A major question about this new gun control

Just a quick...

When I spoke of laws in previous posts, I wasn't referring to speed laws and civil type of infractions that those generate. I was being a little more specific and relating to laws that are supposed to protect the citizenry from violence, theft and the like. I am not sure how you can argue and say that there is no need for those type laws and it is not good to have a consequence for someone to rob another. I should have been more specific...

You are right you cannot control the behavior but you can have the consequence which keeps the vast majority in check. Most of the biggie laws are based on moral values. Murder, theft, you know basic 10 commandment stuff. Most of us would not do those things anyways because of our morals and belief systems but the people still need something in place to deal with those that do not respect those values. It would be very nice for more people to fight back...but don't get your hopes up. You would be amazed (or maybe you already know) at the number of people in this country that cannot make a simple decision without having someone there to make it for them. It is truly ludicrous.

Speed limits are indeed a law, but those that get tickets are not criminalized. I can see how someone who recieves the ticket would feel that way, but they are civil infractions not criminal violations...

Thanks for the posts Silver, you are right these are highly charged topics and I think we have both succeeded in keeping an open dialogue and being respectful at the same time....cheeers to you!



:)
 
I re read your post and realized that you indicated that speeding was not criminalized however there are other laws that have no apparent moral backbone...can you give an example of one?

Like I said earlier, there are alot of things I don't agree with regarding the law and it's enforcement. Drugs for example, I find it utterly stupid that marijuana is illegal but you can go tell a doc you have a backache and get hydrocodone by the truckload. I am not and even if legal would not be a pot smoker...but it seems to defy logic sometimes. That is just a broad example so don't take it as anything more. It will probably draw more people into the debate tho :)

Cya
 
To ratchet it up a notch; my favorite legislation to cry out against is the anti-marijuana legislation. To be succinct I find dope no different than alcohol. In my opinion we live in a modern era of prohibition, the only difference being the current legislation prohibits marijuana versus alcohol.

On top of that I think there are far too many laws about murder. Besides the obvious difference between manslaughter and murder, in particular I find it appalling we need laws differentiating the murder of a person and the hateful murder of a person. Or for that matter murder with a gun versus murder with a lead pipe.

Edit: Ah, I see you addressed the drug issue.
 
True, murder is murder but that has alot less to do with what our conversation started out as...your questions about my career in law enforcement. I and most others in the (we'll call it) the front lines don't care or get involved with different types of murder charges. We present facts and evidence which in turn is decided on in the courtroom. The legislature, lawyers and judges are the true factors in these instances and they are always adding to what started out as a simple law. For this discussion let's continue with murder. It started out as a law that stated it was illegal to take anothers life. Then an incident occurred where someone used a defense that even though they took a life it was necessary to protect their own life. In came the justifiable homicide provision of the law. Then someone said that even though they took a life, they didn't mean to or it was in the heat of the moment. That point was argued and said to be less sinister than someone who planned and contrived to commit the murder. So as a result of that, degrees of murder were born. 1st degree murder was planned and intentional, while 2nd degree murder was not a planned event. The latter has less of a sentence since it was considered less sinister or heinous. I could literally go on and on. These interpretations are very general so as not to have to write a book....my point is that "case law" is what is the real culprit. Nobody wants to take personal responsibility and laws are a living breathing thing that are constantly changing (and growing). Add to that a legislating body that has to look sympathetic to the masses because they need votes, and there is no end to the types of "feel good" laws that can be drawn up in the name of keeping everyone safe.

I guess what I am trying to get across is we are not too far off on our point of view, other than maybe that we disagree that police are unnecessary.

Edit: BTW I have fought/arrested/had problems with more drunks than stoners so I agree. :D
 
I suppose what agitates me the most is the wonton disregard for laws by police in the accumulation of "evidence" for the purpose of arresting an individual and convicting said individual. For example: I've been lied to by the FBI in their effort to elicit information, yet it is against the law to lie to the FBI. Is this not a dichotomy?

Other examples are numerous and occaissionally exposed. The use by sherriff's deputies of FLIR in their efforts to find grow operations, without a search warrant, comes to mind. What next, satellite reconnaissance? To merely see if someone might be breaking a law? Photo radar, although again not criminal in nature, mimics the thought process.
 
Quote from TacTrader:

True, murder is murder but that has alot less to do with what our conversation started out as...your questions about my career in law enforcement.
More...

But this is what leads me to wonder why one would choose to become a police officer. Knowing the system is problematic, what could you do to gain fulfillment within the ranks of the police?

You originally stated you hate sales. May I ask why? Is there not a correllary between sales and law enforcement in the fact that both deal with public relations to a large degree?


Quote from TacTrader:
....my point is that "case law" is what is the real culprit.
More...

I think this hits home.
 
Silver,

Isn't every profession problematic to some degree or another? We could be talking about being an auto mechanic and the fact that you go home with grease on your pants is problematic to the life expectancy of a washing machine...

Is it perfect? NO Has it been rewarding? YES Is it problematic? OF COURSE Is there more to life? YES

Do you trade full time? If so congrats, if not then what else do you do? I am sure I can make a problematic case for whatever it is. I am sure there are many rewarding parts of it too.

Selling a widget and selling jail do have some similarities, but there are differences too. Read back to my original reasons for getting into law enforcement....security, stability, retirement, etc. I am not saying they were perfect reasons, but when I made them they were valid and once again I am glad I did. It's just time to start another chapter...
 
I guess I'm retired, at the age of 45, although I have my fingers in a lot of things. But you are correct that each one can be a headache. I've known a lot of cops. And for the most part they all see it as a job. I just can't see it that way. When you are primary in the effect on one's life. What if you're wrong? Or worse, what if you know you are wrong, but pursue it anyway, just to close the case?

I have also noted the proclivity of cops to be reclusive. Or to hang exclusively with other cops. An us vs. them kind of mentality. Also the desire to put other professions, be it truck driver, security guard, or salesman down. I am just curous as to your read. I'm not here to offend you and I'm sorry if you have taken offense. I have more than enough grounds to be downright vindictive towards cops, but I'm not. Each one is an individual so I thought I'd ask your opinion.

Thanks for you input.
 
You make a good point about lying. IMO the subject of an investigation has a right to lie.

When I was young my father was a policeman and then a Federal drug agent. It's a tough dangerous job. Weirdly he too took tactrader's road from law enforcement to trading.

I'm only piping in about your comment on "satellite reconnaissance." Been around for years. I'll give away two secrets to budding ET growers. (no pun intended) Police now will use infra-red to detect indoor operations. Lotta heat given off by those lights. Also, UTILITY companies may give you up. Now that I find hilarious. These are folks who you're paying and they'll report you in a second if they know you're using 15x the electricity as your neighbor. I suppose generators and heat insulation are big items in the dealer playbook.


Quote from silver914:

I suppose what agitates me the most is the wonton disregard for laws by police in the accumulation of "evidence" for the purpose of arresting an individual and convicting said individual. For example: I've been lied to by the FBI in their effort to elicit information, yet it is against the law to lie to the FBI. Is this not a dichotomy?

Other examples are numerous and occaissionally exposed. The use by sherriff's deputies of FLIR in their efforts to find grow operations, without a search warrant, comes to mind. What next, satellite reconnaissance? To merely see if someone might be breaking a law? Photo radar, although again not criminal in nature, mimics the thought process.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top