Skip to main content

View Diary: Homicidal mentally ill felon obtains gun permit, arsenal, in Minnesota (324 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Their responses worry me (32+ / 0-)

    Isn't the point of having government separate from the police to prevent a police state? If police refuse to obey the rules and laws of the government, instead choosing to interpret them as they see fit, then we have lost democracy.

    •  If police refuse to obey the rules and laws (21+ / 0-)

      they need to be fired, barred form employment as law enforcement and possibly brought up on charges.
      They don't get to pick and choose.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 01:30:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How bout where they choose to enforce state laws (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kentucky Kid, Ice Blue, Wino, mindara

        Our sheriff has declared that he will enforce Oregon' laws concerning pot, instead of federal laws, which are more restrictive.
        Is he right or wrong?.

        Happy just to be alive

        by exlrrp on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 01:55:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Though I'm glad he leans that way (0+ / 0-)

          he's wrong. If he's faced with making that choice, he has a problem.
          He can avoid that by de-emphasizing drug law enforcement overall.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 02:26:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thats what he's doing, sort of (15+ / 0-)

            they still go after the hard drugs: meth, heroin, etc.
            But in OR, the sheriffs here have severe budget restraints--virtually every county here is lacking staff and losing more. In several counties, law enforcement is 18/6. They have limited resources and he wants to spend them the way he thinks suits his constituent best, gives them the best for their buck

            he also does this with immigration. He has said it is not his job to break up families and hassle  law abiding people. I also agree with this.

            This is a real popular sheriff, he has no significant opposition here. You can't fire him, only recall him, I would fight that.

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 02:35:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  These officers are being put in a tough spot. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              exlrrp, mamamedusa

              The difference I see in the marijuana laws is what we have here. There was a vote, making legalization part of the state constitution. The Federal laws have not been updated and will take longer to change. The compromise has been the Feds are going to continue going after distributors but not personal users. I think that works for now.

              We also had sheriffs here stop evicting people, mostly because some of the evictions turned out to be illegal and they didn't have the time to be determining that.

              Illegals are at the mercy of local enforcement. Some are determined to carry out the laws, others prioritize people who are more dangerous to other people and leave the illegals to ICE.

              The reaction to some of the potential new gun laws looks like grandstanding to me. Some seem to be objecting to laws that haven't even been proposed. IF the AWB is passed, the way it is carried out is likely to be some combination of buy back and voluntary, with a grace period. After that, it could/would be enforced when the gun is used publicly, particularly in a crime. Depending on laws and jurisdiction, that could also fall to the Feds.

               I hear or read these comments and think of George Wallace. Short of being paralyzed by a bullet, I doubt many of them will ever change their philosophy. They are likely to face job corrections if they don't get in compliance, whatever their beliefs.

              "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

              by Ginny in CO on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:14:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  here's the truth: Its ALL selective enforcement (7+ / 0-)

                Thats what a cop told me when I raised the topic. then he went back to writing the ticket.
                The fact is there are more laws to enforce then there are olice to enforce them.
                Every time some one pulls you over, he's selected you out of all the other things he could be doing---thats what the cop meant. It wasn't that there wasn't other stuff to do, he just saw you do it and he thought it was important enough (or easy enough) to take action on..
                So every time you enforce a law, you selected that out of the others you could/should/are required to enforce.  Its fine to say theyre required to enforce it, but like everything else theyre required to enforce, it gets prioritized

                So its ALL selective enforcement. by which I mean that everyone everywhere has to priorityze which laws they can and will enforce. And pretty much all sheriffs with limited resourcess are going to to prioritize the things theyre going to do. That IS what we elect them to do.

                In our sheriffs case he gives his opinion on what he's going to enforce and if the people don't like it they can elect someone else. Thats who he's responsible to and he knows it..

                Its not hard to see why people like this guy, he's a real human being.

                Happy just to be alive

                by exlrrp on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 06:38:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  He is right (17+ / 0-)

          Local officials are under no duty to enforce federal laws, however, they are also constrained from actively stopping the feds from enforcing them, this is where a lot of these sheriffs have crossed the line, in that they are boasting they will actively stop the feds from doing their job.

    •  Of course, Law Enforcement across the nation (0+ / 0-)

      currently has what is known as "selective enforcement" abilities, in every jurisdiction in the land.

      Which is shorthand for:

      In America, in small towns and large cities everywhere, there are not enough uniformed police officers to actually police the land.

      Which means that local Sheriff's and Chief's of Police must determine how many man-hours they have for assignment of existing Officers to work reported crimes. Which eventually means that some crimes go unsolved and even un-worked.

      Looked at logically, police forces across the nation are deciding which Laws they will enforce and which they will not - ad hoc. Already. In fact if not in name.

      Have we already lost Democracy?

      I think not.


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

      by Angie in WA State on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 01:22:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site