For the scale you are implying that a majority/strong minority of the police force needs to be excised. Whereas perhaps the majority of SWAT units that need rethought the majority of the Police Department is functioning correctly.

It sounds to me to accomplish your goal calls for nothing short of a full on armed revolution and an overthrow of the government. While perhaps not a bad idea I think there is no chance in hell of your gonna pull it off.

Working within the system I think the odds of actually getting something accomplished in our lifetime are a lot more realistic.

So if the real problem is with the lawmakers, disbanding the police force doesn’t solve any problems.

Have you been reading Radley’s site? He has quite a few incidents of police engaging in misbehavior and even illegal behavior…and knowingly so. As such, getting rid of such officers strikes me as reasonable. Getting rid of those officers who defend the incompetent and corrupt is also reasonable to me, just as it would be reasonable to prosecute an accomplice, after the fact, in murder. Same goes for judges, prosecutors, and politicians. Problem is we run into the point Lloyd raised as well as my own objections, which pretty much neuters your claims of wanting to work within the system. The system is part of the problem.

Think of it this way. Is democracy any better than its alternatives? Sure with monarchy, meritocracy, etc. you aren’t assured of getting the best person for the job. But do you get that with democracy? With democracy you have to get people to vote for you. We end up with leaders who are skilled at both lying and pandering, not usually things one considers as good for “the right man for the job”. This is one reason I despise Democrats, and lately Republicans, both love to swing a Federal bat at any and all problems. Once you get a program at the Federal level getting rid of it via voting is virtually impossible.

Mike, you are arguing for the status quo.

I personally don’t want some backwoods sherriff making the decision if a full cavity search is warranted on a routine public intoxication charge.

Strawman here Mike. Nobody is saying it is all open to interpretation, but that agents of the state are responsible for discerning when an order is illegal and not carrying it out. If you follow an illegal order when you know the order is illegal, then you are indeed guilty of a crime and should be punished. IANAL, but there is probably some “reasonable person” concept in the law that would provide agents of the state some cover.

So if the real problem is with the lawmakers, disbanding the police force doesn’t solve any problems.

Have you been reading Radley’s site? He has quite a few incidents of police engaging in misbehavior and even illegal behavior…and knowingly so. As such, getting rid of such officers strikes me as reasonable. Getting rid of those officers who defend the incompetent and corrupt is also reasonable to me, just as it would be reasonable to prosecute an accomplice, after the fact, in murder. Same goes for judges, prosecutors, and politicians. Problem is we run into the point Lloyd raised as well as my own objections, which pretty much neuters your claims of wanting to work within the system. The system is part of the problem.

Think of it this way. Is democracy any better than its alternatives? Sure with monarchy, meritocracy, etc. you aren’t assured of getting the best person for the job. But do you get that with democracy? With democracy you have to get people to vote for you. We end up with leaders who are skilled at both lying and pandering, not usually things one considers as good for “the right man for the job”. This is one reason I despise Democrats, and lately Republicans, both love to swing a Federal bat at any and all problems. Once you get a program at the Federal level getting rid of it via voting is virtually impossible.

Mike, you are arguing for the status quo.

I personally don’t want some backwoods sherriff making the decision if a full cavity search is warranted on a routine public intoxication charge.

So if the real problem is with the lawmakers, disbanding the police force doesn’t solve any problems. The police are not the cause of the drug war they are just the tool used to implement it. Firing the entire police force and starting fresh won’t solve any problems it just means a new police force is in charge of enforcing a flawed set of laws.

What Frank is ignoring is the culpability of most of the general public. Most people go along with law-and-order demagogery because they want to be made totally safe from crime and don’t care how that happens. When there is a reported criminal outrage the response is “Just do something.”.

An good point Lloyd and further support for my assertion that the current system is part of the problem. Maybe Dave Hummels notion of increasing public support for changing the system is a good one, but it is indeed a long row to hoe so to speak. Afterall most people take Lloyd’s view or worse, they think, “Well he has been charged with a crime therefore he must be guilty of something,” and then cease to give the matter anymore thought.

Mike,

#38 But what is the alternative? If you don’t work the existing system it implies at a minimum that you want to fire every member of the existing police force and start fresh.

Yes, that would be the conlcusion, but mayb that is an option we should consider. Think of it this way, you pull your milk out othe fridge and smell it. Hmmm, smells bad. Do you put it back in the fridge hoping tomorrow it wont be bad? Sometimes thing get so bad that redical measures are the solution, that is what our founding fathers thought…revolution and a radical new form of government. There is precedence for it.

Or it could mean ripping up the constitution and our whole jurist system.

Please stop waving this around like some sort of protective talisman. The Constitution has been treated like toilet paper by all three branches of government for a long, long time. I don’t think there is much left to rip up.

But the idea isn’t to do away with the Constitution but to restore it to its rightful place in our body of legal thought. That it doesn’t mean whatever you want to read into it.

The police aren’t responsible for writing the law they just enforce the laws. Ultimately it is the politicians that are responsible for the SWAT raids and Drug war.

I do believe you are making my point here. That the rot is pervasive throughout the entire system, not localized in just one spot which can then be excised.

So your saying every government employee must be an expert constitutional scholar?

