Republicans to cut $4,000,000,000,000 over 10 years

[Seth]

Here's a clue for you: "The police are the people, and the people are the police, the police being only persons who are paid to give full-time attention to the duties incumbent upon all citizens in the interests of community safety and existence." Sir Robert Peel, founder of the London Metropolitan Police, the model for modern law enforcement.

The public have a responsbility to aid the police by supplying information and generally cooperating but it absolutely not the their role to uphold the law that is what the police are paid to do. There are volunteer police roles in the UK where you can be a policeman twice a month or so (no idea is that happens in the US).

Don't know about the UK, but it wouldn't surprise me at all that a nation of sheeple have abdicated their right to enforce the law to someone else.

Here in the US, the authority of the police flows FROM the people TO the police, and it's a limited grant of authority, not an abdication of the rights of the people. The only things that the police have authority to do that the public doesn't is to a) arrest based only on probable cause; and b) levy charges for petty offenses. In all other cases, in most places, a citizen is authorized to arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence and bring the person before a court or turn him over to the police, and his authority and power to make an arrest is exactly equal to that of a police officer.

[MrJonno]

Here in the US, the authority of the police flows FROM the people TO the police, and it's a limited grant of authority, not an abdication of the rights of the people. The only things that the police have authority to do that the public doesn't is to a) arrest based only on probable cause; and b) levy charges for petty offenses. In all other cases, in most places, a citizen is authorized to arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence and bring the person before a court or turn him over to the police, and his authority and power to make an arrest is exactly equal to that of a police officer.

Same here but in no way does that make its the public job to uphold the law (it is their job to obey it). Just because you have the authorisation to do something doesnt make it your job or you the best person to do it.

[Seth]

Here in the US, the authority of the police flows FROM the people TO the police, and it's a limited grant of authority, not an abdication of the rights of the people. The only things that the police have authority to do that the public doesn't is to a) arrest based only on probable cause; and b) levy charges for petty offenses. In all other cases, in most places, a citizen is authorized to arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence and bring the person before a court or turn him over to the police, and his authority and power to make an arrest is exactly equal to that of a police officer.

Same here but in no way does that make its the public job to uphold the law (it is their job to obey it). Just because you have the authorisation to do something doesnt make it your job or you the best person to do it.

That sort of attitude ends up in the murder of Kitty Genovese and other victims of crime like her, in front of crowds of people who deny their responsibility and duty to society to be policemen when it's necessary to do so.

Abdicating your role as a policeman empowers the police by giving them absolute power. And we all know what happens with absolute power, don't we?

If everyone in society does their duty to society by policing themselves and others, we need fewer police and we can give them less power, which protects our individual rights and liberties, which are in gravest danger when we give away our liberties to achieve a little temporary safety.

[MrJonno]

Abdicating your role as a policeman empowers the police by giving them absolute power. And we all know what happens with absolute power, don't we?

If everyone in society does their duty to society by policing themselves and others, we need fewer police and we can give them less power, which protects our individual rights and liberties, which are in gravest danger when we give away our liberties to achieve a little temporary safety.

The only power the police really have is that they can outnumber the bad guys, they are in most cases have less weaponary than criminals ie a truncheon.
The police are utterly screwed if the public decide they don't want them anymore so a police state wouldnt be that impressive, now farmers armed with shotguns that potentially is a lot more worrying.

Security is a liberty, without being securing in food , accomodation, and health no other freedoms have any value

[Warren Dew]

If a hungry, sick person comes to my doorstep and asks for help, if I'm able, I'll help. But if they come to my door demanding my property or my service by force, I'll use force against them in response. That's why I have, and exercise, a right to keep and bear arms.

You do make such a fuss over nothing

I have security and don't open the door. Problem solved.

So you'd shut the door on the needy, while libertarian Seth would help if they asked for it. Why am I not surprised.

[egbert]

Here in the US, the authority of the police flows FROM the people TO the police, and it's a limited grant of authority, not an abdication of the rights of the people. The only things that the police have authority to do that the public doesn't is to a) arrest based only on probable cause; and b) levy charges for petty offenses. In all other cases, in most places, a citizen is authorized to arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence and bring the person before a court or turn him over to the police, and his authority and power to make an arrest is exactly equal to that of a police officer.

[egbert]

I wonder if anyone still actually believes a word coming out of a mainstream politicians mouth.

They must - they keep electing them!

[Seth]

Abdicating your role as a policeman empowers the police by giving them absolute power. And we all know what happens with absolute power, don't we?

