Syco21 Posted June 17, 2012 Author Share Posted June 17, 2012 I fail to see how calling for the police to be actually allowed to do their jobs (you know...catch the bad guys, stop drugs on the streets, make our streets safer for Mr & Mrs Joe Public to walk at night...the sorts of things we all want, I suspect) automatically results in a police state.There's this thing, it's called the constitution. It's supposed to be the supreme law of the land. As I have already demonstrated, their actions have violated the consitution. Their job is to uphold the law, not break it. By violating the constitution, they are violating the law. Ergo, they are not doing their job. Furthermore, as I have pointed out many times. No one was in any danger until the police showed up. The police are the ones that put these people in danger. I digress, of course...but the issues are linked. While the actions of the Aurora PD may have been a bit much, I'm sure the complaints about letting a group of bank robbers get away would've been all over the media under headlines such as "Crooks get away with it" and "Police clumsiness lets robbers go free". Police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.This line of thought has been repeated ad nauseum, yet not a single person has provided a relevant example where this is true. Yet, banks are robbed all the time, and the robbers usually get away with the first one. Just google bank robbery, you'll see dozens of examples, but no national outrage because they weren't caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sync182 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Their job is to uphold the law, not break it. Wrong. Everyone has the obligation to uphold the law and not break it. Police are employed to enforce the law when it is broken, and apply penalties for breaking it to those who broke it. There's a reason it's also known as Law Enforcement, and not Law Upholding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted June 17, 2012 Author Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Their job is to uphold the law, not break it. Wrong. Everyone has the obligation to uphold the law and not break it. Police are employed to enforce the law when it is broken, and apply penalties for breaking it to those who broke it. There's a reason it's also known as Law Enforcement, and not Law Upholding.Samething. Definition: 1. to stand up and/or fight for something like a cause or ideal; 2. to keep something in an unchanged condition Synonyms: defend, protect, champion, support, maintain Antonyms: neglect, let down Tips: If you switch the word uphold, you see that its essential meaning is "to hold up," or "to support." When you uphold something, you support it and are willing to fight for it. Usage Examples: The justices of the Supreme Court have sworn to uphold the Constitution. (support, defend) The Superior Court judge upheld a previous ruling made by a lower court. (supported, maintained) A good judge will uphold the law regardless of his or her personal beliefs. (support, protect) Police officers take an oath to uphold the law and to protect the public. (maintain, defend) Not sure what your point is though, unless you're trying to argue that the police are only obligated to enforce the law, but not follow it. :rolleyes: Edited June 17, 2012 by Syco21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Their job is to uphold the law, not break it. Wrong. Everyone has the obligation to uphold the law and not break it. Police are employed to enforce the law when it is broken, and apply penalties for breaking it to those who broke it. There's a reason it's also known as Law Enforcement, and not Law Upholding.To the best of my knowledge the general populace only has to adhere to the laws of the land, there is no legal obligation for a civilian to uphold the law, that is the job and responsibility of law enforcement hence the term enforcement. Law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard than civilians in terms of violations of constitutional rights. I can witness a felony but am under no obligation to apprehend the felon, a police officer on the other hand is obligated to be proactive.Thus while being proactive he still is under the obligation not to violate my rights while doing so. Constitutional rights are not up for modification when convenient, they supersede the authority of any police necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Here's another one for folks to chew on. NYPD Stop and Frisk. Constitutional? Or budding police state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Stop and frisk is rather normal. Police have had this right to pat down any person being detained for officer safety precaution for a long time. At a traffic stop the person being pulled over is detained, and the officer is within the law to ask him out of the vehicle and do a pat down search of his person. It's quite different searching someone home or vehicle just to see what is in there, unless the detainment has something to do with crime in progress. Can't say I am all for stop an frisk without some sort of reason though. It ends up as a > hey you, guy, we had a report of guy in the area that did something, *searchy searchy*. Or just insert non white guy for guy if you want to pull race card. Inevitably devolves into police with license to harass on their own judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) Stop and frisk is rather normal. Police have had this right to pat down any person being detained for officer safety precaution for a long time. At a traffic stop the person being pulled over is detained, and the officer is within the law to ask him out of the vehicle and do a pat down search of his person. It's quite different searching someone home or vehicle just to see what is in there, unless the detainment has something to do with crime in progress. Can't say I am all for stop an frisk without some sort of reason though. It ends up as a > hey you, guy, we had a report of guy in the area that did something, *searchy searchy*. Or just insert non white guy for guy if you want to pull race card. Inevitably devolves into police with license to harass on their own judgement.Stop and frisk refers to stopping people without justification and frisking them. This is wrong. Now, if an officer wants to frisk someone they are detaining and they present a reasonable fear concern for their safety, I'm fine with that. But detention without RAS or PC is straight up wrong and illegal in most, in not all, states. Edit: crossed out fear and replaced with concern, I'm fine with the concern not being as strong as a fear. But again, only so long as they an present a good reason for that concern. Edited June 18, 2012 by Syco21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Syco has it correct. These are not people that they have detained, these are folks that "look suspicious". Also not, from the article, Last year, nearly 685,000 people were stopped by officers in cases that ended with no meaningful charge, according to police department statistics. Of these, 87% were African-American or Latino, the police department says. 87% minorities. Hhhhmmmm......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted June 18, 2012 Author Share Posted June 18, 2012 Syco has it correct. These are not people that they have detained, these are folks that "look suspicious". Also not, from the article, Last year, nearly 685,000 people were stopped by officers in cases that ended with no meaningful charge, according to police department statistics. Of these, 87% were African-American or Latino, the police department says. 87% minorities. Hhhhmmmm.........All the more reason to hate NYC and avoid it like the plague. If a cop threw me up against a wall to try and search me, he might walk away missing some teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Syco has it correct. These are not people that they have detained, these are folks that "look suspicious". Also not, from the article, Last year, nearly 685,000 people were stopped by officers in cases that ended with no meaningful charge, according to police department statistics. Of these, 87% were African-American or Latino, the police department says. 87% minorities. Hhhhmmmm.........All the more reason to hate NYC and avoid it like the plague. If a cop threw me up against a wall to try and search me, he might walk away missing some teeth. Trouble is, at that point, he could shoot you, and get away with it....... I get depressed watching the rapid erosion of our rights....... This goes right back to the "what are you entitled to" thread. You are only entitled to what your current government is willing to grant you, and even that is subject to change without notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now