Drawing the line

[Leroy Pyle]

Drawing The Line
By
Leroy Pyle
The role of the police officer in the quest for individual rights is a common topic for many in the activist community. I am often challenged with the demand for my personal
interpretation of certain constitutional rights, or to define my response to a hypothetical situation. Typically,
the question is, "If the [government leader] ordered you to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, what would you do?"
Article at http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/pyle/draw_the_line.htm

[G30man]

I would refuse, get fired and collect unemployment while I looked for work and went to school.

Best wishes,
Mikey

[THE BRONZE]

DITTO, G30man.

------------------
Jim

[Leroy Pyle]

Can either of you expand on that? Are you a writer? I am looking for some more articles to publish on my site.

Doesn't have to be professional, but a bit longer than, "Yeah, what he said!"

Although I appreciate the sentiments,:-)

Leroy

[The Cynic]

I'd do it. I don't agree with all the laws I enforce (drugs for instance) but as long as they are the law I will enforce them. Unless I'm required to to do something totally outlandish, i.e. rape, murder, torture someone in the name of the law, I feel I have to do it. Thats what I agreed to do when I took the oath.

[Leroy Pyle]

Well, take a look at www.2ampd.net (http://www.2ampd.net) and see if you can come up with an article that you would like published there.

Leroy

[G30man]

Cynic,
It is truly sad that you would follow an order that violates the constitution. Didn't your oath involve upholding the constitution? Mine did.
So on the assumption that you took a similar oath, you would betray that oath just to keep your job? Please tell me I am mistaken. http://www.officer.com/ubb/frown.gif

Mikey

Originally posted by The Cynic:
I'd do it. I don't agree with all the laws I enforce (drugs for instance) but as long as they are the law I will enforce them. Unless I'm required to to do something totally outlandish, i.e. rape, murder, torture someone in the name of the law, I feel I have to do it. Thats what I agreed to do when I took the oath.

[The Cynic]

Originally posted by G30man:
Cynic,
It is truly sad that you would follow an order that violates the constitution. Didn't your oath involve upholding the constitution? Mine did.



If a law is passed saying take away all the guns then its not in violation of the constitution unless the supreme court says it is. Personal opinions don't count. I enforce laws all the time I "personally" believe are in violation of the constitution. For instance I believe in absolute freedom of speech and that censorship is wrong but my county outlaws all forms of pornography including movies and magazines. I disagree with it but I enforce it. I could cite other examples. The point is that my opinion doesn't mean jack sh*t as far as what the constitution means. There are only nine people in this country who have a valid opinion. The rest of us are just observers.

[Leroy Pyle]

Great answer, Cynic. I wish I'd said that. I could have used it in a recent article I drew a lot of heat over, http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/pyle/just_following_orders.htm

I am a 2AM activist, but cursed with a career in reality. I had to laugh at a string in a 2AM forum complaining about the obvious bias of the "West Wing" TV program, when one activist gave the address of FCC to complain to.

Essentially, admitting that there are government rules affecting the 1st Amendment that he was willing to use to protest the adverse affect a TV program might have on the 2nd Amendment.

Your approach is good. Real good!

Thanx,
Leroy

[THE BRONZE]

Cynic, if our government ever goes that far astray from the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I won

[Leroy Pyle]

The Bronze,

The problem I run into is cops being accused of not living up to their allegiance to the constitution by enforcing the laws of their community.

It seems an easy out to just claim allegiance to the constitution and be critical of others.

What, in the course of an average LEO day, would you consider to be duties that would violate the constitution? I only ask because so many on the internet challenge cops to follow the constitution as if they did not.

Leroy

[THE BRONZE]

Leroy, the only law I find it difficult to enforce at present is the ban on ownership of firearms by those convicted of a crime meeting the definition of domestic violence. Remember, fighting with a sibling is classified as domestic violence just like slapping around a spouse. The retroactive punishment going along with this law stinks just as badly. I can

[G30man]

Cynic,
Thanks for the adjustment http://www.officer.com/ubb/redface.gif , you make an excellent point and one I have pondered myself, but I did drop into the constitutionalist mentality for a bit.
That smack upside the head brought me back to reality. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Now back to our scheduled programming.

