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.

 

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

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

This excuse didn't work for the 19th century Nazis, why should it work for the 20th century Nazis?





Aren't we in the 21st century now?




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


This excuse didn't work for the 19th century Nazis, why should it work for the 20th century Nazis?



Many people have said something similar.

I think enforcing a zoning restriction and health code violations to protect the interest of the neighbors and general public is quite a long way from carrying out orders to exterminate people who are not even accused of a crime.


I'm pretty sure if these officers had been given an order to ram their car through the lemonade stand, and shoot any of the surviving children, they would not have used the excuse that it was just an order.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
No. The past has been forgotten and in the name of being progressive, we must return to the past. The past was a nobler time.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


This excuse didn't work for the 19th century Nazis, why should it work for the 20th century Nazis?



Many people have said something similar.

I think enforcing a zoning restriction and health code violations to protect the interest of the neighbors and general public is quite a long way from carrying out orders to exterminate people who are not even accused of a crime.


I'm pretty sure if these officers had been given an order to ram their car through the lemonade stand, and shoot any of the surviving children, they would not have used the excuse that it was just an order.


Are you sure? Ever hear of NDAA?

What will be your stance when ordered to indefinately hold a US citizen without due process?

Just following orders? Just doing your job?


edit on 13-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by HandyDandy

This excuse didn't work for the 19th century Nazis, why should it work for the 20th century Nazis?





Aren't we in the 21st century now?



You are correct sir. Star for you.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


That won't happen to me, I've posted earlier what capacity I work in. I also hate the NDAA, and if you look at my thread history, I have posted some injustices happening right here in my little part of the state, but you have to accept the fact that enforcing a zoning law is not sending someone to Gitmo or a gas chamber? Sure, it is a slippery slope, but it isn't that slippery. Those two things are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
but you have to accept the fact that enforcing a zoning law is not sending someone to Gitmo or a gas chamber?


When using the excuse "just doing my job, I don't make the laws", I see no real difference.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Even good cops have to enforce the laws. If someone calls and reports something they have to investigate. People will call the police if someone is in violation of the law if it interferes with the welfare of their friends or themselves. If the police don't see you and noone calls in than they can't give you a ticket. I don't understand why people cause such a ruckus about cops. They sometimes have to give tickets that they themselves don't think are justified. They are humans, not reptilians. Some of those that press for creation of laws to guard their continued lifestyle may be Reptilians though.
Honestly, If you have a business that's taken you years to build and sucked the life out of you for years, why would you want some person to cut into your profits that pays no taxes on his income and hasn't any overhead at risk or any employees to support.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


I see a HUGE difference.

I can see both sides of the argument for a lemonade stand. I had lemonade stands, I stop at lemonade stands, I commend kids for setting up lemonade stands, and I would never voluntarily go and harass a kid about a lemonade stand, but there are laws, rules, and codes.... for good reasons, and if someone complains, we have to enforce the laws consistently. Therefore, "just doing my job." Don't like it, but it has to be done.

If the order was to exterminate some kids setting up a lemonade stand, there is no amount of law or duty that could override one's humanity, and there is no valid excuse, or decent justification for carrying out that order, and I don't think there is any significant number of people that would carry out such an order. Maybe they could call in Blackwater, but I don't think they are going to get the city cops to start exterminating kids.

Big Difference!



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
What an absurd video. did those kids not realize they WERE doing something illegal? I understand it's just lemonade and it's only ten cents but it's still illegal. They deserved to be arrested.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 



Honestly, If you have a business that's taken you years to build and sucked the life out of you for years, why would you want some person to cut into your profits that pays no taxes on his income and hasn't any overhead at risk or any employees to support.


Exactlly. With kids it seems pretty mean, but what if it was just your neighbor's wife selling lemonade for extra cash? What if you had a legitimate lemonade business at the end of the same road, in the proper zoning requirements, and with significant more overhead making yours legal? What if it wasn't your neighbor's wife, but your neighbor's illegal immigrant gardener doing it while no one was home? What if it was a gang activity, organized all over town, and they were making significant cash setting kids up in lemonade stands and keeping the majority of the funds?

If it is ok for little Susie, then it is ok for big Susie in her bikini top, and it is ok for Julio the Gardener, and it is ok for the Crips.

If one person doesn't need license, and health inspections, and insurance, and taxes to pay, then nobody needs it. We can't pick and choose where to enforce the laws, and where to ignore them.

The laws are there for a reason.
edit on 13-4-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   


"I don't make the laws, I just enforce them."


I'm sure that's the exact same thing Nazi soldiers said as well.