No, he is just saying that the Nuremberg Defense is no defense. Even in the absence of a Supreme Court Decision. Seriously, do you think that if a law was written that, for the sake of argument, allowed for the rounding up of all people with red hair and incarcerating them on nothing else the police should simply shrug their collective shoulders and start the round ups and raids? Really? It is the agent of the State’s job to try and discern when an order is legal or illegal.

I don’t think we really want to let all local officials put thier own interpretation on the constitution, that is what the supreme court is for. Police should be taking thier direction on what is consitutional from supreme court decisions and without any decision they should be obeying/enforcing the laws written by congress.

In the the land between Canada and Mexico, the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any statutes, regulations, ordinances, judicial rulings, or policies which contradict the Constitution are illegitimate. As all state officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S., they are very much to blame if they act in a manner inconsistent with the Supreme Law of the Land.

To me verdict in this case would be no less valid if they HAD obtained a valid warrant. Even a drug dealer with 500 Kilos of cocaine in his bedroom needs to know that the people entering his house are police. Just because he is a drug dealer doesn’t mean that he somehow forfeits that right or have any foreknowledge that the people raiding him are likely to be police. They are just as likely to be a rival drug gang.

They don’t allow themselves to think about the costs of simple quick solutions. They want to believe that only people who deservit are affected by this sort of raid. They want to have confidence in the authorities. Ultimately without their support and their willful blindness these raids would not be happening.

The police and prosecutors demonize drug suppliers and this is evil. I do not use that word lightly. It is also evil to demonize the police. Evil is thoughtlessness. It is willfully or habitually ignoring relevant major moral considerations. And evil can be fueled by seeking to see oneself as virtuous. The worst forms are.

Personally I do think there is a need for a police force, and while corruption does exist the only realistic way to solve its problems are using the existing system.

While Frank’s comments are over the top, this isn’t going to get you very much. Prosecutors don’t care about this problem. Judges don’t care about this problem. Politicians don’t care about this problem. In fact, I’d argue that all of the above constituencies actually benefit from the status quo. Politicians make political hay out of being “law and order”. Our judiciary has been working assiduously to undermine the Constitution from the Switch in Time to Save Nine. Prosecutors get lots of good cases that they can prosecute to further their careers. Working with the current system is not going to very efficacious in my view in that the current system is part of the problem.

What is the solution? I don’t know. A new system maybe?

Okay, I think I’ve got a winner in the “Most Hysterical Internet Post of the Day” contest.

Did you have to take to the fainting couch after that one, Frank?

Personally I do think there is a need for a police force, and while corruption does exist the only realistic way to solve its problems are using the existing system.

Your alledging that Tessier joined this unit knowing full well that it was morally bankrupt. How about showing some evidence to back this up.

You alledge that the harm to Tessier’s wife doesn’t matter because she married a cop. I say the only way to change the system is to work from within so perhaps he was a good cop and thus deserving of sympathy.

Then you insult is two young girls with the “nits make lice” quote made famous as a justification of murdering native american women and children. I got a better quote for you: “Sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here”

“I know your family’s grieving. Fuck em.”

Frank, do you realize who you’re quoting here?

Here’s a couple of free clues: No one put a gun to Tessier’s head and made him become a police officer. Likewise, no one put a gun to Tessier’s head to make him join that particular domestic terror squad within that police department. He went in with his eyes wide open knowing that the unit he was joining was at best lazy and taking unacceptable shortcuts and at worst corrupt from the top down.

As for his family, well again, no one put a gun to Mrs. Tessier’s head to make her marry a cop, it was her own choice. Granted this is Canada, but here in the USA the Constitution defines only one crime, treason, and within the definition is the phrase “adhering to it’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” As for the children, the phrase “nits make lice” comes to mind as more often than not ‘law enforcement’ is a generational phenomenon.

It’s long past time some of you apologists reading this blog acknowledged the de facto gang war occurring in North America. The gang is the police and those who authorize their paychecks against the rest of us, and that gang treats us with utter contempt. Go lurk on a web board for law enforcement if you don’t believe me, it will make you sick. The only exception is Fire/EMS, who are granted a form of honorary “good guy” status amounting to second-class citizenship. Otherwise you’re “little people”. It takes something heinous like the police execution of an old lady in Atlanta for something to change, and even that will have no staying power.

The good cops (and there are a few) are just as bad because they won’t report the bad ones, out of a fear of ending up like Serpico. One of these days they will learn that “I was just following orders” will play as well here as it did in Nuremberg.

And God help anyone that tries to bell the cat. If you’re a politician the police union will destroy you, painting you as soft on crime, never mind that the real criminals are wearing blue. Regular citizens that file complaints can expect harassment and arrest on fabricated charges. Lawsuits rarely affect those who truly need to be corrected or dismissed and that’s only assuming your jury isn’t stuffed with retired cops and cop family members and dismissed outright.

Under those conditions, demanding that I have sympathy for anyone even peripherally involved in this kind of crap is not reasonable. This is a war, and anyone who isn’t a cop or family of a cop is the enemy. I’m supposed to have sympathy for those trying to kill me or ruin my life for no good reason, and their quisling supporters?

http://www.fortunecity.com/bennyhills/holygrail/201/homey.wav

The term eventually grew to encompass any resistance fighter.

Has nothing to do with any Marquis, Tom Payne or whatever.