Bronwyn fails Reading Comprehension 101

Time for my nap, it seems.

Wha… ?

NY judge failed pass/fail course on Birds and Bees 101.

Keeping up with justice system abuse is getting easy.

I havent seen Jim Gilbert yet.. I am interested in seeing if he has physically turned into an actual pig or if he just has the same resemblance.

An officer shooting a non-threatening unarmed citizen makes an “unfortunate mistake”. A citizen shooting an armed and masked intruder who just broke the door down is a “cop killer”.

Similarly, if it seems to you that someone committed a felony in front of you, you are guilty of false arrest if it later turns out this wasn’t a felony. The police officer will not face any consequences for arresting you knowing that you didn’t commit any crime.

I believe the translation, here, is that while citizens can’t plead ignorance of the law as a defense, police officers facing civil rights lawsuits apparently can.

Earlier today I read a great quote on one of the New Hampshire liberty activist forums (isn’t it great that such a small state has enough activity for several forums?)

“I don’t expect the police to know all the laws. But I do expect them to know the laws they’re ENFORCING RIGHT NOW.”

If the officer can’t name the offense and find the statutory cite in his code book in less than a minute, then he truly has no idea what the law is, and is just arresting and hoping to find an violation that matches the conduct.

What you’re suggesting is great in theory but, unfortunately, wouldn’t work in practice.

You’re going to have two types of people who would take such a position:

1. Former legislators or executive branch members who, while it’s been a long time since they’ve worked in such a capacity, “know what it’s like”, or still have many friends in the branch, and won’t be quick to punish for those “minor transgressions that everyone does”

2. People with future aspirations to get into the executive, judicial or legislative branches. They’re not going to be the ones to burn any bridges, lest they ruin their own chances in the future.

It’s kind of like Internal Affairs departments with police departments — ostensibly, they’re supposed to be a separate body, somewhat walled off from “normal” police work that judges the actions of the police and punishes accordingly. In practice, it doesn’t quite work that way.

2. Of course, everyone knows that you cannot have an “accredited web site” unless the site owner has registered with the US Treasury and taken Web Asset Regulatory Program (WARP) funds.

chsw

I get what your saying. It goes against the grain of minimal government, but I can see the direction you’re going.

Of course, if the state was in a mind-set to enact self-policing, we wouldn’t need this body of yours. You’ve got a chicken/egg problem there.

I’m afraid I don’t get what your objection is. You seem to object to “more of the state” but I made it quite clear that the custodians would have NO power over any regular citizen. Their whole purpose would be to harass (in some way–ok, make that “keep honest”) the rulers of the state, and by rulers of the state I mean those specifically working for the government.

Think of it as another check on government (since the legislative/executive/judicial check originally built in to the Constitution seems to have been subverted).

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

Judging from your comment, I don’t think you really understand what this means.

They would only have jurisdiction over persons in the other three branches, and would be guaranteed a budget of at least 5% (or some other reasonable number) of the executive branch (so that the legislature couldn’t make them go away). Also, no one could be a Custodian if they had been a member of the other three branches within the previous 10 years. And finally, laws would have to apply equally to members of the other three branches–no special exceptions.

Ahh, just what we need – more of the state.

It’s clear that current internal investigations and the like simply do not work.

You know why this is, right? It’s because it’s the state investigating…the state.

Basically a useful exploit if you want to cover something up indefinitely.

They would only have jurisdiction over persons in the other three branches, and would be guaranteed a budget of at least 5% (or some other reasonable number) of the executive branch (so that the legislature couldn’t make them go away). Also, no one could be a Custodian if they had been a member of the other three branches within the previous 10 years. And finally, laws would have to apply equally to members of the other three branches–no special exceptions.

It’s clear that current internal investigations and the like simply do not work.

Funny how they respond when they are on the receiving end of an indictment.

1) Who is the “authority” that hands out web site accreditation anyway? Radley: I demand to see your papers!
2) There is no need to make this shit up. Its all TOO real.

“…it isn’t necessarily unreasonable for a police officer to interpret someone recording him as a criminal act, and to arrest the person doing the recording.”

In other words, you will only be arrested if the police officer IS the criminal actor. Either way they’re taking your camera, phone and any large amount of cash you may be carrying. It’s evidence ya know.