Georgia man arrested for weapons possession in Great Valley

[Day444]

It does? Serious question.
One ex. Once a marine always a marine ........

When one reaches his/her end of obligated service, they are no longer bound by the oaths they took. Rules change for retired LEO's, you are no longer obligated to preform certain arrests.
Yes, once a Marine always a Marine. But this is a brotherhood, it's not bound by oaths.

 

[Day444]

How can you take an oath if you don't understand what it entail's? Kind of like starting off your stint with a lie, more like a compound lie.
I have taken the oath more than once, I do not remember being unsworn.
Robin

While under an oath you are to enforce that oath. There are restrictions placed on our rights, lawful or not that are to be enforced. Doesn't make it "right". When your job obligation ends, everything that went along with it ends, including oaths.

 

[spat]

When one reaches his/her end of obligated service, they are no longer bound by the oaths they took. Rules change for retired LEO's, you are no longer obligated to preform certain arrests.
Yes, once a Marine always a Marine. But this is a brotherhood, it's not bound by oaths.

Some oaths have built in expiration, others don't. But unless they are explicitly stated, they don't expire.

 

[Day444]

"Jew forgot to wear his yellow star.
Didn't do his homework before leaving for the market, one of the most heavily patrolled areas in the whole rich."

It's not about debating in the field. The cop didn't do *his* homework, or he would have decided that wasn't a law he could enforce without violating his oath long before he pulled this guy over.

Who exactly were they "serving and protecting" here ?

No, your line of reasoning is equivalent to "just following orders". Every cop in Germany who arrested a Jew or any other undesirable should have gone to Nuremberg IMHO. *Every* *Single* *One*

I have one question. Is there a law so egregious that you would refuse to enforce it ? What if the China "1 child policy" came to the US. Would you arrest some woman for being over her quota knowing that they were going to send her for an involuntary abortion and murder her baby ? It's the law, the SCOTUS has ruled that it's valid, and you don't debate things in the field.

What do you do when that warrant hits your hands ?

This is really going off the deep end.

 

[spat]

This is really going off the deep end.

How ?

Either you set a limit, or you'll enforce anything.

If you haven't decided where your red line is, it's always going to be "a little more".

With the direction this country is headed there are only 3 options long term for someone in law enforcement.

1. You retire before it gets too much worse (obviously the best option if you can manage).

2. You eventually get some orders you can't in good conscience follow.

3. You find yourself participating in an atrocity.


That's it. Pick one.

 

[Day444]

Some oaths have built in expiration, others don't. But unless they are explicitly stated, they don't expire.

Why would one still be bound to an oath, where they no longer perform the same duties? This is just an entrenched idea made up to make those claiming they are under an oath of some kind, feel more important than they really are.
You take an oath as part of Boy Scouts, are you still under that oath?
You take an oath as an LEO, you retire, are you still under that oath?
You get out of the military, no longer obligated to serve our country, are you still under oath?

 

[spat]

Why would one still be bound to an oath, where they no longer perform the same duties? This is just an entrenched idea made up to make those claiming they are under an oath of some kind, feel more important than they really are.
You take an oath as part of Boy Scouts, are you still under that oath?
You take an oath as an LEO, you retire, are you still under that oath?
You get out of the military, no longer obligated to serve our country, are you still under oath?

Most of the veterans I know don't feel that their obligation to defend the country from all enemies foreign and domestic expired when they were discharged.

Which parts of those oaths do you think those people are no longer bound by ?

 

[Day444]

How ?

Either you set a limit, or you'll enforce anything.

If you haven't decided where your red line is, it's always going to be "a little more".

With the direction this country is headed there are only 3 options long term for someone in law enforcement.

1. You retire before it gets too much worse (obviously the best option if you can manage).

2. You eventually get some orders you can't in good conscience follow.

3. You find yourself participating in an atrocity.


That's it. Pick one.

Seems you are confusing morals with sworn obligations. You put on a tin, you do what the law states. To obey the orders of those appointed over me, is part of that "oath". You don't get to pick and choose what parts you want to adhere to.

 

[spat]

Seems you are confusing morals with sworn obligations. You put on a tin, you do what the law states. To obey the orders of those appointed over me, is part of that "oath". You don't get to pick and choose what parts you want to adhere to.

So, if the order comes down to execute women and children in cold blood you'll do it because "orders" ?

I would hope at some point you would be able to recognize that breaking that oath is better than following those orders.

 

[Day444]

Most of the veterans I know don't feel that their obligation to defend the country from all enemies foreign and domestic expired when they were discharged.

Which parts of those oaths do you think those people are no longer bound by ?

Key words "DON'T FEEL"! Yet, there is no longer a sworn obligation to do so! So in that sense the whole oath goes out the window.

 

[Day444]

So, if the order comes down to execute women and children in cold blood you'll do it because "orders" ?

I would hope at some point you would be able to recognize that breaking that oath is better than following those orders.

Yes, and part of that oath gives you an out. One is not obliged to carry out immoral acts.

 

[spat]

Key words "DON'T FEEL"! Yet, there is no longer a sworn obligation to do so! So in that sense the whole oath goes out the window.

You feel it expires, they feel it doesn't. Only one of you can be right, and I don't think it's you.

What other unstated conditions would cause it to expire ? What if they issue an unconstitutional order, does it expire then ?

 

[spat]

Yes, and part of that oath gives you an out. One is not obliged to carry out immoral acts.

Most decent oaths have something like that, but not all. I don't know the details of the ones/s you have taken.

 

[nortatoga]

Question were in the Constitution does it give Law Enforcement the power to not enforce a law passed by the legislative branch of ( State or Federal ) government which is given such power?

