AZ - Jose Guerena Shot 60 Times By SWAT Team

And we're supposed to believe that this guy, who was asleep, got woken up by his wife, got his AR15 AND got to the door in 15 seconds?

Storie said that once the SWAT team parked outside the home, the lights and sirens were turned off. An officer banged on the door for about 45 seconds while identifying the team as police, he said.

First it was 15 seconds of knocking, now it's 45 seconds? Which is it? Y'know, if a non-LEO changes his story, the cops are sure that he's lying. What is it when a LEO changes his story?

Attorney Michael Storie said authorities found rifles, handguns, body armor and a portion of a law-enforcement uniform inside the house where Jose Guerena was shot by officers serving a search warrant May 5.

Is anyone here surprised that a Marine would have "rifles, handguns, body armor"? (Come to think of it... I'm not even a Marine and I have "rifles, handguns, body armour"! I grant you, a mail shirt isn't exactly modern body armor, but for thousands of years it was considered state of the art body armor!)

As for a "portion of a law-enforcement uniform"... hell, a gunbelt can be considered that. How about some specifics, or can't they demonize it sufficiently without the vagueness of "a portion of a law-enforcement uniform"?
 
Home invasion ring? With a guy that works the Graveyard shift - hell with a guy that WORKS?!?!?!?

The lawyers/spokesman both look like typical lying lawyers - but kind of hard to pull an apple off a lemon tree isn't it?

Dumbass Dupnick is praying for another big story to take the headlines away from this so it can just go away.

In case I haven't written it before - RIP to a Marine.
 
First it was 15 seconds of knocking, now it's 45 seconds? Which is it? Y'know, if a non-LEO changes his story, the cops are sure that he's lying. What is it when a LEO changes his story?

Protecting and Serving.

Is anyone here surprised that a Marine would have "rifles, handguns, body armor"? (Come to think of it... I'm not even a Marine and I have "rifles, handguns, body armour"! I grant you, a mail shirt isn't exactly modern body armor, but for thousands of years it was considered state of the art body armor!)

As for a "portion of a law-enforcement uniform"... hell, a gunbelt can be considered that. How about some specifics, or can't they demonize it sufficiently without the vagueness of "a portion of a law-enforcement uniform"?

Let's see:
Rifle: Check
Handguns: Check
Body Armor: Check
Black Pants: Check
Hi-Gloss Oxfords: Check
Black open-collar short sleeve dress shirt: Check


O noez! I have rifles, handguns, body armor and "portions of a law-enforcement uniform"! I must invade homes for a living.
 
Attorney Michael Storie said authorities found rifles, handguns, body armor and a portion of a law-enforcement uniform inside the house where Jose Guerena was shot by officers serving a search warrant May 5.

There's a lot of people on this board that have all this stuff who we're never in the armed services. I would fully expect a Marine to own all of that stuff and more.

Maybe everyone who posted in this thread should have their door kicked in and be murdered just in case???

How many stories have we heard where parents and relatives were sending armor and other gear to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because the military wasn't? All we heard on the news for months was how civilians were purchasing commercially available armor and shipping it to troops because of a huge military supply issue.

The real sad part here is real story will never be told and none of these guys will ever be held accountable. They will go on busting down doors and shooting people for years to come
 
Last edited:
Protecting and Serving.



Let's see:
Rifle: Check
Handguns: Check
Body Armor: Check
Black Pants: Check
Hi-Gloss Oxfords: Check
Black open-collar short sleeve dress shirt: Check
Overcompensating for social shortcomings: Check


O noez! I have rifles, handguns, body armor and "portions of a law-enforcement uniform"! I must invade homes and shoot harmless four legged furry friends for a living.

fify
 
Serious question NES... how long are we as a country... are we as a community... going to let this continue?

We bitch an moan, half a continent away, but really that only makes us feel better. It does nothing to bring justice.

How about the next time it happens in our back yards?
 
Serious question NES... how long are we as a country... are we as a community... going to let this continue?

