Posted on 10/18/2012 12:54:46 PM PDT by Altariel
Investigators with the Richmond County Sheriff?s Office say they accidently served a search warrant on the wrong house, while looking for a suspected drug dealer in Burke County.
ping
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120929/lincoln-square/woman-raped-by-teen-pizza-deliveryman-on-uws
Great link.It averages about 10 reports of police misconduct per day.That’s 3500 per year.
The other approximately 750,000 LEOs in the U.S.A. must be so ashamed.
I was particularly dismayed at the N.H. officer who was arrested for DUI. He got drunk off duty in his own car. Terrifying. I knew an accountant who did that once.
.
I have the feeling that if an officer used babies’ skulls to brick his basement, he’d want you to be his judge.
Flattering that you follow me from one thread to another the way you do, Your Honor.
I wasn’t following you,I was following a topic which has run it’s course.
Have a great weekend.
.
The constitutionality of the actions of a government employee is not determined by “how many have led to a Constitutional case”.
It is determined by that which is written in the document itself.
It is determined by that which is written in the document itself.
In other words, this is yet another question you can't answer, because you can't come up with a single case.
Of all the liberal law groups out there that are willing to jump on any case pro bono that involves the cops and has a chance to make it to the Supreme Court, you can't come up with a single one.
In other words, one does not look to whether one government employee investigates the behavior of another government employee to determine if the latter’s actions were constitutional.
One looks to the Constitution itself.
One can also look to Robert Peel’s nine principles for policing to determine whether such conduct is within the limited bounds established by said principles. Who better, after all, to inform the public of the principles to which the police must abide better than the Father of Modern Policing?
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
It seems rather clear that Robert Peel would not be scrambling to defend their actions by trying to chase a rabbit trail or two.
I would rather base my beliefs on a formal court system that acts professionally rather than someone who uses exaggerations, sarcasm, and insults to support his opinions.
Then you have chosen to reject the objective standards of the Constitution and Robert Peel’s principles in exchange for the standards of a court system which is known for corruption and injustice far too often.
In other words, I have no interest in chasing the rabbit trails which you are so desperate to incite others to follow you upon because you cannot justify the actions of your beloved government employees using either the Constitution or Robert Peel’s own principles.
I thought I made it clear that what I'm rejecting is your opinion. The court system with its tiny amount of corruption is far more reliable and believable than you are.
I have been discussing facts. The unconstitutionality of this raid is factually and objectively demonstrable by reading said document.
The failure of the officers to abide by Peelian principles is also factually and objectively demonstrable.
Even you yourself acknowledge this by your failure to defend your beloved government employees on either basis.
You have been terribly one-sided. You only post bad stories about the police. You call people Nazis, Communists, and state worshipers. You exaggerate and blow problems out of proportion in order to get an emotional response.
And now you claim to be objective on constitutional matters.
I think I'll trust the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who gave us a judicial branch to decide constitutional issues, and I'll trust the experienced and knowledgeable judges within that branch of government before I ever accept your biased opinion.
I see you are again hurling personal accusations instead of attempting to defend your beloved police either via the Constitution or Robert Peel’s principles; it seems that you realize you are unable to do so, as they are in violation of both.
Saying that you post all negative articles about the police, isn't an accusation. It's a fact supported by your posting history on FR.
Asking you to come up with a court case to support your opinion on constitutionality and your failure to do so is also a fact.
Selective reading of my posting history is not factual.
Your failure to defend the actions of these police on that which is written in the Constitution or on the basis of Robert Peel’s principles is factual.
Your attempts to change the subject to be about anything other than the unconstitutional behavior of these officers are evidence of your inability to defend them using either the written text of the Constitution or Robert Peel’s principles.
How many negative stories have you posted about the police versus positive? You're welcome to clear up the facts at any time.
Your attempts to change the subject to be about anything other than the unconstitutional behavior
Feel free to provide a court case to back up your otherwise biased opinion.
I realize your desperation to chase rabbit trails to avoid both objective sources mentioned.
When you are ready to examine the facts in light of the objective sources mentioned, please do ping me again.
Until then, further replies will be considered as further desperation on your part based on your inability to defend your Beloved Officers-Who-Do-No-Wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.