Cop Repellant

[Justin Moore]

A lot of ground has been covered in past 24 hrs.... I'll jump back in on the topic of operating a motor vehicle as a privelege. I think it is, and should be. I have no problem with people moving about freely, but I think that they should have to demonstrate a reasonable amount of proficiency before they toll around in a 3000lb vehicle at 60mph a few feet from other similarly equipped citizens.

Since when is a drivers license a 'proficency test'? You take ONE proficiency test when you are 16, and then you can endlessly renew your license for the rest of your life WITHOUT undergoing any further testing IF, and I say IF, it were truly about one's proficency in operating a motor vehicle, you'd have to demostrate it on a regular basis. My physical and mental abilities at a later age, might not be anywhere NEAR what they are when I got a license at sixteen. So, WHAT is a drivers license then, if its (clearly) NOT a demostration of proficency?

1. a de facto national ID card.
2. another form of taxation, and revenue generation

I have no problem with people moving about freely

I certainly hope not

Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:


"1. Is there threatened danger?
2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
3. Is this regulation reasonable?" People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power."
When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge.

First, "is there a threatened danger" in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?

The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.

It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)


"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.
To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.)

Next, does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right?

This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right.

The third question is the most important in this case. "Is this regulation reasonable?"

The answer is No! It will be shown later in "Regulation," infra., that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.

Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.

Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.)


"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.

"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions." Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.

"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language." Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.
As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:


No person shall be...deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.
As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel.

In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.

Several courts have established the principle of the 'right' to travel.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html

[Justin Moore]

Jeff White,

Like it or not the police will operate under the guidelines the courts hand down. How long do you think an officer would be employed and not in trouble with his superiors if he refused to operate under the court guide lines?

If enough officers banded together, and said enough is enough, don't you think YOU could have some effect? That sounds suspiciously like the 'nuremburg defense'. "Well, I just did what they told me to do." I wish they weren't putting you in those kinds of positions in the first place, because it really puts the squeeze on the honest LEO, but to say you are powerless to do much about it is kind of a weak argument IMO.

What would you do if you were ordered to go out and start confiscating all the guns tomorrow? In other words, if the courts directed you to begin gun confiscation? It's my understanding that about 70 percent of the military who have been in service for less than 10 years said they would do a such a thing. The DoD handed out a questionaire asking that very question

[Quartus]

Anybody who has the powers that the police have is someone who I will always watch closely-like a hawk. But all in all, day by day, I think they do a largely thankless task surprisingly well.

HEAR HEAR!!! Well said, Spart. Though I think the trend is downward toward totalitarianism at an alrming rate.

It's up to us, as citizens, to get the laws on "dynamic entry", the "creative" property seizure laws, the War On Some Drugs, and abortions such as RICO changed so they are not REQUIRED to enforce them

Again, well said, Spart.


Rich, I'm solidly with you on this. I think you have articulated the problems well. I love that 'root password' line! You may need to explain it to the none UNIXers, though.

rm- rf *.liberty, indeed!


The delicate balance we seek is that between liberty and security. (Both personal and societal.) The bliss ninnys seek only security; idiots of another kind (don't know what to call them) seek only liberty. Of the two, liberty is the more valuable, the more real, and the more easily lost. Therefore, always err on the side of liberty.

[Rich Lucibella]

Jeff-
Finally, we're in agreement....I think. I'm not arguing that the cops don't have the right to use the tools the courts give them; I'm arguing that the tools are improper and Unconstitutional....and I agree with Jason that each of you should give some real thought to whether you choose to rely on such powers and tactics. Doing so is certainly not moving the Cop on the Beat and The Man on the Street any closer together, regardless of the fact that I'll still respect you in the morning.

Hells Bells, if we were to accept every Court ruling as "well that's just the way it is; next subject", we could simply shut down about 1/3 of the discussions in thsi (Legal) Forum.

It's within that context that my statement regarding the "specious" nature of the "Courts Allow" argument has to be read.

The real keeper passage in this very long thread was just uttered:

The delicate balance we seek is that between liberty and security. (Both personal and societal.) The bliss ninnys seek only security; idiots of another kind (don't know what to call them) seek only liberty. Of the two, liberty is the more valuable, the more real, and the more easily lost. Therefore, always err on the side of liberty.

Rich

[Jeff White]

Justin,

Have we reached the point where we can no longer effect change at the ballot box? Is our system so corrupted that we are ready to revolt?

The way things are supposed to work is that the courts tell us what is constitional and what isn't. I always ask myself three questions before taking any action.

1. Is it legal?

2. Is it safe?

3. Will the people be served by my taking this action, or would they be better served if I didn't?

The guidelines set out by the courts are what I'm, supposed to use to answer question #1. Like most officers I also use my own values. I don't do seizures of property and cash. I really feel that the courts are wrong on the constitutionality of that. Working part time, I'm in a postion to do that. Mike is right officers do discuss these things among themselves. The other officers I work with know my feelings on that issue. I guess everyone I know has certain laws that they think aren't right.

Would I confiscate weapons from the general public?

NO!!! at that point I would cease to be a police officer. Are we there yet? No, not yet.

DOD did not hand out a questionaire asking soldiers feelings on confiscating weapons from the American people. A Navy officer did, to a small sampling of Marines, as part of a doctoral program for his civilian education. Everyone who enlists still takes the same oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic. It says nothing about defending the constitution, except for the 2d amendment.

All I was saying was that there are ways to effect the system and turn things around. If you could walk through the patrol rooms of this country, you'd probably be shocked to find out how many officers are as patriotic and worried about the way things are going as you are. At some point things may come to the "banding togther protests" that you mention. Once again we're not there yet.

