For the "Cop Hater" fan bois...
Educate yourselves!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (35)
sorted by:
Why are citizens not granted the same luxury? It is a job, and it is a Choice to take that job. If the job were compulsory then extra benefits should be added. Too many people that serve are given benefit over the citizen, they tend to want to maintain that benefit and support new laws in the process. If you do not want to be a cop, then do not. It is time that the playing field was leveled.
Hell, most of it is code and statute enforcement anyway, which only plays into the control structure, deemed necessary for our safety while we are denied equal opportunity to keep ourselves safe...
Law enforcement officers ARE citizens.
“A policeman’s lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does,” ~ Chief Justice Earl Warren
The SCOTUS decision in Pierson vs. Ray DOES level the playing field.
Law enforcement's job has nothing to do with keeping you safe. It never did. Law enforcement's ONLY goal is to enforce the U.S. Constitution and all state and federal laws not inconsistent therewith. This is the oath that law enforcement officers take:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of [State] not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as a law enforcement officer of the [Name of Department] so help me God."
It is through the enforcement of the laws legislated by society as a whole that an area of peace and safety is developed and maintained in which you, the citizen, can live your life in a relative measure of security while maintaining the autonomy you desire.
You also might be interested in:
The police have no general duty to protect. Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals. Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.
Was it something I said?
Level
Doesn't matter if we like it. When we break the law there are consequences, when they break the law....
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
What is treason, exactly?
"Knowingly" is going to be a very important word.
"...or should have known" is an even more important phrase.
"willfully" is also another important word in legislation, laws and charging language.
That is just more of the law makers trying to make fun things happen.
Language is a real bitch sometimes because it can be used to enlighten or confuse. How would you define should have known? If in a car, should have known to stop but was distracted by a phone holds weight. Operating dangerously, of course.
This is why we need to get back to a Republic and stop making so many Laws for the people. Chicago, murder happens apparently, guns are illegal apparently, citizen can't own a gun to protect themselves from a criminal and must call police that have no responsibility over that persons life what so ever and wait. I do not advocate for everyone shooting everyone, but if everyone had a gun people would be less likely to attack? At the very least those attacked would have a chance to defend themselves while waiting on the people that have no responsibility over them. Murder and attempted murder are a crime, but in many cases the police are forbidden to do anything until a crime has been committed, so how do you really do anything?
These people (police) are in a shitty spot to say the least and I feel for them, really I do. But I cannot support people that allow this to continue. This isn't anti cop, again, just what they are made to do.
LOVELY!!!!
This isn't to detract, some things must be changed. To protect and serve, removed from everything that the state possesses. It is clearly a lie that we can agree exists.
The definitions in the amendments made to sound as though corporations are people thus people are corporations need to be made clear that this is not the case, a living human being is separate from a brick and mortar building, buildings have no rights. Fancy wording was used to confuse. Police are to no longer be paid by their municipality but by the state directly, their must be a division allotted to officers that would ensure they have no reason to cover anything up for their municipality. Live body cams from clock in to clock out, everyone in the department. Procedures should be implemented to ensure that case work/sensitive information isn't revealed of course.
Constitutional law, as written for the people needs to be taught. Government was not created to dictate the daily lives of man. I am leaning heavily on drivers licenses as they are wholly unconstitutional and "Law Enforcement" is all to happy to comply.
If your job has you swear an oath it would behoove you to know what you are swearing to. As it stands, almost all in law enforcement are guilty of not upholding their oath. Thinking it meant something and acting on it vs knowing what it meant and acting within law are two very different things. They are complicit with operating with the State an illegal money grab. If they are not here to protect us then why would they bother me about a seat belt or speed or license? I agree that seat belts and speed limits are not the end of the world. But imposing a fee to "freely travel" then imposing a fee if i do not carry documentation when I "freely travel". An obligation clearly prohibited by the document they are meant to uphold. Asset forfeiture was fun too.
That "serve and protect" nonsense generated by California liberals. That was nothing more than a radio contest by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950's for a slogan for them. It is nothing more than a LIBERAL attempt to try to exert control over law enforcement. It's bull shyt. Go ahead and google it.
Law enforcement officers LOVE the body/dash cams because they are the most prominent factor is thousands of law enforcement officers being found innocent and exonerated regarding thousands of complaints that would have otherwise been upheld just to appease the masses. The officers now have all the proof they need to show that the majority of complaints are LIES.
Again, you are proliferating a LIE. The truth is that the majority in law enforcement ARE Oath Keepers and "cop haters" like you can never provide any reliable source for the case being otherwise. So PROVE it! I'll wait.
No one has ever denied you your right to "freely travel". You're free to take the shoe leather express anywhere you want, even across state lines or country borders.
Where your argument fails is your contention that operating a motor vehicle on a taxpayer funded street or highway is a "right". IT IS NOT. It is a privilege and if you want to exercise that PRIVILEGE then you have to meet the requirements.
Of course, if you don't like the way that this nation is operated, then you are quite free to shoe leather express your ass to a country that is more to your liking. Good luck with that,...sovereign citizen wannabe.
My freedoms are not to be infringed and are never to be given through obligation. Freedom of travel. If I am not employed through interstate commerce I am not obligated and cannot be to hold a license or insurance. That is really all that needs to be said about it, I think. Municipalities are using police to enforce unconstitutional laws.
Asset forfeiture is another, as I am free to own property and it cannot simply be taken because. Again, municipalities using police to enforce unconstitutional law.
That is called treason, pretty sure. I do not hate cops, I hate what they do without knowing.
code and statute enforcement would also fall under enforcing unconstitutional law, because it isn't law.