We needs laws and law enforcement because some people are nasty pieces of work.

However, we must remain vigilant about the laws being made and about those who are charged with enforcing those laws.

If a "law" is inhumane" or "immoral" (Everyone has their own definition of immoral, mine is inhumane, cruel, harmful, violent or taking advantage of another) then it's time to reconsider our laws and hold those in authority accountable for misusing their authority.

When those that are given the sacred duty of upholding our laws take advantage of their power then it is time to reconsider what to do with these people.

Not all laws are just or humane.

Case in point, steal some food from a store or clothes (not designer rich stuff) and you may go to jail.

Steal (by legal manipulation / loopholes) a group of older employee's pensions and you get a promotion for making the corporation more "profit".

We are now finding many law enforcement people, while believing they are serving the greater good of the people are in reality serving a small elite set of the upper 1%.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Complying with and enforcing a unjust, immoral law is, in my book immoral.

Stopping a serial killer, a bank robber, a person driving drunk and endangering others is noble.

Pepper spraying, shooting (Kent State), throwing someone out of their home because they had a medical issue and job loss and the bankers want that home they paid 26 years on and have 4 years left is wrong.

Some of our laws suck big time.

When the police or military uphold any law that is unjust or immoral, without questioning - they are not honorable in my opinion.

Most policemen I have met and know in our Village are very decent, good people.

But I have seen in the news a escalation of police brutality and both a increase in unjust laws and those charged with upholding those laws non questioning the morality of said "laws".

Like any profession, you will find honorable and dishonorable people.

Kill one person and you can get capital punishment.

Kill a million (like George W. Bush Jr.) and you retire with glorious medical and retirement benefits on a 100,000 acre ranch in Paraguay.

Laws, until all men / women are equal under the "laws" true justice does not exist.

It seems some folks are above the law.

There are two sets of laws..............I told my three sons long ago, "Do not break any of the laws, we are common working smucks and cannot afford a million dollar lawyer to get you off."

We now have laws that micro manage almost every single aspect of our life.

How far will it go?

In the 1980's I watched the movie, "They Live" with the little round police surveillance drone wiz by and now, that is a reality.

Cameras at intersections where the traffic light changes from green to red almost instantly or speed traps are simply to make the city / village more money..............many police now have a ticket quota they must bring in a certain amount of $$$$$$.

To serve and protect is one thing.

To screw the average working smuck is another.

Each police person decides whether they are honorable or not honorable.

To those that uphold the peace, protect and serve us, I thank you.

To those that beat the &%$#@ out of a fellow human or shoot a dog in the head when the dog is not a real threat I say, if there is a hell, may you rot in the deepest part of Hades for all eternity.

What goes around comes around.




"Useless laws weaken the necessary laws." — Charles Louis de Secondat, De L’Esprit des Lois





"The more corrupt the state, the more laws." — Tacitus, The Annals


What if, in say ten years a law was passed to burn certain books, would you?
edit on 13-4-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
There are all sorts of laws that at best aren't even relavent anymore, at worst are absurd, yet have not been repealed or revoked.

For most of my life, we did not fear our local law enforcement. They typically were always reasonable, respectful, and if you treated them likewise you would have a positive experience.

It used to be up to the officers "discretion" to issue a citation, make an arrest, issue a stern warning, or let you off the hook, of course all depending on the situation. They seem to be more robotic these days.

My wife has been driving for sixty years and never had a traffic ticket. Not one.

She has been pulled over many times but was always very pleasant to the officer, very respectful, and always was thankful when they would say "ok, just be safe out there" and let her go with a warning.

It used to be that this country was founded on the premise of freedom. As long as you weren't harming anyone, or impeding anyone, you had the freedom to do what you willed.

edit on 13-4-2012 by AlonzoTyper because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
"I Don't Make the Laws I Just Enforce Them"

respond with:

"I didn't write the constitution, i just abide by it and expect you to do the same"



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
youtu.be...

Only a matter of time before something like this happens. You can only push people so far before they push back. The police are above the law and don't very often have to answer for their crimes. And they know this. The average citizen is seen as an enemy, and treated as such. They will beat and torture you, and then, under oath lie to the judge and jury about how you recieved your injuries. You will go to jail and lose everything, they will walk out of the courthouse laughing and joking about it. Make no mistake, law enforcement views you as subhuman...an animal. Some will argue, they're not all bad. Maybe not, but most are. "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" William Pitt.

Do some research for yourself on the subject on how power corrupts. Here is a good place to start.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
"I dont make the laws, I just enforce them."