I do feel that it will more likely get to the point where people just won't do the job any longer. Just like the Clinton administration tore down the military, these things are starting to tear down law enforcement. The difference is that the process just seems to be starting in LE. The danger is that as the old guard retire, get fed up and quit or otherwise leave the profession, it will get harder and harder to replace them with officers of the same caliber. Large agencies all over the country are currently having trouble recruiting. Here in Illinois they recently had a big conference among police chiefs across the statr to discuss what to do about the shortage of qualified applicants. You know what will happen, standards will sooner or later be lowered. that's whn you have to worry about someone using the Nuremburg defense.

Like every profession we have our officers who shouldn't be there, but the great majority are doing a very hard job the best way they no how.

Jeff

[Justin Moore]

Jeff,

I really appreciate your reply, thank you

The danger is that as the old guard retire, get fed up and quit or otherwise leave the profession, it will get harder and harder to replace them with officers of the same caliber.

That's EXACTLY what I'm worried about too! Given what is being taught in public schools theses days, and more importantly what is NOT being taught, I'm worried that these young kids that are becoming cops don't have much regard for peoples rights and the meaning of the Constitution. That is what I am cocerned the most about, not guys like you Thanks to the influence (in the schools)of the liberal principal of 'moral relativism' and the idea that there nothing that is 'clearly right or wrong' (just ask Clinton about this one ) I can see dangers looming in the future for all of us. I don't think that's being alarmist.

I think Rich's point is that there is a LOT of bad case law out there made by activist judges, and just because they interpret things a certain way, doesn't mean its RIGHT.

I'm glad that you and your fellow officers are cognizant of these problems, and take the time to discuss these issues. I just hope the newer, younger officers that are coming out of the liberal slanted, federally funded public education system, have the same morals/values that YOU do. I'm concerned that they won't thou.

[Jeff White]

Rich,
I think we're pretty much in agreement about the court decisions and you'd probably be surprised by how many officers do act in ways to try to bring the cop on the beat and the man on the street together. Out of 10K + members here on TFL how many bad personal experiences with LE have been posted in these threads? Not all that many. Of course maybe some people just aren't relating their bad experiences.

We don't live in a police state yet. But then again, we're not as free as we were ten years ago.

Justin,
Maybe you should look at hiring on as an officer somewhere. The money isn't bad in some places,(poverty wages in others though). There really is a crisis brewing in the ability to attract quality people into the profession.

Jeff

[Justin Moore]

Jeff, I've actually thought about that. Maybe if I wind up moving back to Wyoming

There really is a crisis brewing in the ability to attract quality people into the profession.

What do you think is causing this crisis? Attrition through regular retirement?

[Rich Lucibella]

Jeff-
On that note, I conclude that our personal views differ by about a quarter degree.....not even enough for me to discern without a magnifying glass!
Thanks.
Rich

[Whats-A-Glock?]

A massive group of law abiding citizens shoud get these kits and converge on Chicago. When you see a cop tap a line a time or two and get him to pull you over. Then do the cop repellant gig. He will want to harass you so you will have to call a lawyer. Meanwhile you are keeping the cop busy and he won't be able to go confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. Since you aren't drinking you get off scott free and saved someone from being harassed by the cop over guns. You won't be preventing someone from getting a cop's help because it's not like the cop will be preventing crime somewhere. All he does is harass law abiding citizens over their guns and write reports. I say keeping the cop too busy to harass us is the best use of his time.

[Rich Lucibella]

Sigh.
Welcome to TFL, What's-a-Glock.....I think.
Rich

[Justin Moore]

Rich,



Jah, welcome, I spose

[Quartus]

I'm not arguing that the cops don't have the right to use the tools the courts give them; I'm arguing that the tools are improper and Unconstitutional.

I think this is often a point of confusion here on TFL. Some are saying "That's the way it is." and others are saying, "This's the way it ought to be!". We end up arguing when we really agree on what OUGHT to be, but we haven't clarified that some are pointing out IS and some are arguing for OUGHT. Alas, they are different!

Of course, sometimes we're just onery!


As for what's causing the crisis in recruitment, I'd say one factor is the dearth of decent people out there! The moral tone of America is way down from what it was. Patriotism is not high on the list of most people's values these days. I could rant on in this mode for a long time, but really gents, it's obvious, isn't it?


I've given some thought to law enforcement myself, but I'd have to shave my beard!


edited to correct my failing to close the quote! I shall report for flogging in the morning.

[Rob Pincus]

I think that Capt H. is spot on with his assessment. While defending the way that we do our job, I am not saying that it is the perfect solution for a perfect world...jus the way it is. Most of us err on the side of our fellow citizens and push the limits of how much we "look the other way" and give out warnings. Far too often, we are accused of just the opposoite, pushing every limit in order to get a mark in the statistic book... and that get's old.

I don't see a movement on to take cars away from people (Greenies be damned), but I do see a problem with our firearms, that's why I would oppose testing/licensing for firearms ownership today. I still think it would be a good idea, if we had started 200 years ago. Of course, I think that we should have mandatory military service too, and appropriate training while in the military to take care of the proficiency requirement.

Now, while you all fire another volley, I'm going fishin.
(With a gun, they're cathching some big sharks where I'm headin'... )

[Quartus]

Ooooh! Shark shootin'! Sounds like fun!

But Rob, I have to disagree. If we had started licensing 200 years ago, we'd have no guns now.