We bitch an moan, half a continent away, but really that only makes us feel better. It does nothing to bring justice.

How about the next time it happens in our back yards?

Is there something we can do this time, as a community? Can we provide amicus briefs? Contribute to the widow's wrongful death suits? I remember all the activity around here with the '94 de-Foley-ate congress campaign, and that was an entire continent away.
 
ya know what bothers me about this? If they actually found incriminating evidence the wife would have been arrested wouldn't she have? I've seen it a million times on SWAT-Miami Dade (camera crew following real swat team on warrants) when they raid a house they arrest everyone involved or at least restrain everyone. How is it that the team stayed outside for ten minutes while she called 911?
 
Attorney Michael Storie said authorities found rifles, handguns, body armor and a portion of a law-enforcement uniform inside the house where Jose Guerena was shot by officers serving a search warrant May 5.​

None of which is illegal to own the last time I checked.
 
With regard to SWAT's "high risk entry" procedures: what ever happened to flash bang grenades or tear gas??? [hmmm]
I don't recall seeing any mention of these tactics being used here.
 
Well didnt some high ranking pol. say that we need to check ex soldiers as domestic terrorists?

I'm a former soldier and a threat to anyone who wants to attack the constitution i swore to support and defend against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC....

Just so they know :)

From my HTC EVO via Tapatalk
 
Pinching my nose and jumping into the shark tank...

Yeah, this whole thing was FUBARed. If it can be shown there was the requisite amount of recklessness/negligence/malice on the part of the officers in killing an innocent citizen, you'll hear no qualms from me.

My only objection is the references to law enforcement as a collective, single entity that acts in monolitic fashion without exception. Seems to me if you believe in individual rights and the individual as being the supreme entity in this tangible world, referring to law enforcement without accounting for the individuals that compose it is ignorant and short-sighted. I love what I do and I always go to work with the attitude that I'm no better than anyone else. But if my simple choice of profession makes me a jackbooted thug by no other reason than because of these outrageous stories of those in the same profession who went off the reservation, then it appears to me you only favor the superiority of the individual when it's convienent for the topic at hand, i.e., when painting every cop with a broad brush makes it simpler for you to make your point because you then don't have to account for differences amongst the population you're discussing.

In short, I can't say I disagree with most of the of the posts, but I do disagree with the generalities with which they're applied.
 
OfficerObie,

'Not all Muslims are terrorists but so far, vast majority of terrorists are Muslims.'

Maybe if the 'Peace Officers' community acts jointly more like peace officers, collectively denounces acts such as this and demonstrates to the communities that they hold the Constitution to a higher regard than their chain of command, people will then call a bad apple a bad apple, instead of lumping all in a bucket.
 
I have always had, and still have respect for Police Officers.

But SWAT Teams, and officers who wear masks and wear black are just a bunch of freaking Nazi's.

They scare the shit out of me........and the bastards need to be brought under control!
 
The term "Peace Officer" Died along with Alice's Restaurant officerobie59.

Maybe police shouldn't be lumped into the same barrel as the SWAT teams. Maybe we should go back to peace officers and just hit the delete button on all the SWAT crap.

Maybe this should be a ballot question in the next election. "Do you believe no city or town should have a SWAT team?
 
Pinching my nose and jumping into the shark tank...

Yeah, this whole thing was FUBARed. If it can be shown there was the requisite amount of recklessness/negligence/malice on the part of the officers in killing an innocent citizen, you'll hear no qualms from me.

My only objection is the references to law enforcement as a collective, single entity that acts in monolitic fashion without exception. Seems to me if you believe in individual rights and the individual as being the supreme entity in this tangible world, referring to law enforcement without accounting for the individuals that compose it is ignorant and short-sighted. I love what I do and I always go to work with the attitude that I'm no better than anyone else. But if my simple choice of profession makes me a jackbooted thug by no other reason than because of these outrageous stories of those in the same profession who went off the reservation, then it appears to me you only favor the superiority of the individual when it's convienent for the topic at hand, i.e., when painting every cop with a broad brush makes it simpler for you to make your point because you then don't have to account for differences amongst the population you're discussing.

