Your opinion on morality of enforcing unjust laws

To rephrase the question: if you are a police officer, how do you decide which laws to enforce?

You might disapprove of war on drugs but would still bust people for using them...how about guns? And at which point would you retire from the force or actively sabotage its workings, rather than be a part of an unjust system...and rather than get killed in the process of carrying out those orders?
 
As a police officer, you do not make that choice, in theory. Honestly, everyone of us makes it everyday. Everytime we see a burned out headlight or a jay walker and we don;t right a ticket, we have just decided not to enforce the law.

Those are obvisouly excusable lapses in "duty,".. but you speak of other, much more serious infractions.

Some officers might "look the other way" on a small amount of drugs.. Myself, I'll push the issue over the tiniest remnant of a joint.

Living in TN, where it is reasonably simple to get a CCW Permit, I would also have no problem enforcing the current CCW laws, though I have never found a person with a weapon who did not a CCW and didn't otherwise meet the definition of a "Criminal," so I have had no moral decisions to make along those lines.

If the laws change, I might choose to not enforce them... but it would have to be pretty drastic changes.. like the type of registration/banning that has happened in NJ and CA.. they wouldn't sit well would me. Nor are you likely to see me knocking on doors asking people for thier guns. At that point, I think I'm mor likely to be in my home with a few buddies WAITING for the knock.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Just for clarification:

Do you see the CCW (easy or not to obtain) laws as infringements?

If you found someone with no criminal warrants in possession of a concealed gun without a permit, how would you treat this individual?

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com
 
All firearms laws are unconstitutional.No law-abiding US citizen needs a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
WEll, Like I said, I never have, and I would have no reason to. Unless it was during a traffic stop, and in that case, tehy can legally have a gun on their person.

I believe that if a person who is otherwise law-abiding carries a gun for self defense, LE will never know about it, until they use it. which is a choice they have to make. I know I did that for years when it was my only option.

If for some reason I bumped into a person and felt a gun, I would have no PC to find out, unles Ijust asked them about it, which is legal. If they told me they had a gun, I would probly not do a damn thing...

Note that this is why I was opposed to the tactics of the NYPD SCU, which did away with Probable Cause for searches.

And, yes, I do think all CCW laws an unconstitutional. But I do not think the restrictions against VIOLENT Felons are. I feel that they forfit their rights when they commit crimes against other human beings.
 
As a Libertarian, I consider only three functions of government to be legitimate: protecting the physical welfare of citizens from unprovoked assault whether of foreign or domestic origin, protection of citizens' property rights, and the enforcement of contracts between citizens as well as preventing fraud in those contract. All else is, by definition, illegitimate when conducted by government.

Rob, how about this one? :) You are a county sheriff. Your daddy was one of the biggest moonshiners Georgia has ever seen. You were raised on the proceeds and would have been poor as dirt without it. You are now busily engaged in arresting people doing the exact same thing your daddy did. People who are moonshining for the exact same reason your daddy did-to keep their kids from going hungry. I once asked this sheriff what he thought he was accomplishing by this. He said he was upholding the law. I told him that may be so but you also accomplished this: The man is in prison at a cost to us taxpayers of about $50,000 per year $500,000 total. The mother and five kids are on welfare-cost to the taxpayers for 10 years, total of at least $100,000 with probably an equal amount in administrative costs. It probably cost 3/4 of a million dollars to stop this one moonshiner. Anyone think it was worth it? I damn sure don't. Are you willing to spend $50,000 annually to stop someone from smoking pot? Or any drug? Letting them collect their Darwin awards would sure be a more cost effective solution.

But what really concerns me is the legislators, judges, and bureacrats who cannot seem to address the social problem du jour without trampling on the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. And what is absolutely appalling-a death knell in fact-are the supposed supporters of the Bill of Rights who go along with the rape of the Bill of Rights as long as it is for a good purpose. It is alright to violate the rights of drug dealers, right? Or drunk drivers? One day the target will be you, my friends, and you will look around for help. There will be none and you will squeal about the Bill of Rights and the guards will laugh in your face as they knock your teeth out with their truncheons. That is the ultimate price of enforcing illegitimate law.
 
I believe this is somewhat germane..

"A strict observance of the laws is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adhearence of written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us."

