It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question to all Members of Law Enforcement and their Families

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
This Question is only for members of Law Enforcement and their family members.

If you are not in Law.Enforcement then please do not post to this thread.



As a LEO would you violate someones Constitutional rights if you were ordered too?

Have you ever said no to an order that you thought would violate someones Constitutional rights?

Why do most LEO's think it is OK to enforce the law except for when it concerns a fellow officer who has broken the law.

If you saw another LEO violating someones Constitutional rights would you a) Act like you didn't see it b) stop them from doing it or c) report them to the proper chain of command.

For LEO family members would you be ok if you knew your loved one who is a LEO was violating peoples Constitutional rights?


Again, please do not respond to this if you are not a LEO or family member of a LEO, I do not care about your opinion, weather good or bad, about LEOs. I am just looking for some honest answers. Thank You.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by EndGovtCorruption
 


I was hoping to be proven wrong with an active discussion thread but I guess it is as I suspected. There isn't a LEO or family member on this board that has an ounce of integrity that can answer these questions with out self incriminating themselves.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EndGovtCorruption
 


Good question , but the thread is only 1 hour old .

I am sure you will get some replies , just give it some time



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EndGovtCorruption
This Question is only for members of Law Enforcement and their family members.

If you are not in Law.Enforcement then please do not post to this thread.


Former correctional officer.


As a LEO would you violate someones Constitutional rights if you were ordered too?


What form do you think that order would take? In other words, I have never received an order that says, "Hey, go violate that guy's 4th Amendment Rights!"


Have you ever said no to an order that you thought would violate someones Constitutional rights?


I have never refused an order. I have discussed orders I thought were questionable.


Why do most LEO's think it is OK to enforce the law except for when it concerns a fellow officer who has broken the law.


Assuming facts not in evidence...your use of the word, "most," is inaccurate in my experience. In fact, we hold ourselves to be accountable and take pride in performing our jobs in a correct fashion. We need to weed out those incapable of performing according to the law, as we do not like to be viewed in a negative fashion.


If you saw another LEO violating someones Constitutional rights would you a) Act like you didn't see it b) stop them from doing it or c) report them to the proper chain of command.


If we have express supervisory authority (i.e., rank or being charged with training of a new employee) we stop it and then report it. If it is a case of equal rank, then report it.


For LEO family members would you be ok if you knew your loved one who is a LEO was violating peoples Constitutional rights?


My family would not be okay with me violating any rights or doing any other job in a slipshod manner...


Again, please do not respond to this if you are not a LEO or family member of a LEO, I do not care about your opinion, weather good or bad, about LEOs. I am just looking for some honest answers. Thank You.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by EndGovtCorruption
 


Furthermore, it is statements like these that demonstrate a high degree of "holier than thou," bias on your part. One, you think that law enforcement personnel and their families are lacking in integrity and two, you believe that law enforcement personnel run around with the idea they can do whatever they want. Most of them do not believe this to be the case. That is why when one of us do commit an act of lawlessness, it usually makes the front page news, while the other crimes are located in the police blotter section of page two or three of most newspapers...

A police officer found to be DUI, front page news...other DUI typically on page two...

Anyway, I would think any law enforcement personnel on this site, after looking at your written statements, and interpreting the message, would be inclined to not answer your questions. You think they are guilty already, as evidenced by your statement containing the phrase, "self-incriminate."



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


jeichelberg Thanks for the answers I really appreciate it.


I guess we are both wrong in making assumptions then. I am not anti-law enforcement and I have friends who are Police men and they are great cops AND great people. I am however anti-corruption in any shape and form be it a businessman, congressman or a cop!

I may have stated the question in a harsh manner but my intent was to inspire replies not prevent them. I would think someone who is truly above board as you sound would take it offensively and want to reply.





Assuming facts not in evidence...your use of the word, "most," is inaccurate in my experience. In fact, we hold ourselves to be accountable and take pride in performing our jobs in a correct fashion. We need to weed out those incapable of performing according to the law, as we do not like to be viewed in a negative fashion.


