"I Don't Make the Laws I Just Enforce Them"

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Hey JP
I hope I'm not off topic
I thought I would indicate how to sell lemonade (well..LEMONS..or edsels..or derivitives), make money AND not get rausted by the cops
here is how it is done:

As if $600 million in missing customer funds were not enough, recent news emanating from the debacle that defines the bankruptcy of MF Global puts the estimated misappropriation of customer funds at a cool $1.2 billion. Yes, billion with a B!

Those involved in the markets would easily ascertain that those manning the MF Global ship redirected these customer funds in an attempt to save the ship as it was going down. The customers themselves remain in a state of shock and bewilderment as to how this reality might ever have come to pass.

Meanwhile, the outrage in America burns while the lack of trust and confidence in the markets, the market makers, and those charged with protecting investors grows stronger by the day.

www.senseoncents.com...

I guess my point is:
go big or go home

while the cops are rausting "LITTLE" Lemonade sellers..
the customers of this gentleman
are getting razzberries
and the cops are washing the dirty juice glasses!

while the cops:

Smith is the 33-year old derivatives executive at Goldman, Sachs & Co. who published his blistering resignation letter on the OpEd page of the New York Times. According to Smith, managing directors at Goldman call their clients muppets and openly speak about “ripping their clients off.” Smith said the environment at the firm is “as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.”

The OpEd was published on Wednesday, March 14, and went viral on the internet. Next came a mesmerizing look at the underbelly of crony capitalism. The Mayor of the city that sent its police in the dead of night to rough up journalists and censor press coverage of their raid and destruction of the Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan, is condoning Wall Street employees manning a spy center alongside NYPD cops to keep tabs on protestors, and rents out uniformed, armed cops to Wall Street firms, went into damage control mode for his pals at Goldman over Smith’s letter.

wallstreetonparade.com...

reply to post by Danbones


Thank you for that clarification, Brother. I had a difficult time interpreting your post and it struck me as being uncharacteristic of the member I have come to know and love. Your clarification is more than greatly appreciated. I just knew your point was in favor in freedom, and not how I first interpreted that post.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I actually agree with the both of your posts. Nothing I do particularly violates any specific Constitutional Right, although the very existence of regulatory bodies could be argued as a violation. I am not a sworn officer, but I do work in investigations and government regulation of professions. The people I am dealing with have gotten a license of some sort, and are working under rules they have agreed to, but even so, the rules are not always applied fairly, and that is where my disagreements come into play.

As far as John Adams, and Republic vs. Democracy, I agree with you, but that ship sailed long ago, and was pronounced completely dead at the end of the civil war. This is no longer a Republic by a long shot.

There is a stock market rule that goes something along the lines of, "the public is always wrong." If every average investor is buying, you should be selling, and vice versa. If this premise holds any weight, then it could easily be applied to voting as well! If the majority are voting Obama or Romney, the it means Ron Paul is the right guy for the job!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Danbones

 

Thank you for that clarification, Brother. I had a difficult time interpreting your post and it struck me as being uncharacteristic of the member I have come to know and love. Your clarification is more than greatly appreciated. I just knew your point was in favor in freedom, and not how I first interpreted that post.

not at all
it was my pleasure
to elucidate

reply to post by getreadyalready


Thank you for your timely reply as well, Brother. Also, thank you for that clarification as to not being a sworn officer, and you are correct that once a person acquiesces to a licensing scheme they are contractually bound by the terms of that license...of course, if they obtained that license under fraudulent circumstances, believing they were acting as law abiding citizens under the mistaken belief they were actually obligated to obtain a license, then the jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.

The state, or federal government, or even local governments can have compelling reasons as to why a licensing scheme should be imposed. Selling lemonade is not one of those compelling reasons. I can understand your lamentations of a republic that is seemingly dead in the water, but come on Brother! What is the point in supporting Ron Paul if you actually believe our Constitution no longer applies to how government operates?

Thanks for not allowing my "grumpy old man" status to agitate you and perceive my posts as a personal attack on you. I was even more surprised by your original posts than Danbones. I know that all of us, working together, can and must restore this republic, and always jealously guard and zealously defend our rights.

IMO The police should find common ground with the public.
I don't think that the argument that it's the ones that make the laws not the one that upholds them that should be held accountable.The reason is because the system has been broken step by step and along the way good police just keep adding to their list of arrest that they know in their hearts should not have taken place.

Someday soon i hope when we clean up this country then we can start over with a smaller set of common sense laws and no more "were just dewin our jobs" bullcrap that is being pushed forth ahead of our god given morality.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'd love to believe we can change things peacefully, legally, and politically, but my hopes are fading fast.

I console myself in my current job by reminding myself I am in a position of some authority, and I can influence the outcomes of many things, and I figure it is better to have someone in my position with a moral dilemma such as mine, instead of having someone in my position that covets, enjoys, and abuses the power and authority!