Sounds like a robot speaking, that is incapable of thinking on his own.

IF I was a cop and someone in my department arrested a kid or any person for selling lemonade, or arrested some old lady, I would make fun of them for the rest of their career.
edit on 13-4-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


A police officers oath does not mention the constitution. Police do not defend the constitution. You are thinking of the oath of office the president takes. HE defends the constitution. Not the police.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AlonzoTyper
 


Yeah, but the police have to give out tickets now because the court systems and police forces are underfunded. I know some local cops and they complain about it occasionally. They complain when they pick up someone for B&E and they get a slap on the wrist and are out doing it again.

That's the way it is, cut taxes and make everything paid by usage fees for local programs that used to be included in our taxes. The Government lowers income taxes a half of a percent to make it look like the public is saving money then raise the cost of licenses, secondary taxes, and everything else. It's a way of boosting the governments income and making us think we're saving money
They taught us of this practice in school back in the seventies, I wonder if they still teach it.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by rickymouse
 



Honestly, If you have a business that's taken you years to build and sucked the life out of you for years, why would you want some person to cut into your profits that pays no taxes on his income and hasn't any overhead at risk or any employees to support.



Exactlly. With kids it seems pretty mean, but what if it was just your neighbor's wife selling lemonade for extra cash? What if you had a legitimate lemonade business at the end of the same road, in the proper zoning requirements, and with significant more overhead making yours legal?


Let's leave the law out, as the law is what's under contention here. Assuming for a second that these penny lemonade stands were still legal as they were in the past, the point of a free economy is that the best business people are supposed to survive and bad ones fail. It's supposed to be a way for consumers to keep the best business alive while condemning ones that give poor service/products. If competition is cutting into your profits, it is your job as a business owner to offer some incentive for customers to come to you over your competition. That incentive could be better prices, better quality, some special promotion, etc. The point is, competition is part of business. It should be expected and instances like this should be fought out fairly through their businesses instead of passing laws to keep the bigger business in power because they are afraid of competing fairly.


What if it wasn't your neighbor's wife, but your neighbor's illegal immigrant gardener doing it while no one was home? What if it was a gang activity, organized all over town, and they were making significant cash setting kids up in lemonade stands and keeping the majority of the funds?


Why shouldn't it be legal for anyone, not just kids, to set up a penny business cheaply and effectively? This is supposed to, at least in theory, be a free economy. As far as gang members go, if they move to selling lemonade to make money instead of the usual tactics, at least it would be legal and no one would get hurt. They should not be punished for legal activities, even if they are criminals in other areas. Punish them for the actual crimes they commit.


If it is ok for little Susie, then it is ok for big Susie in her bikini top, and it is ok for Julio the Gardener, and it is ok for the Crips.


It should be okay for everyone. As long as they are working hard or providing a legitimate service, there really shouldn't be a problem here.


If one person doesn't need license, and health inspections, and insurance, and taxes to pay, then nobody needs it. We can't pick and choose where to enforce the laws, and where to ignore them.


I agree, but it's not that simple. This is where intelligence and common sense comes into play. Not all businesses are equal. A small lemonade stand is not the same thing as a retail chain of lemonade vendors. There are different costs, challenges, and risks involved. The law should take that into account instead of one set standard for everything. Why should a penny lemonade stand pay over $400 for just a license to open a stand that will never see that much profit? When zoning laws come into play you may even be looking at thousands. It makes no sense. Standards need to be redefined to take into account the full extent of the business and the actual risks involved. The law the way it is now just doesn't work.


The laws are there for a reason.


Let's just make sure it's a good reason.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


A police officers oath does not mention the constitution. Police do not defend the constitution. You are thinking of the oath of office the president takes. HE defends the constitution. Not the police.


Here is the mandate from the Michigan State Constitution:


§ 1 Oath of public officers. Sec. 1. All officers, legislative, executive and judicial, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . according to the best of my ability. No other oath, affirmation, or any religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.


Article XI Michigan State Constitution

This is the Oath of Office Police Officer of the City of Anaheim California take:


I, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance, to the Constitution of the State Of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties, of the office of Police Officer of the City of Anaheim, acting to the best of my ability.


Article XX Section 3 of the California State Constitution mandates:


SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:


Article XX Section 3 California State Constitution

Article XX Section 1 of the New Mexico State Constitution mandates:


Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.


This is a random sampling of State Constitutions with one city mandated oath for good measure. I am not going to go through each and every state Constitution to refute your claim and solidify my point, but be rest assured that each state mandates this...or, actually, don't take my word for it. The information is out there for you to discover for yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join