You may be correct on my assumptions but they are based on what I see and usually when I see a situation making headlines about police abuse it is 5 or 6 cops on one perp not one cop against one perp. That lends itself to the idea it is widespread because in any video I see weather it is on the news or it is made by a bystander I have NEVER once seen a cop walk over and say something to the effect "hey you have this guys in cuffs and under control beating them any further in unnecessary"

I also believe Policemen abusing their power in relation to precentage compared to size is more associated with the bigger cities that have bigger unions than most "suburban police forces"


I am glad you responded and even more happy to read the responses you gave, I know your job is hard.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by EndGovtCorruption
This Question is only for members of Law Enforcement and their family members.

If you are not in Law.Enforcement then please do not post to this thread.


I'm not an LEO, but I do work for the government in a regulatory fashion, so I'll answer anyway.



As a LEO would you violate someones Constitutional rights if you were ordered too?

I'm not a lawyer. Would I do something blatantly damaging? No. Would I do my job to the best of my ability and try to empathize with all parties involved and attempt to find common ground? Yes. Would I play a hardline against the folks that just won't even attempt to comply? Yes.


Have you ever said no to an order that you thought would violate someones Constitutional rights?

Constitutional Rights = lawyer, which I am not. But, have I ever said no to an order that didn't seem fair, or seemed counter-productive to our purpose? YES. Everyday in fact.


Why do most LEO's think it is OK to enforce the law except for when it concerns a fellow officer who has broken the law.

This one is specific to a small subset of LEO's I think, because I've never known anyone. LEO or otherwise, that would stand idly by and let someone get away with wrong-doing.


If you saw another LEO violating someones Constitutional rights would you a) Act like you didn't see it b) stop them from doing it or c) report them to the proper chain of command.

a) observe, because 1st impressions can be wrong. b) immediately act to stop any wrong-doing, c) report them to the proper command

I work in close proximity with law enforcement, task forces, etc. I have some LEO's on my staff as well, and I have friends from Secret Service and FBI all the way down to rookie deputies. They are very good folks by and large, but there is an entitlement mentality that develops the longer they are in the business.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by EndGovtCorruption
 


Thank you for the excellent and well written reply. I can appreciate the desire to reduce corruption, wherever it may may be found...I do not like it, and I find my toughest job in reducing it lies within the confines of my own mind...in other words, it starts every morning when I look in the mirror...

Regardless:

1) I find I chastised you for using the word, "most," in your categorization of law enforcement and find I did the same thing...I apologize;
2) Law enforcement, in my view, starts with the individual's ability to self-govern; and,
3) A great deal of respect and intimacy was lost when regular cops were taken off the street (i.e., walking the beat). We need to return to this if we have any hope of becoming the social and peaceful creatures we desire to become.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Thanks for the answers getready, great answers and ones I was hoping to hear!



Constitutional Rights = lawyer, which I am not. But, have I ever said no to an order that didn't seem fair, or seemed counter-productive to our purpose? YES. Everyday in fact.


You don't think a LEO should have some training specifically on Constitutional rights and how they apply to his job, as a part of training, considering one of their jobs is to protect the Constitution? How can a LEO do his job correctly if they have no training specifically on what the basis of all law in this country is written from?
edit on 6-12-2011 by EndGovtCorruption because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


I most definitely agree with you and not just on the auspice of law enforcement. I think that is something everyone needs to do every day as a person



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EndGovtCorruption
 



You may be correct on my assumptions but they are based on what I see and usually when I see a situation making headlines about police abuse it is 5 or 6 cops on one perp not one cop against one perp. That lends itself to the idea it is widespread because in any video I see weather it is on the news or it is made by a bystander I have NEVER once seen a cop walk over and say something to the effect "hey you have this guys in cuffs and under control beating them any further in unnecessary"

I also believe Policemen abusing their power in relation to precentage compared to size is more associated with the bigger cities that have bigger unions than most "suburban police forces"


Actually, the issue with 5/6 on one is DESIGNED TO REDUCE the possibility of abuse of power. I know when I was encountering a difficult situation involving the behavior of an individual, I called for backup...the idea is to change the dynamic or paradigm...not so much as to instill fear, but to change the entire environment...We hoped the individual would calm down and become more compliant with what was essentially a request to behave according to established rules...That is the intent, but as you know the road to hell is paved with good intentions...Happens to all of us...As to widespread? Well, I submit it is not so widespread...or we would be seing much more of it, a la Rodney King...

I actually cheer for media, including audio and video surveillance, to be present in all forms of law enforcement activity, because it serves to remind me there is a record of the actual events that have taken place. Any officer who would not agree with this probably needs to find another job...I feel sad when fellow officers have forgotten the purpose of backup and are witnessed on tape using excessive force on an unarmed subject. This violates one of the primary rules taught, that being use only the amount of force necessary to control a situation.