Sometimes I am uncomfortable with the outcomes of things, but they are the best possible outcomes at the time, and other times I am able to mitigate situations and make the outcomes much better than they might have been without my participation.

I also get to pen rule-change proposals that impact entire professions, and sometimes our proposals make a difference. That part can be very rewarding and frustrating.

One day... when I finally get my wife's permission.... I will run for an elected office and see if I can make any difference in that capacity.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


i dont make the bad karma, i just enact it

I accept the will of the world. I accept that I am just a component of the system. I therefore make a calculation to effect that world. I accept that I am just a little component of that system. I can only make small systemic changes.

As a citizen, I have no prevalent systemic power, but if I am the US President and I state that free markets are the problem, what exactly am I calling for? There is no such thing as a progressive system of economics, therefore what am I espousing as a progressive?

What is the progressive argument? What is it that they want to implement? Do we NOT have the right to ask? Or are they going to force us to implement the system with no discussion?

reply to post by LIGHTvsDARK


We have more than the right to ask and demand discussion. Consider the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Bond v. United States

In the precedents of this Court, the claims of individuals—not of Government departments—have been the principal source of judicial decisions concerning separation of powers and checks and balances. For example, the re-quirement that a bill enacted by Congress be presented to the President for signature before it can become law gives the President a check over Congress’ exercise of legislative power. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §7. Yet individuals, too, are protected by the operations of separation of powers and checks and balances; and they are not disabled from relying on those principles in otherwise justiciable cases and controversies. In INS v. Chadha , 462 U. S. 919 (1983) , it was an individual who successfully challenged the so-called legislative veto—a procedure that Congress used in an attempt to invalidate an executive determination without presenting the measure to the President. The procedure diminished the role of the Executive, but the challenger sought to protect not the prerogatives of the Presidency as such but rather his own right to avoid deportation under an invalid order. Chadha’s challenge was sustained. A cardinal principle of separation of powers was vindicated at the insistence of an individual, indeed one who was not a citizen of the United States but who still was a person whose liberty was at risk.

More importantly:

Just as it is appropriate for an individual, in a proper case, to invoke separation-of-powers or checks-and-balances constraints, so too may a litigant, in a proper case, challenge a law as enacted in contravention of constitutional principles of federalism. That claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State’s constitutional interests, even if a State’s constitutional interests are also implicated.

And finally:

In this case, however, where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of our Government. Whether the Tenth Amendment is regarded as simply a “ ‘truism,’ ” New York , supra , at 156 (quoting United States v. Darby , 312 U. S. 100, 124 (1941) ), or whether it has independent force of its own, the result here is the same.

My friend, we can do far more than just discuss it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Isn't enforcing a law you disagree with not unlike prostitution?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

In-line with your earlier post.... you think even prostitutes enjoy their job from time to time, and they just endure the rest?

I think our country was founded upon the idea of majority rules. I enforce laws that the majority has decided were important, but I personally disagree with. I never lie, I never claim to agree with them, and I often empathize with those affected, but I still do the job I am paid to do and enforce the laws the majority has decided upon.

The ones that are difficult are where it is budgetary concerns forcing the departments to enforce petty stuff with maximum penalty instead of dedicating resources on difficult stuff with the possibility of no penalty in the end. On the one hand, the departments have an economic responsibility to tax payers to show results, but this contradicts the responsibility to use fairness and discretion and go after the most serious offenders and ignore the easy stuff.

The difference is, those of us with real morals would stop. Not do it if we felt it was wrong just because a "majority" said so. Btw. Good reading: shooting and elephant ny george Orwell. www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/

I was a LEO for a bit. I couldn't bring myself to harass and apprehend people for no good reason. I couldn't harass someone for a minor infraction to create an incident which would escalate things so I could do ,more, or charge them with more. I didn't apprehend one single person. I was just working a normal beat and here was no real crime. Jaywalkers, drunks, a-holes, etc... My partner wanted to arrest them all. I felt that my presence was enough to scare most straight and a stern talking to would take care of the rest. See, police are supposed to be there to protect people from things that infringe upon their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Protect them from bodily harm or theft. Not arrest them for selling lemonaid or any other inane things.

The cops have lost sight of their mission. They are no longer constible on patrol. They are Gestapo. Papers please. They will arrest you for anything and everything. Many don't even know the law. They just feel like you shouldn't be doing something and flex their authoritah. If you complain they escalate and arrest you for whatever they made up plus resisting arrest. STOP RESISTING!

Anyhow, those with morals have, like me, left the police force because we could not stomach what it had become. Unfortunately this only leaves the tools like you see in this, and numerous other, videos.

It is a sad state we live in these days.

reply to post by Bakatono


Shooting an Elephant is a fantastic read!

Spoiler Alert!!!