In short, I can't say I disagree with most of the of the posts, but I do disagree with the generalities with which they're applied.

I think if good cops always stood up in front of TV cameras and called for justice, i.e. actually sending bad cops to prison, you wouldn't have these sweeping generalities. The problem is we don't hear any cops or cop unions standing up and demanding officers be held LEGALLY accountable just like a civilian would.

Also get rid of SWAT teams. They're turning into nothing more than legalized military presence with even less ROE limitations than our troops overseas.
 
I think if good cops always stood up in front of TV cameras and called for justice, i.e. actually sending bad cops to prison, you wouldn't have these sweeping generalities. The problem is we don't hear any cops or cop unions standing up and demanding officers be held LEGALLY accountable just like a civilian would.

Also get rid of SWAT teams. They're turning into nothing more than legalized military presence with even less ROE limitations than our troops overseas.

This.

Silence is easily misinterpreted as tacit approval.
 
The problem is we don't hear any cops or cop unions standing up and demanding officers be held LEGALLY accountable just like a civilian would.

The average civilian with their eyes open has seen an increased police presence in their every day life, and not for the better. I'm not saying there are not exceptions, a perfect example of a true peace officer exists in my town. In the last few decades though, some feel we have gone from peace officers that are integral members of our town to a group of people who for the most part live outside the laws that is their duty to uphold.

This forum is not anti-police, but if the SWAT raid occurred the way we understand it: some kind of change needs to occur. Anyone who supports an organization that behaves in this manor and attempts to justify their actions is pro-tyranny.
 
Pinching my nose and jumping into the shark tank...

Yeah, this whole thing was FUBARed. If it can be shown there was the requisite amount of recklessness/negligence/malice on the part of the officers in killing an innocent citizen, you'll hear no qualms from me.

My only objection is the references to law enforcement as a collective, single entity that acts in monolitic fashion without exception. Seems to me if you believe in individual rights and the individual as being the supreme entity in this tangible world, referring to law enforcement without accounting for the individuals that compose it is ignorant and short-sighted. I love what I do and I always go to work with the attitude that I'm no better than anyone else. But if my simple choice of profession makes me a jackbooted thug by no other reason than because of these outrageous stories of those in the same profession who went off the reservation, then it appears to me you only favor the superiority of the individual when it's convienent for the topic at hand, i.e., when painting every cop with a broad brush makes it simpler for you to make your point because you then don't have to account for differences amongst the population you're discussing.

In short, I can't say I disagree with most of the of the posts, but I do disagree with the generalities with which they're applied.

Well, my personal view is that a lot of the animosity toward LEOs as a collective entity is due to the fact that they are enforcement agents for corrupt, anti-Constitutional governments at every level.

We're often told not to hate individual LEOs since they "don't write the laws" but that's a cheap cop-out (no pun intended). Agreeing to enforce unconstitutional, abusive and over-reaching laws at the point of a gun is just as bad as writing those laws, IMO.

Sure, writing traffic tickets or arresting crooks isn't a bad thing per se, but when the line is crossed and those same individuals enforce laws or policies they know to be wrong, against fellow citizens who are only trying to live their lives as best they can ... well, there's no excuse for that.

You may personally be the nicest guy in the world and based on your posts I have no argument against that either. But the instant you decide to cut a corner and violate someone's Constitutional rights you're nothing but a thug.
 
Pinching my nose and jumping into the shark tank...

Yeah, this whole thing was FUBARed. If it can be shown there was the requisite amount of recklessness/negligence/malice on the part of the officers in killing an innocent citizen, you'll hear no qualms from me.

