Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This whole movement put the lie to LE's assertion that they only enforce the law, they don't interpret it.

If they believe they can interpret which laws they DON'T have to enforce then it's reasonable to assume they're choosing HOW to enforce other laws.

Constitutional sheriffs assert they have the power not only to enforce the law but to be the ultimate arbiters of what the law is in their counties. Contending that this authority supersedes that of all other government officials — including state governors and the president — they refuse to enforce a range of public safety laws, from local mask mandates to state and federal gun laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/17/constitutional-sheriffs-extremist-dangerous-unconstitutional/

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

This whole movement put the lie to LE's assertion that they only enforce the law, they don't interpret it.

If they believe they can interpret which laws they DON'T have to enforce then it's reasonable to assume they're choosing HOW to enforce other laws.

Constitutional sheriffs assert they have the power not only to enforce the law but to be the ultimate arbiters of what the law is in their counties. Contending that this authority supersedes that of all other government officials — including state governors and the president — they refuse to enforce a range of public safety laws, from local mask mandates to state and federal gun laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/17/constitutional-sheriffs-extremist-dangerous-unconstitutional/

That is an interesting problem and I have wondered how it is going to be handled. Usually in something like that, you take out the head guy and the project fails. But these guys are using their guns as a talking point, it may end up putting an entire sheriffs department in jail, but that will reverberate through other departments. I do have popcorn ready.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

That is an interesting problem and I have wondered how it is going to be handled. Usually in something like that, you take out the head guy and the project fails. But these guys are using their guns as a talking point, it may end up putting an entire sheriffs department in jail, but that will reverberate through other departments. I do have popcorn ready.

The only way to handle it is for federal law enforcement to step in which is problematic as the feds draw heavily on local and state law enforcement agencies. 

Really brings up an "Who you gonna call?" issue.

"At least four “secret cliques or gangs” of sheriff’s deputies — with names like the Banditos and the Executioners — continue to operate and recruit within the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, despite recent reforms intended to ban them. The persistence of illicit factions is described in a new report commissioned by L.A. County..."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/los-angeles-sheriffs-department-gangs-rand-report-1225982/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

The only way to handle it is for federal law enforcement to step in which is problematic as the feds draw heavily on local and state law enforcement agencies. 

Really brings up an "Who you gonna call?" issue.

"At least four “secret cliques or gangs” of sheriff’s deputies — with names like the Banditos and the Executioners — continue to operate and recruit within the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, despite recent reforms intended to ban them. The persistence of illicit factions is described in a new report commissioned by L.A. County..."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/los-angeles-sheriffs-department-gangs-rand-report-1225982/

That angers me to no end. Alex Villanueva is a punk and the LASD should be prosecuted under RICO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, badlatitude said:

That angers me to no end. Alex Villanueva is a punk and the LASD should be prosecuted under RICO.

To think this is restricted to LASD is unreasonable.  The standard LE definition of a "gang" (last I heard) was 4 or more members that identify with each other using dress, hand signs, language or tattoos.  How many groups within departments would fit this description?  Overall, this is a feature rather than a bug.  When Sessions dumped consent decrees for "states rights" this outcome was predictable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

This whole movement put the lie to LE's assertion that they only enforce the law, they don't interpret it.

If they believe they can interpret which laws they DON'T have to enforce then it's reasonable to assume they're choosing HOW to enforce other laws.

Constitutional sheriffs assert they have the power not only to enforce the law but to be the ultimate arbiters of what the law is in their counties. Contending that this authority supersedes that of all other government officials — including state governors and the president — they refuse to enforce a range of public safety laws, from local mask mandates to state and federal gun laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/17/constitutional-sheriffs-extremist-dangerous-unconstitutional/

How does this differ from not enforcing federal immigration laws?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

How does this differ from not enforcing federal immigration laws?

 

How does this differ from deflect and distract?

One of the functions of the top of the executive branch is to do the interpretation of enforcement, the judicial enforces the constitutionality.  Devolving that to the county level just creates chaos. If everyone does fundamental interpretation, then the interpretations are meaningless.  Rather like Christianity, with so many different interpretations it has become amoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

How does this differ from deflect and distract?

One of the functions of the top of the executive branch is to do the interpretation of enforcement, the judicial enforces the constitutionality.  Devolving that to the county level just creates chaos. If everyone does fundamental interpretation, then the interpretations are meaningless.  Rather like Christianity, with so many different interpretations it has become amoral.

Ummmmm, the function of the executive branch is to execute the laws passed by congress.  You can't whine about a sheriff picking which laws to enforce or not and allow the same from the branch that is sworn to execute the laws.

Unfortunately, congress has been abdicating it's responsibility to make law by putting in bullshit like "the secretary shall decide" instead of clear, concise requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

Ummmmm, the function of the executive branch is to execute the laws passed by congress.  You can't whine about a sheriff picking which laws to enforce or not and allow the same from the branch that is sworn to execute the laws.

Unfortunately, congress has been abdicating it's responsibility to make law by putting in bullshit like "the secretary shall decide" instead of clear, concise requirements.

