responders so they are up to date on the latest rules in place regarding COVID-19 for addressing public safety."

Colorado is currently under a stay-at-home order until April 26th.

The question is whether one is going to blame the officers for overreach and thus are responsible (also, note, the individual that was "arrested" actually did NOT go to jail.  He was in the back of the police car for around 10 minutes) and one blames them for the entire situation, OR, as even the police note, it is more regarded upon the government and their rules and what is coming down from the top and how they are trying to best understand it.

In either case, on this one I'm probably NOT going to blame the officers myself, but I am trying to get clarity on what your position is.  Is it that the government is extending overreach that can be dangerous in the future and this is evidence of it, or is this merely a situation where the police officers should be locked up because they acted inappropriately (in which case one MIGHT...that's a MIGHT, be able to use it as a argument against how the entire justice system of the US currently operates, but not specific to the situation where the quarantines and stay-at-home orders are really setting a bad precedence in regards to the future where such things may be used to enforce other orders like it outside of emergencies).

It seemed you were voicing one direction, but then with a singular comment about locking up the officers seemed to indicate it was different.  I still get the impression that your position is that the government is extending a dangerous overreach, but that doesn't seem to conjoin with the idea that it is actually just the officers that did wrong and they should be the ones accused and locked up...at least from what I've understood thus far from your explanations.

This is why I am trying to get clarity on what your position on the matter is.  It seems clear that you feel the officers were wrong, but the ramifications of that thought seems to indicate they (the officers who apprehended the individual they felt was one of those breaking the social distancing rules) are in the wrong...not the government itself (and it was the government itself, or the local and state, which are apologizing and took the film in the first place accusing him it would appear).

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Australia, the approach seems to be to come up with regulations that provide for very heavy penalties for breaching social distancing rules - most of the on-the-spot fines for breaching social distancing rules are well over $1,000 - and for government Ministers with responsibility for police, and for Police Commissioners to very strongly emphasise to the street police to exercise a great deal of discretion. The Police COmmissioner in our largest State is reviewing every single police ticket issued for violation of social distancing rules. The main exception to this rule seems to be about people trying to travel to take a short holiday over Easter - the message to street police in those cases is to be very strict and to not use any discretion at all and the Minister for the Arts in our largest State is in poitical hot water and was fined by police yesterday for travelling to his holiday home on the coast for Easter. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-09/nsw-coronavirus-infections-continue-to-drop/12134626

We also have a very recent BLM type issue here at the moment. Yesterday, following the death in police custody of an indigenous woman in Qugust 2019, the Coroner handed down her coronial report. The central issue of the coroner's investigation was whether institutionalised racism contributed to the death of this woman. The coroner found that it did and has now referred this woman's death to the Department of Public Prosecutions for further investigation. The line that sums up her findings is that ""I find the decision to define her as unruly and to call for police rather than pursue other options has been influenced by her Aboriginality," Ms English said." However, this is only one line in her 111 page report. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-09/tanya-day-coronial-finding-into-death-in-custody/12134398

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Yesterday's article update on the situation from a Denver Paper

Colorado is currently under a stay-at-home order until April 26th.

The question is whether one is going to blame the officers for overreach and thus are responsible (also, note, the individual that was "arrested" actually did NOT go to jail.  He was in the back of the police car for around 10 minutes) and one blames them for the entire situation, OR, as even the police note, it is more regarded upon the government and their rules and what is coming down from the top and how they are trying to best understand it.

 

It's clear you need to at least familiarize yourself with the case,  You're arguing on emotion, not facts.

FIRST, who cares about the stay-at-home order?  Have you even bothered to read it?  He wasn't violating it.

Second, HIS DEPARTMENT said he overreached.  The mental gymnastics you engage in to defend bad behavior is exhausting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

It's clear you need to at least familiarize yourself with the case,  You're arguing on emotion, not facts.

FIRST, who cares about the stay-at-home order?  Have you even bothered to read it?  He wasn't violating it.