My only objection is the references to law enforcement as a collective, single entity that acts in monolitic fashion without exception. Seems to me if you believe in individual rights and the individual as being the supreme entity in this tangible world, referring to law enforcement without accounting for the individuals that compose it is ignorant and short-sighted. I love what I do and I always go to work with the attitude that I'm no better than anyone else. But if my simple choice of profession makes me a jackbooted thug by no other reason than because of these outrageous stories of those in the same profession who went off the reservation, then it appears to me you only favor the superiority of the individual when it's convienent for the topic at hand, i.e., when painting every cop with a broad brush makes it simpler for you to make your point because you then don't have to account for differences amongst the population you're discussing.

In short, I can't say I disagree with most of the of the posts, but I do disagree with the generalities with which they're applied.

There are cultural changes within the law enforcement community. The manner in which both the law enforcement community and the non-law enforcement community view themselves and each other has changed, IMO, in the last twenty years and has accelerated since 9/11.

Part of the problem is exacerbated by the fact that at least in the northeast and elsewhere in this country, a majority of LEOs (esp in large urban departments) come from just several ethnic groups, nepotism seems is a way of life, with so many children following their father or mother's footsteps by becoming police officers. I realize that there are both historical and cultural reasons for this which are way beyond the scope of this forum with regard to any serious discussion. What we have created, is in effect, a police caste or class that perpetuates itself generation after generation. One does not bite the hand that feeds it, so to speak. On the face of it there would appear to be several good arguments that refute that. One being that affirmative action programs have dramatically changed the face of law enforcement and law enforcement draws many minorities and females into the profession. There is no denying that there is some truth to that, but it could also be argued, I think, that the majority of LEOs are still male and, have relatives on the Job and are from several ethnic groups (at least in this neck of the woods). In the applicant process, which on paper tries to create a level playing field, there are ways (primarily the interview and background check) to ensure that only "pre-selected" candidates" make the cut. What about affirmative action, you say? Well, a certain number of those candidates are going to be admitted because, not to do so would bring upon the displeasure of the government that supports the police. This is just one part of the issue. We have today, a police class in society. Nepotism regardless of geographical locale seems to be the order of day even when ethnicity is not a factor (which it isn't in some parts of the country). This police class views itself as being above and not from the citizens that it is sworn to protect and serve.

From the other side of the street, so to speak, the police are increasingly being tasked with enforcing laws and policies that are beyond the scope of their traditional roles, and are further hampered by a legal system that is more of a "game" that maintains the fiction of seeking truth and punishing only the guilty. Too often the police have become the front line mental health workers in this country since the 1970's when the powers to be decided that most of the mentally ill should not be institutionalized and were dumped on the streets. The police are increasingly becoming the school disciplinarians because administrators cannot or do not know how to execute this, and seem at times to be totally lacking common sense. Then, there is the War on Drugs, which never ends and for which victory will never come. Drug use, IMO is a social problem, a health issue which IMHO should be addressed outside of the criminal justice system. I favor the legalization of most drugs, but that it unlikely to happen simply because too many people make too much money off of them, and that money gets filtered many times removed into the coffers of the rich and powerful.

Back in the 1970's an LAPD Sergeant, Joseph Wambaugh, wrote a novel entitled "The New Centurions" where he outlined a lot of things that have come to pass because of the changes in society. His title referred to the Roman Soldiers who presided over the decline of the Roman Empire, and the police like those Roman soldiers found themselves in the middle between a society that was increasingly alienated towards them as social norms broke down, and a government became increasingly venal , corrupt and inefficient with the police in the middle.

I believe that a lot of egregious police behavior today is focused on people who would not have even come on a police officer's radar screen at one time. These people are easy targets and I think sometimes that the police overreact towards them as a way of venting their frustration. Overreaction becomes a form of venting. They do it because they can.

There is another dynamic in this too, as I think many police officers must deal with incompetent leadership. Many police administrators gain their rank because of their ability to take a written test, not because of their leadership abilities. Those who are in high rank and are in appointed positions, are in many cases, politicians in uniform and are going to direct and administer policies that the politicians over them want. All too often the cop that tries to do the right thing becomes a victim in his or her own right.