Afterwards, of course, there were endless discussions about the shooting of the elephant. The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing. Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it. Among the Europeans opinion was divided. The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie. And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.

Better to be the fool and on the side of justice than seeming wise in spite of justice.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Bakatono

 

Shooting an Elephant is a fantastic read!

Spoiler Alert!!!

Afterwards, of course, there were endless discussions about the shooting of the elephant. The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing. Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it. Among the Europeans opinion was divided. The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie. And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.

Better to be the fool and on the side of justice than seeming wise in spite of justice.

Great excerpt. I beg of everyone on this thread to give it a read it is short, entertaining, and will really get you thinking. Not everyone will draw the same conclusion but it does address exactly what is being discussed in this thread. Just doing my job.

So, in this economy I can't even let my kids set up a lemonade stand to earn their candy money? I'd hate for my 2 and four year olds to end up in juvie.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I

In-line with your earlier post.... you think even prostitutes enjoy their job from time to time, and they just endure the rest?

I think our country was founded upon the idea of majority rules. I enforce laws that the majority has decided were important, but I personally disagree with. I never lie, I never claim to agree with them, and I often empathize with those affected, but I still do the job I am paid to do and enforce the laws the majority has decided upon.

The ones that are difficult are where it is budgetary concerns forcing the departments to enforce petty stuff with maximum penalty instead of dedicating resources on difficult stuff with the possibility of no penalty in the end. On the one hand, the departments have an economic responsibility to tax payers to show results, but this contradicts the responsibility to use fairness and discretion and go after the most serious offenders and ignore the easy stuff.

I dont know if this is my first post. It's definitely my first response. I'd like to clarify one thing for this poster. America wasnt founded on principles of "majority rule".

Law rules the day and trumps the majority everytime. I realize citing the Rule of Law doesnt help against the absurdity of "laws" against lemonade stands and the like. However, it does bring into focus the ridiculous notion ( held by many ) that " the majority rules".


Im not calling any individual ridiculous by the way, merely the idea... and it's a widely held view. Nothin personal, GRA.

reply to post by MoralOrel


No problem, JPZ corrected me on that earlier as well. The country was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy, and majority rule is a by-product rather than a real intention or foundation. I was just sloppy in the way I worded it.

Anyhow, in this day and age, our practice is to let majority rule, but that doesn't make it right. The majority supported the Salem Witch Trials too.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

"You guys want to be arrested for your cause of lemonade liberation."

Would have been funnier if she said libation.

I have to admit, I often use this excuse. I do some things in my job I don't often agree with, but we are enforcing the statutes as written. If someone wants to change the statutes, they need to contact their legislator, not the officers enforcing the laws. It is a lame excuse, but I also need my job!

your self preservations>your rights and everyone you love's rights

reply to post by getreadyalready


It is called officer discretion. You can choose to ignore somethings. Some officers refer to it as. "if you're discreet, I'll exercise discretion." In other words flagrantly walking the street with breast out will equal an arrest. Starting an escort service that sales dates but leaves everything else to the "whims of consulting adults" gets you more freedom.

Most cops are not actually looking to shut down protests or lemonade stands. It really depends on the command structure the officers operate under.

As far as others calling cops violent thugs, most studies show that less than .02% of encounters with police involve any violence. With literally hundreds of millions of police interatcions a year I think that is a decent stat.

reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools

Maybe, you do have a valid point on zoning to some degree, but show me lemonade stand that has blocked or filled a road for days, I could be wrong but I think it's a gross exaggeration and you know just like me the reason these regulations were passed, was not for kids lemonade stands but for street vendors and carts.

I had a neighbor decide to open a hair salon in her basement. It started out as just her, and that was cool. Soon she had six chairs going. There where anywhere from 12 to 20 cars in the street at a time. It got to the point that people were blocking the street, throwing trash in people's yard, and speeding through the neighborhood. Our right to live our lives unobstructed on our property was disrupted.

She was eventually closed for zoning issues. However, while she was open it was common for me to have to go to her shop and ask somebody to move their car so I could leave my driveway. Many times I was told, I had to wait for the person to finish their appointment. That ended when I started calling tow trucks. But, somebody smashed my mailbox, poured chemicals in the yard that killed the grass, and I even had a lady send her boyfriend to fight me.

Zoning laws are in place to stop issues like that.

I do agree with much of what you say though. We have become over regulated and it is a burden. We need to hunt for that comfortable middle again. The question is, how do you put the toothpaste back in the tube?

If that women officer is doing her job, what's her problem with someone recording her. She's in a public place and really has no right to jam her hand into the camera of the person shooting the video. Again, why do these officers feel offended by a video camera? If you're legally doing your job what's their concern?

She called more attention to herself if she was worried this video would find a place on YouTube. Now she deserves to get any kind of ridicule being thrown at her.