Second, HIS DEPARTMENT said he overreached.  The mental gymnastics you engage in to defend bad behavior is exhausting.

I actually have a different viewpoint completely (which I actually haven't argued).

I'm trying to understand your viewpoint on this.  I can understand you hold the officers as responsible and thus should be locked up.  In this though, you weaken the entire idea that this is a precedence that the government can use in the future to instill locking other people up if they rule it as such, and that this was an example of such an event.

I had understood that you had also felt that this was such an event.  However, if the officers were totally to blame and thus should be locked up, as you imply, that would also indicate that this is NOT due to government doing things that could cause this...but instead were entirely on the heads of the police.

Which I found confusing.  I do not understand how one can say the officers are to blame and yet use it as an example of how government policies can be used to lock us all up in the future.

I've been trying to clarify it so that I can understand your point of view.  For all I know my actual views are the same as yours or they may not be.  I have to understand your bigger picture/point of view first.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

I actually have a different viewpoint completely (which I actually haven't argued).

I'm trying to understand your viewpoint on this.  I can understand you hold the officers as responsible and thus should be locked up.  In this though, you weaken the entire idea that this is a precedence that the government can use in the future to instill locking other people up if they rule it as such, and that this was an example of such an event.

I had understood that you had also felt that this was such an event.  However, if the officers were totally to blame and thus should be locked up, as you imply, that would also indicate that this is NOT due to government doing things that could cause this...but instead were entirely on the heads of the police.

Which I found confusing.  I do not understand how one can say the officers are to blame and yet use it as an example of how government policies can be used to lock us all up in the future.

I quit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

I've been trying to clarify it so that I can understand your point of view.  For all I know my actual views are the same as yours or they may not be.  I have to understand your bigger picture/point of view first.


I think his views are simple to understand. 
 

1. He loves liberty and delights in freedom from an oppressive government. 
 

2. Governmental law enforcement officers are supposed to abide by the same laws as all citizens. 
 

3. Law enforcement officers detained a man who clearly was compliant, innocent, and it was judged by their department that there was overreach. 
 

4. The governmental agency blamed it on poor communication. 
 

5. The offending officer had to give an apology. 
 

6. He doesn’t feel an apology is sufficient to dissuade future occurrences of the same offense. There has been nothing other than a promise to try to communicate better in the future. 
 

7. He considers all government overreach to be an extremely slippery slope. Freedom from such oppression was part the foundation on which the USA was built. A slap on the wrist for such offenses is equivalent to allowing the camel’s nose into your tent. He’ll be sleeping in your bed soon afterwards... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Colirio said:


I think his views are simple to understand. 
 

1. He loves liberty and delights in freedom from an oppressive government. 
 

2. Governmental law enforcement officers are supposed to abide by the same laws as all citizens. 
 

3. Law enforcement officers detained a man who clearly was compliant, innocent, and it was judged by their department that there was overreach. 
 

4. The governmental agency blamed it on poor communication. 
 

5. The offending officer had to give an apology. 
 

6. He doesn’t feel an apology is sufficient to dissuade future occurrences of the same offense. There has been nothing other than a promise to try to communicate better in the future. 
 

7. He considers all government overreach to be an extremely slippery slope. Freedom from such oppression was part the foundation on which the USA was built. A slap on the wrist for such offenses is equivalent to allowing the camel’s nose into your tent. He’ll be sleeping in your bed soon afterwards... 

That is what I was wondering.  Such a view isn't necessarily pointed towards the quarantine and stay-at-home orders that are currently in place though, and thus this situation of the police officer is a poor example of this view. 

Instead, it is saying the entire way the US justice system is currently organized is flawed.  It already allows Law Enforcement officers to have certain privileges which are not afforded to all citizens (for example, the right to detain, not just for quarantine, but for many other offenses out there, as well as seizure of property...etc.). 

The discussion was that this was an example of Government using the pandemic as a way to institute ideas which could be utilized in the future to remove liberties and freedoms we already have (From how I understood it) rather than that these excesses already were here and existed.

