Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas deputy who brutalized entire family... (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No, they aren't. (0+ / 0-)

    One cannot possess arrest powers and be "subordinate to the citizenry."

    Now, they're supposed to be subordinate that local government from which they receive those powers, but that's a completely different story.

    For every loose cannon like Joe Arpaio or every out-of-control guy like Kessler--or the guy mentioned in this article--there's a local government that isn't doing its job.

    By the same token, there are countless local governments that do exercise sufiicient control over their sheriffs and PDs.   Those are the policemen who never make the pages of this site, the front pages of their local papers, or the 6pm news broadcasts of their local television outlets.

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:00:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  they are there to protect and serve (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      onionjim

      to SERVE... they are also public servants, not bosses.

      they are not there to subordinate citizens...

      “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

      by pfiore8 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:23:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What, exactly, do you think the rule of law means? (0+ / 0-)

        US citizens are subordinate to the laws of their Federal, State and local governments, insofar as (in the US) their Constitutional rights are not violated or unduly infringed.

        The purpose of law enforcement--and the powers granted to sworn officers--is to ensure that the public acts in accordance with the law.

        "Serve" does not mean "subordinate" when it comes to the individual citizen, but rather to the collective public.  In any specific sense, the "service" of law enforcement is to relieve the citizen(s) of the obligation to enforce the laws on their own.

        Now, I completely agree that we see frequent examples of excesses on the part of law enforcement officers - but that does not negate the subordination of citizens to the law, nor does it make the embodiment of law enforcement subordinate to the citizens.

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:34:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We pay their wages (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pfiore8

          The police are a public service. We need them. They work for us.

          A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

          by onionjim on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:37:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  no, it is to protect us from those who DO NOT (0+ / 0-)

          act within the law. they are there to protect us from law breakers...

          it is NOT their job to ensure we don't break the law. at all. the assumption is, in case you've forgotten: INNOCENT. until proven guilty and that burden is on the state.

          but the game is rigged more than ever these days.

          “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

          by pfiore8 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:45:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, I blew that one...sorry. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pfiore8

            I totally agree that they don't "ensure that we don't break the law"...perhaps I should have said something like "deter those who would break the law, and arrest those who do."

            It was a poor choice of words on my part.

            The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

            by wesmorgan1 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:33:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site