If everyone in society does their duty to society by policing themselves and others, we need fewer police and we can give them less power, which protects our individual rights and liberties, which are in gravest danger when we give away our liberties to achieve a little temporary safety.

The only power the police really have is that they can outnumber the bad guys, they are in most cases have less weaponary than criminals ie a truncheon.

Yeah, the English are some stupid motherfuckers alright, particularly the police, who are too stupid to turn down a dangerous job that denies them the most essential and necessary safety equipment required by their profession.

The police are utterly screwed if the public decide they don't want them anymore so a police state wouldnt be that impressive, now farmers armed with shotguns that potentially is a lot more worrying.

In the U.S. you'd be right, because we, the People, have the right to keep and bear arms sufficient to put down a tyrant or overthrow a police state. Not so much in places like the UK, where the police can easily be armed to a much greater extent that the populace merely by the declaration of martial law, which turns the military into the police.

Security is a liberty, without being securing in food , accomodation, and health no other freedoms have any value

Indeed. And what secures liberty is the individual's ability to defend his liberty himself, and in concert with his fellow community members, using the tools appropriate and necessary to that task.

[Seth]

Here in the US, the authority of the police flows FROM the people TO the police, and it's a limited grant of authority, not an abdication of the rights of the people. The only things that the police have authority to do that the public doesn't is to a) arrest based only on probable cause; and b) levy charges for petty offenses. In all other cases, in most places, a citizen is authorized to arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence and bring the person before a court or turn him over to the police, and his authority and power to make an arrest is exactly equal to that of a police officer.

Same here but in no way does that make its the public job to uphold the law (it is their job to obey it). Just because you have the authorisation to do something doesnt make it your job or you the best person to do it.

Oh, it's your job alright, but you're right that you may not be the best person to do it, particularly if you eschew arms and fail to train for the duty. But that's entirely beside the point. One may choose to allow the police to do the job as a matter of convenience, but one is both authorized and should be prepared to do the job in the absence of the police when it becomes necessary to do so.

[Seth]

Here in the US, the authority of the police flows FROM the people TO the police, and it's a limited grant of authority, not an abdication of the rights of the people. The only things that the police have authority to do that the public doesn't is to a) arrest based only on probable cause; and b) levy charges for petty offenses. In all other cases, in most places, a citizen is authorized to arrest a person who commits a crime in his presence and bring the person before a court or turn him over to the police, and his authority and power to make an arrest is exactly equal to that of a police officer.

And how does an example of lawless murder rebut my statement, exactly?

[Svartalf]

from the same place as some guy spouting about the rights he has under the 2nd amendment, but who has obviously never tried to live in NY or in the SSR of kalifornistan I suppose

[Seth]

from the same place as some guy spouting about the rights he has under the 2nd amendment, but who has obviously never tried to live in NY or in the SSR of kalifornistan I suppose

Indeed. I wouldn't go near either place precisely because they infringe on my RKBA. Fortunately, the Supreme Court is taking down both states anti-gun laws.

[MrJonno]

Yeah, the English are some stupid motherfuckers alright, particularly the police, who are too stupid to turn down a dangerous job that denies them the most essential and necessary safety equipment required by their profession.

Yeah everyone on them is just that stupid or maybe if they wanted to shoot people they would join the army or volunteer for the few hundred specialist police positions they do have firearms. If the police wanted guns tomorrow no government or public would stop them guess what they don't.

Police is dangerous job, more dangerous than some less dangerous than others. Working as afisherman, coal miner or a construction worker is a lot more dangerous than joining the police (at least in a low murder rate country). Typically a policeman will die in the line of duty 1 every couple of years and it makes national news

http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhte/020/Lab ... 20jobs.pdf

Police police, doctors doctors , teachers teach , soldiers soldier all specialist jobs which I pay for out of my taxes while I undertake my specialism fixing computers. I do and are trained to do my job they for them. Convience doesnt come into it, I couldnt be a good soldier, doctor, teacher etc at the same time they take a life time of dedication

[egbert]

And how does an example of lawless murder rebut my statement, exactly?

Yes TROLL. It was a LAWLESS murder, with law enforcement not only doing nothing, but often participating. No charges, no investigation, and President Roosevelt vetoing an anti-lynching law because it might make him unpopular in the South.

Personally, I'd love to participate in a lynch mob, if the target was a troll.

[MrJonno]

Personally, I'd love to participate in a lynch mob, if the target was a troll.

Troll or potential terrorist thats the question?