Some of this was in response to my idea that the Constitution protects us.  I still believe that.  I admit that there may be instances where such items have been taken away temporarily (or, in the case of the patriot act, at times more than a short temporary time and we still need a court case to somehow overturn some of the damages it does), but in the long run, as long as there are those that still believe in the Constitution and we have those that are judges and politicians that still uphold it (and I feel there are many out there) that the Constitution will protect us legally in the long run from dictatorships and other forms of government forcing their way through.  That IS A BELIEF rather than a fact though.  I think that the US still stands for something that other nations do not have, and it is the guarantees found in the Constitution that still protect these freedoms and rights. 

That does not mean that it stands there unchallenged.  There may be times where those who believe in the Constitution will need to stand up and defend it.  Hopefully not via violence, but legal and court cases are occurring all the time and I think will continue.  In such a case where someone tried to take power via the ideas that are in place via the stay-at-home orders and such, I think it would result in legal challenges.  I feel as long as people stand for freedom and liberty and the Constitution and believe in the ideals of it, it can continue to stand and defend our freedoms.  Only when we give up on it will it die.

Just a personal belief on the Constitution, which may or may not be flawed in other people's eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Colirio said:


I think his views are simple to understand. 
 

1. He loves liberty and delights in freedom from an oppressive government. 
 

2. Governmental law enforcement officers are supposed to abide by the same laws as all citizens. 
 

3. Law enforcement officers detained a man who clearly was compliant, innocent, and it was judged by their department that there was overreach. 
 

4. The governmental agency blamed it on poor communication. 
 

5. The offending officer had to give an apology. 
 

6. He doesn’t feel an apology is sufficient to dissuade future occurrences of the same offense. There has been nothing other than a promise to try to communicate better in the future. 
 

7. He considers all government overreach to be an extremely slippery slope. Freedom from such oppression was part the foundation on which the USA was built. A slap on the wrist for such offenses is equivalent to allowing the camel’s nose into your tent. He’ll be sleeping in your bed soon afterwards... 

If this is truly how he feels and truly what he wants... why punish and individual officer?  Punish the leaders.. Punish the department, punish the city/county/state, slap them silly with a lawsuit that will pay for his daughters college.  Punishing the guy who appears to have been trying their best to follow conflicting orders... does not deter the leaders from giving conflicting orders.  There is a strong case to be made for punishing leaders for their failures in leadership and holding them accountable for the actions of their subordinate. 

If you want to stop this slippery slope in it tracks, go after the Police Captain, the Police Commissioner, the Mayor, the City Council,  and/or the Governor.  Because to really work against corruption the least effective thing you can do it hit the ones with their feet on the street.. You need to go after the ones with their butts in a seat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

why punish and individual officer?  Punish the leaders.

If a General orders his troops to kill unarmed women and children, you are a monster for giving the order and a monster for following it. No difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

If this is truly how he feels and truly what he wants... why punish and individual officer? 

Because it was the individual officer that chose to move outside of his authority.  Punishing a department that just reaches into the taxpayer's pockets isn't a punishment that will change behavior.  Each individual officer should think about the authority they are about to exercise and what the ramifications of that might be.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know how many people on these forums believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.  These cases of coronavirus quarantine with people having their rights violated should be watched but this is small potatoes thus far compared to what I have seen in recent years regarding violations of the 2nd, 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution in some states of this country.

Thomas Jefferson said:  "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."  

The 6th Amendment gives the accused the following rights:
    Speedy and public trial
    Trial by an impartial jury
    To be informed of criminal charges
    To confront witnesses
    To compel witnesses to appear in court
    To assistance of legal counsel

All of these rights are being denied in some states with red flag gun confiscation laws.  In some states the accused does not face the accuser, but instead their privately owned guns can be taken at the whim of a Judge who only hears one side of witnesses.  If the Judge agrees with the witnesses the privately owned firearms (and any weapons) are seized from homes by police without due process under the 6th Amendment.  The accused then gets to plead with a Judge and prove they are innocent.  (Innocent until proven guilty is gone and they are also denied trial by an impartial jury.)