True, but the details are in the HOW. And yes, sheriffs deciding they have the power to override the Supremes or enforce laws in a clearly biased manner IS dangerous.

Let's take an only slightly extreme example (and one from history), a sheriff decides that he has the power and responsibility to prevent blacks from voting and prevents them from going to the polls.  Justifiable under your framework?  Remember that state, county and local law enforcement were the primary enforcers of Jim Crow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

To think this is restricted to LASD is unreasonable.  The standard LE definition of a "gang" (last I heard) was 4 or more members that identify with each other using dress, hand signs, language or tattoos.  How many groups within departments would fit this description?  Overall, this is a feature rather than a bug.  When Sessions dumped consent decrees for "states rights" this outcome was predictable.  

Perhaps so, but the LASD is the central problem, and smaller groups are not the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

True, but the details are in the HOW. And yes, sheriffs deciding they have the power to override the Supremes or enforce laws in a clearly biased manner IS dangerous.

Let's take an only slightly extreme example (and one from history), a sheriff decides that he has the power and responsibility to prevent blacks from voting and prevents them from going to the polls.  Justifiable under your framework?  Remember that state, county and local law enforcement were the primary enforcers of Jim Crow.

No, it's not justifiable under the framework of the constitution and law.  It's not my framework.  If you think that I have that much power you are a fool.

You seem to have left our a word there.  Jim Crow LAWS.  Those local sheriffs were actually enforcing the laws.  Those laws have now been rescinded or changed.  If you object to laws you should work to have them changed.  It would be nice if they were considered in terms of personal liberty and responsibilities but most these days seem to be designed to carve out more and more differentiation between citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

The LA sheriff is elected.  Villanueva was supported by the Democrats

He was, and in my view, it was a huge mistake. I dislike the existence of gangs in the ranks of sheriffs, I dislike that he wouldn't enforce masking, he wouldn't enforce the vaccination mandate. He remains popular despite this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

No, it's not justifiable under the framework of the constitution and law.  It's not my framework.  If you think that I have that much power you are a fool.

You seem to have left our a word there.  Jim Crow LAWS.  Those local sheriffs were actually enforcing the laws.  Those laws have now been rescinded or changed.  If you object to laws you should work to have them changed.  It would be nice if they were considered in terms of personal liberty and responsibilities but most these days seem to be designed to carve out more and more differentiation between citizens.

No, I did not leave out a word. Torture, immolation and summary execution has never been part of 20th century law code and yet law enforcement engaged in it in the South after the laws were rescinded.  It doesn't take much looking at the old lynching postcards to notice the badges and handcuffs involved, nor does it seem reasonable to believe that organized events of that nature occurred regularly without law enforcement knowledge.  Changing the laws doesn't work if LE decides what to enforce. 

Laws should consider public good as well as liberty and responsibility, in many cases the responsibility involves giving up some liberty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

The LA sheriff is elected.  Villanueva was supported by the Democrats

He was, and in my view, it was a huge mistake. I dislike the existence of gangs in the ranks of sheriffs, I dislike that he wouldn't enforce masking, he wouldn't enforce the vaccination mandate. He remains popular despite this.

I strongly dislike having partisan elections for offices such as the sheriff, or various public functions such as Insurance Commissioner with minimal input on policy.

Vaccine mandate, yeah. I'm not sure how a sheriff would be called on to enforce this; I also have zero interest in having such public servants who are in close physical contact with many citizens being unvaccinated. A good reason to not have them unionized.

Mask mandate? The police are kinda busy to be running around arresting everybody who's wearing a chin diaper. Ejecting combative anti-maskers from stores? Yes, go. Arresting and charging anti-maskers who attack people? Yes that's a regular public safety issue, masks aside.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I strongly dislike having partisan elections for offices such as the sheriff, or various public functions such as Insurance Commissioner with minimal input on policy.

Vaccine mandate, yeah. I'm not sure how a sheriff would be called on to enforce this; I also have zero interest in having such public servants who are in close physical contact with many citizens being unvaccinated. A good reason to not have them unionized.

Mask mandate? The police are kinda busy to be running around arresting everybody who's wearing a chin diaper. Ejecting combative anti-maskers from stores? Yes, go. Arresting and charging anti-maskers who attack people? Yes that's a regular public safety issue, masks aside.

- DSK

Agree with the mandate but treating them like seatbelts wouldn't be hard. If you're stopped and don't have a mask, an additional ticket.  Does open the door for "Stop and Frisk" style abuses, though.

Not sure about not having elections for sheriff, though.  Who would appoint them otherwise? Governor? That's a pretty dramatic increase in executive power into the violence arm of the executive branch.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

Does open the door for "Stop and Frisk" style abuses, though.

That door hasn't been closed, though SCOTUS may take a look at it soon.

If you're handcuffed face down on the ground with a cop pointing a gun at your back, are you under arrest?

Nutjobs say yes, 8th Circuit says no, we'll see what, if anything, SCOTUS says.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...