Police Opinions
Some of you may have noticed Captain Steve Watson of Eureka Police wrote a commentary on Prop 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. He's opposed to it. I'm not sure, but I think I'd still be bothered if he'd come out in favor of it. Maybe not as much, but still bothered.
What bothers me is police telling us how we should feel about issues. The police are the cutting edge of government power. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to voice opinions, but it seems to me somewhat inappropriate for them to suggest what laws are passed.
It might be appropriate for them to chime in on how those laws are enforced since they're in the unique position of seeing those laws enforced, but that could lead to another can of worms. Could you imagine a police officers union writing it's perfectly okay for suspects to be beaten upon arrest?
I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm just suggesting a possible conflict of interest in our electoral and law making system if the enforcers try to dictate to us what laws are made and how they're enforced. Some might say that would be an affront to "our democracy".
I say democracy be damned, but that would be a valid point. We don't want enforcers telling us what laws we should accept. It should be the other way around. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to express opinions. I almost feel this rant is akin to attacking the messenger rather than the message so back to the message: Yes on Prop 64!
posted by Fred Mangels @ 10:59 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Agree
On the contrary. Our Sheriff and DA did us a real disservice by not coming out against Prop 47 publicly. After it passed, they all blamed the voters for the crime ridden streets, but none of them were out warning the voting public of its affects locally if it passed. If they knew the ins and outs ahead of time as they claim, and their positions gave the unique knowledge, they should have been ahead of it. That's what we pay them for, because we get a little busy in life.
Well, I'm not so sure I'd accept their opinions even on that. Some of us are tired of warehousing people in prisons, expecially for things like pot. Their status give their opinions special merit which I'm not sure they should have.
I, too, would have voted against Prop 47 if I had read more of the 'No' proponents.
About #64 I can still see both sides but this is a situation where my vote won't count for much. People will vote with the emotions rather than logic anyway. Same way with increased tax on cigarets.
Me, this is the year I vote No on everything which raises taxes, across the board.
But about LOE writing against proposed laws, I can see your side Fred but I also know when it comes to drunk drivers it's the LOE who have seen the damage across the board and we need to hear their voices on stuff like that.
I also think that for every person who might consider how to vote having read the opinion of a LOE, there will be many more whose response will be "Hell no" and then vote 'Yes' out of spite or personal animus.
From a detached point of view (seeing the LOE in this case as an individual who also happens to be a LOE) maybe this person is trying to start a dialogue. Maybe he/she \/whoever thinks they can make a point that hasn't received as much recognition. Maybe it's a LOE wanting to be seen as an individual as well as a LOE.
I haven't read what you're referring to, so I'll go back and read it and if it changes my mind from what I've said here, I return with a mea culpa.
But glad you raised the issue...we need to have an OPEN discussion and I appreciate that you foster that.
What's a LOE?
@Fred. Therein lies the problem. Have you read the context of the bill and just what limits it put on law enforcement to keep violent criminals off the street? People like you were so eager to keep non-violent drug offenders out of prison, you missed who else you would be letting out. In soundbites, no on 47 sounded good. It was law enforcement who saw who they would be unable to detain. Even to this day, you don't seem to understand that repeat and violent offenders were freed under 47 and continue to be free.
" on 47 sounded good. It was law enforcement who saw who they would be unable to detain."
I disagree that LE is unable to detain suspects. Even misdemeanor suspects. Those lower level crimes are still punishable by jail time/ fines or both. Suspects in those sorts of crimes can be arrested and jailed. If they aren't arrested, or are let out of jail immediately upon booking, it's not the fault of Prop 47. It would seem to me more the fault of jail staff and perhaps judges still suffering from overcrowding worries. The Times- Standard reported, shortly after Prop 47 passed, that something like 55 beds in the jail were made available due to releases from Prop 47. They have, or did have, room to confine lower level offenders.
"What's a LOE?"
I'm guessing she meant LEO, for Law Enforcement Officer and got the letters mixed up.
Exactly,
Not just the popo, but also the polos.
Popo - police
Polo - Politician, deceitful lackey
Insiders go around gang banging each other in a swinger building complex, then they take pictures hugging, smiling, gloating at us to tell us who they want us to vote for.....
Masters telling slaves which masters to enslave them, kinda a surreal moment for human slave history and how enslavement became to be using several methods over the coarse of 2000 years....
Who really believes anything crooked gubbamint types spew.....sad only minimal handfuls of the overall are legit, honest, trustworthy public employees.....plane sad.
Exactly,
Not just the popo, but also the polos.
Popo - police
Polo - Politician, deceitful lackey
Insiders go around gang banging each other in a swinger building complex, then they take pictures hugging, smiling, gloating at us to tell us who they want us to vote for.....
Masters telling slaves which masters to enslave them, kinda a surreal moment for human slave history and how enslavement became to be using several methods over the coarse of 2000 years....
Who really believes anything crooked gubbamint types spew.....sad only minimal handfuls of the overall are legit, honest, trustworthy public employees.....plane sad.
Huh, A buddy argues stats on crime show crime is going down.....
HOJ proposes some up, some down
And when an economy does poorly, crime increases
When population increases, crime increases
When a shift in demographics occur in any given area or region, crime increases, etc.....
Only do honest people keep crime lower.
Huh, A buddy argues stats on crime show crime is going down.....
HOJ proposes some up, some down
And when an economy does poorly, crime increases
When population increases, crime increases
When a shift in demographics occur in any given area or region, crime increases, etc.....
Only do honest people keep crime lower.
The 47 was a step in the wrong direction. They have replaced the concept of no victim, no crime to no violence, no crime.
The moral law, also known as the NAP, is let and let live unless you assault another person's life, liberty or property.
The common law used to make the offender pay back all expenses incured. If the offender refused, he would be branded an outlaw. The term Outlaw meant the person labled Oulaw was outside the law which protected him/her. This meant they were choosing to throw away their rights that protected them. They could be abused, enslaved, tortured, starved, anything. The law would not rescue them nor hold the persons responsible.
Things have most certainly changed.
Post a Comment
<< Home