From what I have read more than 80 percent of citizens are denied their property by Judges.  In my research these awful laws have been used to strip firearms from more than 5,800 people across the United States without due process.  

I could not find how many times these laws were used in California but this state has their own police squads which are used mostly to confiscate private guns from citizens.

Thankfully the majority of States do not have these laws on their books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Because it was the individual officer that chose to move outside of his authority.  Punishing a department that just reaches into the taxpayer's pockets isn't a punishment that will change behavior.  Each individual officer should think about the authority they are about to exercise and what the ramifications of that might be.

So are you telling me that as a Father who has authority over his kids that you never ever even once in the heat of the moment made a judgement call about the punishment of your kids... Only to realize later that you made the wrong call...  If so then you are a better father then any other father I have ever heard of (except God).  If you have made such a mistake.. then you deserve to be punished exactly the same as you propose for this officer.

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If a General orders his troops to kill unarmed women and children, you are a monster for giving the order and a monster for following it. No difference. 

True but if you are going to use a war analogy use the right one.

If a solider kills a child suicide bomber... we recognize it has a hard but necessary choice.  If the solider kills what he thinks is a child suicide bomber and it turns out he was mistaken.. we recognize it as a tragedy. and we investigate to find out why the failure happened and try to prevent.  COVID -19 is a viral bomb who's carriers are incredibly hard to detect.  And police are our soldiers on the front line to try to stop these bombs from getting through (Like the other first responders)

He was not a solider purposely disobeying orders (or following orders that are inherently wrong).  He is a solider on the front line and in the heat of conflict and in the mist of conflicting commands/demands made the wrong call.  A call that was quickly corrected, but a certain amount of harm was already done.

 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

True but if you are going to use a war analogy use the right one.

 

Making the bigger point about those "following orders."

I'm cynical about this. I think if the National Guard was ordered to open fire on civilians, most would do so unquestionably. After all, they are trained to do just that. Follow orders. I think most soldiers would justify it someway. The civilians deserved it, it was marital law, it was for the "greater good", etc. 

Now, granted, I pray I'm wrong, and I know nothing about the military. So hopefully, I'm way off. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So are you telling me that as a Father who has authority over his kids that you never ever even once in the heat of the moment made a judgement call about the punishment of your kids... Only to realize later that you made the wrong call...  If so then you are a better father then any other father I have ever heard of (except God).  If you have made such a mistake.. then you deserve to be punished exactly the same as you propose for this officer.

True but if you are going to use a war analogy use the right one.

If a solider kills a child suicide bomber... we recognize it has a hard but necessary choice.  If the solider kills what he thinks is a child suicide bomber and it turns out he was mistaken.. we recognize it as a tragedy. and we investigate to find out why the failure happened and try to prevent.  COVID -19 is a viral bomb who's carriers are incredibly hard to detect.  And police are our soldiers on the front line to try to stop these bombs from getting through (Like the other first responders)

He was not a solider purposely disobeying orders (or following orders that are inherently wrong).  He is a solider on the front line and in the heat of conflict and in the mist of conflicting commands/demands made the wrong call.  A call that was quickly corrected, but a certain amount of harm was already done.

 

Adults aren't children.   Parents aren't cops.   My job is to raise and educate my children.  The State's job isn't to raise or educate me.  This is one of the dumbest analogies I've ever seen, and I've heard privates say some pretty silly things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Making the bigger point about those "following orders."

I'm cynical about this. I think if the National Guard was ordered to open fire on civilians, most would do so unquestionably. After all, they are trained to do just that. Follow orders. 

Now, granted, I pray I'm wrong, and I know nothing about the military. So hopefully, I'm way off. 

Military and police analogies aren't accurate, in my opinion,    War isn't a group coming together and deciding that we should have rules and then hiring people to come together and enforce them.  It's the exact absence of that.  The rules are different.   The recognition of rights is historically different, though that's changing.  The tacit support of subjects and the belief that this makes them targetable is different. etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.