This post is already too long and I'll give you a rep point if you can finish reading it [grin]...but IMHO it underscores and barely scratches the surface of a large and I think increasingly complex social issue for which, sadly, I see no resolution in sight.

Perception is truth and unfortunately there are misconceptions on both sides: citizen and sworn, but there is also veritas or real truth on both sides as well. Trying to separate the real truth from the perceived truth is the challenge and one that I do not think either side will be able to do. Sadly, I believe that the rift will continue and only get worse, and for those that would like to see the United States return to the world of 1793, that's not going to happen either. Remember this though: when only the police have guns, it's a police state.

Mark L.
 
Last edited:
We're often told not to hate individual LEOs since they "don't write the laws" but that's a cheap cop-out (no pun intended). Agreeing to enforce unconstitutional, abusive and over-reaching laws at the point of a gun is just as bad as writing those laws, IMO.

Sure, writing traffic tickets or arresting crooks isn't a bad thing per se, but when the line is crossed and those same individuals enforce laws or policies they know to be wrong, against fellow citizens who are only trying to live their lives as best they can ... well, there's no excuse for that.
Is it really a cheap cop-out, or are the police simply observing their approriate place as part of the executive branch of government? Should the police then pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce? And aren't they effectively supplanting their own wisdom for laws that, while they just may be unconstitutional in substance, were enacted in procedurally constitutional fashion by the legislature and interpreted by the courts?

If the community says via their elected represntives they want every person to wear a green shirt on Tuesdays or face a $500 fine, who is the beat cop to say "Thats unconstitutional, I'm not enforcing that"? After all, it's a law the community said they wanted, and if you really do indeed want police to protect and serve the community, seems to me that goes to enforcing the statutes YOUR represntives and government pass.

Also, It seems to me in this instance, the police become even more dangerous because they then essentially override the courts as the constitutional arbiturs of all criminal laws. For example, I have good friends in the DEA, but if you ask me, federal drugs laws passed under the guise that they relate to commerce in some rational way is, well, a farce. Still, it's not up to the individual DEA agent to decide that for himself. Why? Because a DEA agent has no business second guessing the legislature and the courts, institutions that are, in theory, superior by nature in that they ARE the body politic--and as a public servant he is subodinate to them. He works for them. He is not the arbitur of the laws, nor should he act like one. To think that would be a good idea strikes me as counterintutive to the point that the police have become too powerful--wanting the police to decide what is constitutional and what is not would seem to me to be the ultimate power grab.

Gaining control of your representation is the answer, not blaming the guy who enforces the laws. Get control of your representatives and you get control of everything else--if there are no unconstitutional laws passed, there are none to enforce.
 
Last edited:
There are cultural changes within the law enforcement community. The manner in which both the law enforcement community and the non-law enforcement community view themselves and each other has changed, IMO, in the last twenty years and has accelerated since 9/11.

Part of the problem is exacerbated by the fact that at least in the northeast and elsewhere in this country, a majority of LEOs (esp in large urban departments) come from just several ethnic groups, nepotism seems is a way of life, with so many children following their father or mother's footsteps by becoming police officers. I realize that there are both historical and cultural reasons for this which are way beyond the scope of this forum with regard to any serious discussion. What we have created, is in effect, a police caste or class that perpetuates itself generation after generation. One does not bite the hand that feeds it, so to speak. On the face of it there would appear to be several good arguments that refute that. One being that affirmative action programs have dramatically changed the face of law enforcement and law enforcement draws many minorities and females into the profession. There is no denying that there is some truth to that, but it could also be argued, I think, that the majority of LEOs are still male and, have relatives on the Job and are from several ethnic groups (at least in this neck of the woods). In the applicant process, which on paper tries to create a level playing field, there are ways (primarily the interview and background check) to ensure that only "pre-selected" candidates" make the cut. What about affirmative action, you say? Well, a certain number of those candidates are going to be admitted because, not to do so would bring upon the displeasure of the government that supports the police. This is just one part of the issue. We have today, a police class in society. Nepotism regardless of geographical locale seems to be the order of day even when ethnicity is not a factor (which it isn't in some parts of the country). This police class views itself as being above and not from the citizens that it is sworn to protect and serve.