Larger cities probably have more instances of abuse, but that is just as attributable to the law of large numbers as it is to police unions...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EndGovtCorruption
 


That's a good question. I think their training centers around how to stay out of trouble, how to keep from getting sued, how to keep from getting killed, etc. I definitely think they need much, much, much more training in the areas of de-escalation, and situational awareness.

I had 2 friends killed in the line of duty this year. Both were attempting to use Tazers, when instead they should have been waiting for backup or using their sidearm instead.

The Constitutionality concept is really about basic human rights. Miranda isn't a Constitutional right. It's pretty simple to stay within the Constitution, no illegal search and seizure, no coercion (5th amendment)....... I don't think officers are violating Constitutional rights as often as one would think. They are still guilty of wrong-doing a lot. Excessive force, illegal detention, and in my opinion it should be illegal to lie to a subject.

The freedom of assembly doesn't apply to officers. It only says the Congress cannot make a law restricting assembly. Cities can make zoning laws and officers can enforce them.

2nd amendment doesn't really apply to officers, neither does speedy trials, or trials by jury.

A typical police officer doesn't run up against Constitutional Rights infringement very often.

Human Rights is the more relevant issue I think.


First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

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.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[56]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United Str

Wiki



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by EndGovtCorruption
 


Although not addressed to me, we are trained on the Constitution and rights. I know I was.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Police officers encounter the issue with search and seizure all the time...warrants and what constitutes lawful search...Fourth Amendment is HUGE!



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


Yep. But they are extremely well-versed in how to handle that one. I got the impression from the OP that it was more about abusing people, bullying, using excessive force, etc.

I agree though, the 4th amendment is huge for an officer.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I am very glad to have the both of you who have answered questions for me, answer them. I have a better understanding of things because of it. While I am impressed with most of your answers I do disagree on a few but that appears to be from a point of perspective and not so much an inherent integrity issue with the laws themself. I hope more LEO's will respond in the future.


jeichelberg I agree about the video taping. Except for a few situations like undercover work etc it should be a law that every moment of a police mans day interacting with the public should be recorded not just for the protection of the policeman or the perp but also for the tax payer who ultimately is the one who pays for the lawsuits that do occur.


getreadyalready I am sorry to hear about your friends, that's terrible. I do agree they should be trained specifically in both human and constitutional rights and also placed in live covert controlled situations testing their abilities on those issues.




The freedom of assembly doesn't apply to officers. It only says the Congress cannot make a law restricting assembly. Cities can make zoning laws and officers can enforce them.


While I agree with a lot of what you say, and understand how things work on some others I totally disagree with you on this. If the founding fathers put this into the constitution it was for the intent of letting people protest and hold accountable and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. By stating that this does not apply to police men or specific towns, as far as I am concerned, all they are doing is usurping authority from the constitution in a covert fashion and trying to justify it by using local authority to enforce it, which itself is an inherently flawed way of thinking because you are basically saying that local authority is not held accountable to the same Amendments that make up the Constitution and that it is OK for local authority to make up laws which essentially ban amendments in the Constitution . That being said, I will admit I do not know where the middle ground on this can be reached with out more time to think about it but that does not give the right to any form of law enforcement to violate the Constitution in this manner.
edit on 6-12-2011 by EndGovtCorruption because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by EndGovtCorruption
 



By stating that this does not apply to police men or specific towns, as far as I am concerned, all they are doing is usurping authority from the constitution in a covert fashion and trying to justify it by using local authority to enforce it, which itself is an inherently flawed way of thinking because you are basically saying that local authority is not held accountable to the same Amendments that make up the Constitution and that it is OK for local authority to make up laws which essentially ban amendments in the Constitution . That being said, I will admit I do not know where the middle ground on this


Ideally each State Constitution would make a Bill of Rights that mirrored the US Constitution, and the State would further forbid any locality from making a law that was in contrast with anything in the Constitution.

But then, you have people's individual rights. If something like the OWS (just as an example) were to stop traffic and interfere with normal travel and commerce, then a downtown business might suffer to the point of actually failing.

So, while we are protecting one person's right, we are trampling someone else's.

I don't think there are any easy answers.




top topics



 
4

log in

join