Thomas Jefferson, Sept 20, 1810


------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
RIGHT ON SPARTACUS !!!-----------------------
It's so sad , ..the state of this nation, from where it began....our forefathers put in the right checks and balances, the people have been unfaithful to the gift of the Constitution over the years and have allowed terrible things to happen to change the funtioning of our government. --------------
It's high time we changed all that... we need to force the gov to remove two laws for every one they pass until its gets back in balance.--------------------------------------------------
And with regard to our rights , we need to use T-18,Chtpr-13, Sec -241 Conspiracy against rights.... this we should use to beat the crap out of anyone oe anay group who would infringe on any of our rights!



------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
 
Let me pipe in here. First I was a cop, Maryland State Police. I use past tense because the rank and file were a bunch of wimps, when it came to questioning supervision. Questioning supervision entails most of policing. How laws are enforced, what laws are enforced, equipment, use of equipment and force or lack of use of equipment and force etc. It use to frustrate me to no end how these guys would risk their lives everyday, but would let supervision walk all over them. Their excuses were they had a mortgage, family, and monthly payments and they feared that if they spoke their minds they would be terminated. So they just did what supervision wished even if it wasn't right. Didn't make much sense to me I'd rather face a supervisor then some clown with a gun or knife or some drunk driving 2 tons of steel. Sidebar I got hit by a drunk while i was directing traffic. Never could comprehend it, I guess they were either to insecure to find other employment or really didn't have the conviction to do the right thing. Had my fill left even though I had 4 years of college preparing for the job BS Criminal Justice and over came numerous obstacles to get in. Broken back L-1 thru 5 TBI, one good kidney and other maladies. To this day I have no respect for LEO's because they don't stand up for themselves. In the real word you will never find a Dirty Harry because this type of maverick would have been forced out, quit in disgust or be stationed in some obscure place with the rank of patrolman. On CCW they are un- constitutional what right does the government have telling me that I have there PERMISSION to carry. I'm innocent until proven guilty. I have the right to carry until proven otherwise.

------------------
"Solidarity is the Key"
 
Oleg: Let me add a military perspective. We're sworn to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States...". We are also legally and morally bound to refuse to comply with illegal and/or immoral orders. My personal perspective: If ordered to participate in a mass seizure of privately owned weapons, ammo etc, I would refuse and (if necessary) actively resist. I would be perfectly willing to face whatever consequences that would come out of that decision. IMHO, there are hundreds of thousands of professional military (and probably LE) who share those feelings.
 
If you refuse to carry out an illegal order, in my opinion, surrendering to the same authority that issued the order to "get your lumps" is inconsistent. I do hope that those LEOs that take their oaths seriously would not quit, rather would handicap their opponents from the inside.

------------------
Cornered Rat
ddb.com/RKBA Updated March 20
"Disarm, then past the barbed wire, into the oven and out of the smoke-stack..."


[This message has been edited by cornered rat (edited May 13, 1999).]
 
Oleg: You're absolutely correct. Perhaps I should have been clearer. By being "...perfectly willing to face whatever consequences..." I did not mean that I would cheerfully (and passively) allow myself to be dry-humped to death by the machine. I mean that I would be perfectly willing to accept imprisonment, death or whatever following active resistance to any illegal order, if things ever come to such a sorry state.
 
Gutt, you sound like my dad... he got hurt and took a disability before he got "forced out."

CR, I assure you, if it came down to confiscation I would be handicapping my opponents.....

------------------
-Essayons
 
Gentlemen: This is becoming all too valid a question. I spent 22 yrs as a federal LEO. It was Neitzche, I believe, who referred to the State as 'that cold monster'--and he was right to some extent. Like everyone else, on duty I saw what I thought I needed to see and ignored things that I thought were pointless. I occasionally went further at some risk to myself to control an outcome. I have seen all too closely the ability of the government to either ignore things or to pursue something to a ridiculous degree. Perhaps we have to adhere more closely to the warrior ethic and be very sure of our ground nowadays. We have a higher loyalty than to a given supervisor, agency, or administration. We also have an obligation to witness to the truth. None of this necessarily involves winning in the end--but I think we have a higher calling than being hired guns.

------------------
 
God bless you, Mr. Foote. I have a predisposition to extreme cynicism in regards to federal law enforcement. It is posts like yours that give a small amount of much needed leavening to my cynicism. I pray that more federal agents are like you, I fear there are not. As I have posted in other areas, the federal agents I have personally witnessed had no regard for the truth or for justice. Their only interest was "winning."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top