From the other side of the street, so to speak, the police are increasingly being tasked with enforcing laws and policies that are beyond the scope of their traditional roles, and are further hampered by a legal system that is more of a "game" that maintains the fiction of seeking truth and punishing only the guilty. Too often the police have become the front line mental health workers in this country since the 1970's when the powers to be decided that most of the mentally ill should not be institutionalized and were dumped on the streets. The police are increasingly becoming the school disciplinarians because administrators cannot or do not know how to execute this, and seem at times to be totally lacking common sense. Then, there is the War on Drugs, which never ends and for which victory will never come. Drug use, IMO is a social problem, a health issue which IMHO should be addressed outside of the criminal justice system. I favor the legalization of most drugs, but that it unlikely to happen simply because too many people make too much money off of them, and that money gets filtered many times removed into the coffers of the rich and powerful.

Back in the 1970's an LAPD Sergeant, Joseph Wambaugh, wrote a novel entitled "The New Centurions" where he outlined a lot of things that have come to pass because of the changes in society. His title referred to the Roman Soldiers who presided over the decline of the Roman Empire, and the police like those Roman soldiers found themselves in the middle between a society that was increasingly alienated towards them as social norms broke down, and a government became increasingly venal , corrupt and inefficient with the police in the middle.

I believe that a lot of egregious police behavior today is focused on people who would not have even come on a police officer's radar screen at one time. These people are easy targets and I think sometimes that the police overreact towards them as a way of venting their frustration. Overreaction becomes a form of venting. They do it because they can.

There is another dynamic in this too, as I think many police officers must deal with incompetent leadership. Many police administrators gain their rank because of their ability to take a written test, not because of their leadership abilities. Those who are in high rank and are in appointed positions, are in many cases, politicians in uniform and are going to direct and administer policies that the politicians over them want. All too often the cop that tries to do the right thing becomes a victim in his or her own right.

This post is already too long and I'll give you a rep point if you can finish reading it [grin]...but IMHO it underscores and barely scratches the surface of a large and I think increasingly complex social issue for which, sadly, I see no resolution in sight.

Perception is truth and unfortunately there are misconceptions on both sides: citizen and sworn, but there is also veritas or real truth on both sides as well. Trying to separate the real truth from the perceived truth is the challenge and one that I do not think either side will be able to do. Sadly, I believe that the rift will continue and only get worse, and for those that would like to see the United States return to the world of 1793, that's not going to happen either. Remember this though: when only the police have guns, it's a police state.

Mark L.

Great post.
 
Is it really a cheap cop-out, or are the police simply observing their approriate place as part of the executive branch of government? Should the police then pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce? And aren't they effectively supplanting their own wisdom for laws that, while they just may be unconstitutional in substance, were enacted in procedurally constitutional fashion by the legislature and interpreted by the courts?

If the community says via their elected represntives they want every person to wear a green shirt on Tuesdays or face a $500 fine, who is the beat cop to say "Thats unconstitutional, I'm not enforcing that"? After all, it's a law the community said they wanted, and if you really do indeed want police to protect and serve the community, seems to me that goes to enforcing the statutes YOUR represntives and government pass.

Also, It seems to me in this instance, the police become even more dangerous because they then essentially override the courts as the constitutional arbiturs of all criminal laws. For example, I have good friends in the DEA, but if you ask me, federal drugs laws passed under the guise that they relate to commerce in some rational way is, well, a farce. Still, it's not up to the individual DEA agent to decide that for himself. Why? Because a DEA agent has no business second guessing the legislature and the courts, institutions that are, in theory, superior by nature in that they ARE the body politic--and as a public servant he is subodinate to them. He works for them. He is not the arbitur of the laws, nor should he act like one. To think that would be a good idea strikes me as counterintutive to the point that the police have become too powerful--wanting the police to decide what is constitutional and what is not would seem to me to be the ultimate power grab.