I have no problem with the first amendment limitations we live with. So I guess I agree with the supreme court. http://www.officer.com/ubb/eek.gif

I do not agree with many of the laws passed in regards to the second amendment, however I don't have to deal with them as most are federal laws. I do draw the line at collecting peoples firearms.

I follow the supreme court to the letter on the fourth amendment. I believe law enforcement already has too much power in search and seizure.

I could go on, but it would get even duller. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif

To answer the question posed to Bronze.
To my knowledge, I have never violated anyones constitutional rights as determined by the supreme court. So in my day to day duties I would have to say we have no duties that are in violation.

It may not make sense when I enforce other laws I disagree with, but I just won't be involved in disarming my fellow citizens. Also, I believe the life expectancy of those who do may be very short. http://www.officer.com/ubb/frown.gif

Best wishes,
Mikey



------------------
Can't we all just get along....
Rodney King, philosopher and career felon. :)

[Niteshift]

"To my knowledge, I have never violated anyones constitutional rights as determined by the supreme court. So in my day to day duties I would have to say we have no duties that are in violation."

I have violated peoples rights, but it wasn't intentional. Search and seizure law seems to change by the hour and when you deal in that area a lot, you will lose the occassional search as being "unconstitutional". If it is (or the court says it is) then I guess I was violating their rights.

I don't, however, do it intentionally. I make every effort I can, in good faith, to not violate them.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[G30man]

Nite,
That is why I used the disclaimer, "to my knowledge". http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif I may have lost a motion hearing that I was not at, but I have been lucky enough to win the ones I was at.
Also, as a patrol grunt, I don't do alot of searches that aren't incident to arrest, so it makes it easier to stay within the scope of the court.

Mikey

[Niteshift]

I caught the disclaimer, I was just pointing out the fine line between knowing I did it and doing it on purpose. I know now that I did it, but I didn't know when I was doing it.

Working in the interdiction field, S&S law is almost a full-time job. Plus, I'm supposed to know this stuff as a supervisor. Personally, I wish the courts would just make up their damn mind.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[David Mudd]

Originally posted by The Cynic:
If a law is passed saying take away all the guns then its not in violation of the constitution unless the supreme court says it is.
The point is that my opinion doesn't mean jack sh*t as far as what the constitution means. There are only nine people in this country who have a valid opinion. The rest of us are just observers.

First of all, the original scenario said nothing of a law being passed. It only said that a government leader ordered you to do it. That would make it an illegal order and I believe G30's original statement would apply.
Secondly, the Supreme Court does have the final say so on what is constitutional or not, however that does not mean the rest of us are just observers. The justices of the S.C. are also human, thereby subject to error. Even if they did rule that a law prohibiting freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution was, well...constitutional, it doesn't mean we, as THE PEOPLE to whom the government is accountable to, shouldn't question why it had come to pass. The system we have is one of checks and balances. If the legislative and judicial branches take measures to restrict our freedom, then the executive branch needs to look closely at why they did so before following blindly and without question.




[This message has been edited by David Mudd (edited 10-14-2000).]

[Leroy Pyle]

With all respect for The Constitution, LEOs have to be concerned with the local definition of the many new laws and revised laws that are increasing in number as a result of the firearms debate.

Many times that definition is as a result of an arrest and trial. If the officer's actions are approved by conviction, that becomes the norm. It may take a number of arrests and much time before a confirming or contrary decision in a higher court.

I remember when the definition of a "loaded firearm" was evolving in CA. For the longest time, years even, "immediate access" to both firearm and ammo in a vehicle was good for a conviction. Gun legally carried in car, but ammo in pocket was a bust.

It wasn't until a lawyer finally took the time to point out to the courts that loaded meant "attached to the firearm" that procedures changed.

I wonder how many laws in the constantly changing firearms area are still evolving? Anyone have some examples?

Leroy

[Motivator]

As motivated as I may be, Even if I was personally anti-gun, which I am definitely not, How many dead cops at the gun owners door step would it take before the rest of us would say "the hell with that, I aint going to another house to ask them to surrender their weapons."

While in the military I took a survey. It asked would I fire on american citizens if ordered to during a police-action.

My oath stated "to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic" American Citizens are NOT my enemy, I never joined the military to fight against americans. To protect myself and other life from serious bodily harm or death I would fire on my own mother, but, I will not fire on citizens who are standing up for their rights in a non-life-threating way.