 

[Robin]

While under an oath you are to enforce that oath. There are restrictions placed on our rights, lawful or not that are to be enforced. Doesn't make it "right". When your job obligation ends, everything that went along with it ends, including oaths.

No expiration date was made or implied.
Robin

 

[Day444]

When Can a Soldier Disobey an Order?

In March 1968, a U.S. infantry platoon under the command of 2nd Lt. William “Rusty” Calley conducted a raid of a hamlet called My Lai in Quang Ngai

warontherocks.com

 

[Day444]

Most of the veterans I know don't feel that their obligation to defend the country from all enemies foreign and domestic expired when they were discharged.

Which parts of those oaths do you think those people are no longer bound by ?

Don't most patriotic citizens feel this way? Is it just Veterans?

 

[holdover]

Seems you are confusing morals with sworn obligations. You put on a tin, you do what the law states. To obey the orders of those appointed over me, is part of that "oath". You don't get to pick and choose what parts you want to adhere to.

So if the law is conflicting with the constitution , which law do you follow? Your dammed either way . The problem isn't the cops , its the law makers.
The cops are put into a position where they follow an illegal law or possibly lose their jobs. And if you don't do your job there's a line of guys who will.


When I was trained, We were taught that our opinion doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you agree with the law or not , Your not paid to make the law, your paid to enforce it. That works so long as the laws are withen the boundaries of the constitution. Whats happening now is the laws are in conflict with the constitution. You dont have to be a Harvard professor to see that . These are not nuances of the law or borderline grey area'as . these are full blown opposite of what the law says .

Some cops dont care either way. Some do . and some are in conflict.They are just like everybody else, they have a mortgage , wife Kids car payments 15,18 years in thier dept. its not so easy to just walk away So some cops look the other way when they can , and some dont.

 

[holdover]

Question were in the Constitution does it give Law Enforcement the power to not enforce a law passed by the legislative branch of ( State or Federal ) government which is given such power?

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

 

[Day444]

No expiration date was made or implied.
Robin

Is it oath or mindset? Does it become ingrained in ones persona, that they have to carry this idea with them forever?

 

[spat]

Don't most patriotic citizens feel this way? Is it just Veterans?

Most do, but the veterans I know believe they are still bound by the oath they took to do so. Patriots who haven't served in the military just view it as a duty of citizenship.

You said you think the oath expires when you are discharged. Most veterans I know would disagree with that. That is all.

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Day444

What does an expiration of an Oath or lack thereof have to do with anything to fight tooth and nail about in this thread? A police officer who arrests someone is working and bound by an Oath. Whether it expires or not after he no longer is a cop is irrelevant and a useless point to argue. Let’s stick to the topic.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Seems you are confusing morals with sworn obligations. You put on a tin, you do what the law states. To obey the orders of those appointed over me, is part of that "oath". You don't get to pick and choose what parts you want to adhere to.

You are sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Enforcing an unconstitutional law is an act that renders the Constitution meaningless. How is that protecting it?

 

[GOPerfect]

I took my first oath in 1900 and 90. I still believe I live up to that oath. There have been a few bumps in the road, but I maintain the meaning and the words to this day.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Not sure. Constitutionality on many subjects is very tough to figure out. That is why I do not want a cop on the street to determine what is and what is not constitutional.

Not so. They are spelled out in simple English.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How much more simple can that get? If a law is made prohibiting free speech it is unconstitutional. The same applies with the 2A. If a law is passed that infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms it is unconstitutional.

Where is the confusion?

 

[spat]

Not so. They are spelled out in simple English.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How much more simple can that get? If a law is made prohibiting free speech it is unconstitutional. The same applies with the 2A. If a law is passed that infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms it is unconstitutional.

Where is the confusion?

The confusion comes from the fact that many of these laws have been allowed to stand for a century. So people are like "well, it must be constitutional because it has been around so long".

The other source of confusion is people who think that some infringement is necessary to maintain social order, so that means it's OK.

First, they're wrong. And second, even if they were correct, the answer would be to amend the constitution, not to pretend it doesn't say what it plainly says.

A good example is prohibition. They knew it was plainly a violation of the constitution to outlaw alcohol, so they amended it. But when that fell apart and they decided to go after drugs instead, suddenly they didn't need an ammendment and could just ignore the parts they don't like ?

 

[Robin]

Is it oath or mindset? Does it become ingrained in ones persona, that they have to carry this idea with them forever?

Yes.
Robin

 

[Airborneguy]

Lol

 

[spat]

Question were in the Constitution does it give Law Enforcement the power to not enforce a law passed by the legislative branch of ( State or Federal ) government which is given such power?

The part where it says that laws that conflict with the constitution are nullified and void, as if they had never been ratified.

The legislature can pass whatever they want, but if it's not permitted by the constitution then it doesn't hold any more legal force than one of these forum postings.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Lol

Yeah. Laugh out loud because you have to. You have to laugh to justify and make the situation in your head bearable for every arrest your department has made against the 2A, against free speech when your department arrested or ticketed someone protesting without a permit, and for every 4A violation when your department stopped and frisked someone or illegally searched a car at a car stop because the driver was acting suspicious or their eyes were red or a non existent smell was present.

Here’s the thing. When you got the job in your 20’s you really didn’t know about the violations the police committed. It was normal. You thought you were doing the right thing. As you got older and smarter, you realized some things. But rather than admit your realizations, and quit or refuse to partake in them, you knowingly claimed ignorance and clown others who do not claim ignorance. As of late, your new thing is to call someone a perp lover because in your head you have to justify these violations to make them bearable.

Just be honest dude.