Gaining control of your representation is the answer, not blaming the guy who enforces the laws. Get control of your representatives and you get control of everything else--if there are no unconstitutional laws passed, there are none to enforce.

The reality is that everything you have posted in this comment has no basis in old-style policing. That is the same mantra that has cropped up in just the past 20 years or so. Petty offenders were generally brought home the first or second time so the family could have an opportunity to solve "Junior's" problems. I would categorically state that modern officers simply throw everyone into court and I have personally heard two stated reasons. First, there is the "Let the courts sort it out" mentality. Second, is the "I could use some extra court time" payday philosophy. I have personally heard both reasons and detest both. If police are expected to be the investigatory body of the executive, then they need to fully investigate before putting someone (anyone) through the wringer we call our modern court system.

I certainly hope you are not the type of officer that blindly follows laws and orders as dictated to you, but that you exercise caution and restraint. Don't forget, at one point down south it was illegal for a black person to use certain restrooms, restaurants and other facilities, not to mention having to sit at the back of the bus. I recall someone getting arrested for having the temerity to be black and sitting in the front. Do you believe this was an appropriate decision by that officer?? I mean, the law allowed for arrest. Just saying.
 
Is it really a cheap cop-out, or are the police simply observing their approriate place as part of the executive branch of government? Should the police then pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce? And aren't they effectively supplanting their own wisdom for laws that, while they just may be unconstitutional in substance, were enacted in procedurally constitutional fashion by the legislature and interpreted by the courts?

If the community says via their elected represntives they want every person to wear a green shirt on Tuesdays or face a $500 fine, who is the beat cop to say "Thats unconstitutional, I'm not enforcing that"? After all, it's a law the community said they wanted, and if you really do indeed want police to protect and serve the community, seems to me that goes to enforcing the statutes YOUR represntives and government pass.

Also, It seems to me in this instance, the police become even more dangerous because they then essentially override the courts as the constitutional arbiturs of all criminal laws. For example, I have good friends in the DEA, but if you ask me, federal drugs laws passed under the guise that they relate to commerce in some rational way is, well, a farce. Still, it's not up to the individual DEA agent to decide that for himself. Why? Because a DEA agent has no business second guessing the legislature and the courts, institutions that are, in theory, superior by nature in that they ARE the body politic--and as a public servant he is subodinate to them. He works for them. He is not the arbitur of the laws, nor should he act like one. To think that would be a good idea strikes me as counterintutive to the point that the police have become too powerful--wanting the police to decide what is constitutional and what is not would seem to me to be the ultimate power grab.

Gaining control of your representation is the answer, not blaming the guy who enforces the laws. Get control of your representatives and you get control of everything else--if there are no unconstitutional laws passed, there are none to enforce.

"I was only following orders" is not an acceptable defence in many cases.
 
Is it really a cheap cop-out, or are the police simply observing their approriate place as part of the executive branch of government? Should the police then pick and choose the laws they wish to enforce? And aren't they effectively supplanting their own wisdom for laws that, while they just may be unconstitutional in substance, were enacted in procedurally constitutional fashion by the legislature and interpreted by the courts?

Isn't part of the problem, real or imagined, that on both an individual and collective level LE does apply a particularly wider use of their own discretion and wisdom when it comes to enforcement of laws when it applies to their own ranks or even friends and family for that matter?


You also seem to be implying or suggesting that Police have no influence on the part of the executive branch that creates the laws and the onus to provide guidance, to question whether a law is unconstitutional or even really enforceable is a burden placed solely on the shoulders of the non-LEO community. As both citizens of the community and enforcers of the laws the executive branch (Of which you state they are a part of) they should actually be more vocal and proactive in this regard.

Edit: We do see Police officials plenty of times come out and publicly endorse or promote laws claiming they need more laws that will restrict the rights of the populace and give them more authority (or money or toys)...a good example is with gun laws....rarely if ever do you see the opposite (or at least I don't).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom