Social Justice Warriors Take Another Scalp: McKinney Police Officer Resigns

In yet another sad occurrence, another police officer has had their life ruined because of lawless behavior by citizens, behavior that is completely excused by the social justice warriors

(NY Times) A police officer in McKinney, Tex., who was seen on video pulling his gun on teenagers in swimsuits and shoving a young black girl’s face in the ground at a pool party has resigned, the police said Tuesday.

Cpl. David Eric Casebolt, who had been placed on administrative leave after the episode on Friday, remains under investigation, Chief Greg Conley said at a news conference. The corporal will keep his pension and benefits, the police chief said.

“Our policies, our training, our practice doesn’t support his actions,” Chief Conley said. “He came into the call out of control, and as the video shows was out of control during the incident.”

Of course, and as usual, not mentioned in the article is that the officers were called to this illegal party by the security guard at the pool, due to these kids running around, being extremely loud and rude, assaulting the security guard, accosting the members of the pool, jumping the pool fence, causing property damage, and fighting. When the duly sworn peace officers showed up, the kids continued to run around, fight, refused to listen to the officers, used foul language, challenged the authority of the officers, refused to disperse, and, when Casebolt had one of the offenders on the ground, who was continuing to resist, approached the officer in an aggressive manner, which caused him to pull his service weapon.

One adult man was arrested on charges of interfering with the duties of a police officer and evading arrest. Chief Conley said on Tuesday that those charges had been dismissed.

Where are the charges of, at the least, trespass, for all these kids? They broke the law? But, this is how it works in this nation now, where we turn cops into the lawbreakers and excuse the behavior of the lawbreakers, especially if they are of a particular color. No, I do not want to go racial. Let’s face it, it can’t be ignored. The SJWs went racial first. Why do they excuse criminal behavior by these kids? They do love turning cops into The Enemy. And then they whine when the cops aren’t there to protect the SJWs.

You can bet that the officers on the force have totally lost respect for the chief, after he threw Casebolt under the bus. Casebolt had to leave town due to threats to his life. Certainly from the same “peace loving” SJWs.

Are there bad cops out there? You bet. Casebolt wasn’t one of them. He responded to lawless behavior, and paid the price for having to deal with out of control youths. The SJWs always talk about coming together, working together, but, quickly jump to claim scalps. And use death threats. They could have worked with the officer, talked with the officer, “come together as a community” to make sure this didn’t happen again. But, that’s not the way things work in SJW Land. Scalps must be taken and lives must be ruined, while, in a case like this, all the others involved in criminal/hooligan behavior are excused.

Where’s our “national conversation” on excusing criminal behavior by out of control kids?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

23 Responses to “Social Justice Warriors Take Another Scalp: McKinney Police Officer Resigns”

  1. John says:

    Teach you are far off base again
    The police were using racial profanities that black girl in the bikini was a child 14yo
    When Duke goes on one of their annual victory riots do the cops threaten to shoot?
    As far as breaking the law the kids were invited to a pool party
    A white woman did not like a large number of black kids there and provoked a confrontation
    Those cops were certainly not acting in a professional manner using racial profanities escalated the problem as did their manhandling of that girl
    When The Cliven Bundy posse aimed their guns at law enforcement officers you cheered them on

  2. Michael says:

    As I have said before, the problem here is that we are not looking at this in an impartial manner.

    For some reason in our society we have become biased in everything we do. I don’t know if it is the media or the goverent or both that has everyone in a tizzy.

    I don’t like government thugs, but I also don’t automaticly side with those opposed to government with violence.

    As Gandhi and MLK showed us, violence and oppression can be overcome through peaceful withdrawal from the system itself and all that financially support and benefit from it.

    The issue I have seen on here is that no one but myself is willing to have both the officers and kids ALL face charges for their conduct.

    Yes, where are the tresspass charges and disturbing the peace charges for the individuals involved??

    Where are the public misconduct charges for the officer who did not follow an established procedure?

    What we will see here is both sides will get away with crime and both sides will continue to escalate the situation seeking justice.

    The failure is the justice system itself. It is nothing new that the government has been protecting injustice rather than justice. Justice is supposed to be blind to any bias and examine all facts of a case without prejudice. Justice is supposed to rule equally and fairly regardless of status or position in society or government.

    I guarantee you that if the government was actually protecting against injustice none of this would be going on… And you all can dig deep within yourselves and admit that we have lost any system of justice in America.

    For those who deny this, I ask you to go sit down in a courtroom and watch how biased and unjust these judges actually are when dealing with cases. It’s sickening. There is no honor in the courtroom and it has all become about money.

    I am opposed to government at this point because I have witnessed how a government can become a tool to protect injustice and create chaos in a society. We are nearing the end of Rome in America.

    All that is left is the financial collapse and the prosecution of the philosophers who predicted it’s coming.

  3. John says:

    Case bolt wasn’t a bad cop? Have you seen what the white kid who took that video has to say about that cop’s behavior ? The other cops there had to tell Casebolt he was over the line and to holster his gun and calm down
    The 2 white women were not arrested for assaulting the 19yo who lived there and invited others to her pool party
    Please comment on what Brandon Brooks the 15yo white kid thT shot the video has to say about the actions of police officer Casebolt

  4. Dana says:

    He lost his job the second he unholstered his weapon. To have drawn his weapon without any imminent danger that he would have been fired upon himself was to threaten excessive force.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    Yes, where are the tresspass charges and disturbing the peace charges for the individuals involved??

    Where are the public misconduct charges for the officer who did not follow an established procedure?

    The charges for disturbing the peace went away the moment liberals started attacking the officer and making this a racial issue. As for the officer, are you saying that you want criminal charges for failing to follow procedures? You don’t want him charged for breaking the law, but for failing to follow procedures?

    He lost his job the second he unholstered his weapon. To have drawn his weapon without any imminent danger that he would have been fired upon himself was to threaten excessive force.

    Case law after case law says the officer may respond when he feels threatened. Watch the video again as he is attacked by several people, one of whom reaches behind him in a movement that from Casebolt’s perspective can be a move for a weapon. Casebolt’ drawing of his weapon ended the threat. He did not point the weapon at anyone. He did not fire the weapon. The mere drawing of the weapon ended the threat which means that he not only did not use excessive force, he used no force at all when he himself was threatened.

    Please comment on what Brandon Brooks the 15yo white kid thT shot the video has to say about the actions of police officer Casebolt

    I always take advice on law enforcement from a 15 year old, john. I know you won’t think about this because the thought process is beyond you but notice that no officer, including Casebolt, goes after the kid shooting the video because he was not a threat to the officers. The officers deal with the threats. Your reliance on the video and the 15 year old shows Casebolt acted within the law.

  6. gitarcarver says:

    The 2 white women were not arrested for assaulting the 19yo who lived there and invited others to her pool party

    The only people who have said the girl was “assaulted” was the girl herself. This is the same girl who broke the HOA agreement on the number of people at a party and lied that she had gotten permission from HOA to begin with.

    While the fact that she lied previously does not mean she is lying in regards to the fight, but it casts doubt on her ability to tell the truth.

    BTW john, why haven’t you commented on the death threats Casebolt and his family received? Do you think that the threats were justified? Tell us all john, would you work in a situation where your next stop could be a set up designed to kill, injure or maim you?

    And where is your outrage against those who vandalized the homes of people who were witnesses to the incident and supported the police?

  7. Michael says:

    As for the officer, are you saying that you want criminal charges for failing to follow procedures? You don’t want him charged for breaking the law, but for failing to follow procedures?

    Public misconduct includes by is not exclusive to criminal conduct by a public official, criminal conduct by an administration’s member, dereliction of performance in office, deviation from rectitude, dishonest management, failing to uphold a sworn oath of office, failure in office, guilty act while a public official, illegal act, illegality by a public official, improper conduct by a public official, impropriety by a public official, maladministration by a public servant, malfeasance by a public servant, misadministration by a public servant, misconduct by a public official, misdeeds by a public official, misfeasance by a public official, misgovernment, misguidance by a public official, mismanagement by an office holder, misprision by an office holder, nonfeasance by an office holder, offenses while in office, transgressions by an office holder, turpitude by an office holder, wrongdoing, by a public official.

    Not exclusive to only federal agents as each state, county and city also have legal terms and definitions and laws regarding public officials conduct while in public office here is the one from the FBI website.

    U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.

    Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

    If an officer is supposed to be an enforcer of “the law”, you would not think it far fetched for the officer to be held to a higher standard of following the proper rules and procedures of his instructions, right?

    Yes, I do believe it is a public crime for an officer of “the Law” to deviate from what his government department instruct him to do. Obviously, the only exception to this rule is where he would be violating the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens if he should follow such procedures or orders, since he is sworn FIRST to obey the Constitutions of the USA and the respective state in which he resides and only second, to follow any other rules, laws, regulations, order and instructions given to him by superiors.

    Because people like me say government is evil and dangerous for our liberties, there are others who claim government is necessary and then place strict rules and regulations on the government agents.

    It’s only been in recent history that it seems like part of the public is ok with looking away or ignoring any accountability of those in government that would ignore procedure and rules within their departments.

    “Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” – Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)

    We as a society have lost all sense of justice, on either side, public or private. We have become a society of losers who are not willing to stand up for truth and justice, but rather fight each other over petty differences whether sex, race, religion, or success and using the power of government force to abuse each other for our childish behaviors and differences.

    I do not see an out of control police officer any different than I see an out of control child or adult…. except that the child has yet to learn, the adult should have already learned, and an officer is paid to know better.

    However, this monopoly on power and strict rules on police wouldn’t be necessary without government…. there is no reason why each individual cannot carry the same policing powers as another. But you guys are either on the side of the state or the citizens, and then you guys keep flip flopping depending on who cries out first.

    Unless we as a society change our ways and stop picking sides, we are doomed to fail as all nations eventually fail. This requires an unbiased investigation and not a choice between one side and another….

    I am against government, but I understand that government’s sales pitch is that it is required in order to maintain the peace and order of society…. so how does it do that when it is a party to the strife??? It’s no longer the impartial third party to act as a moderator or peace keeper, it is a player in the game.

    So long as the referees are allowed to also run the ball and participate, picking winners and losers, it cannot be respected or honorable.

    And on our part, we should never think that someone owes us some kind of obligation without their consent, and yet, we should also learn that we are strongest when we protect each individual around us from injustices, whether from the state or criminal hooligans. But it should be voluntary… not pressed upon us as some sort of edict or law.

    If we fail then what follows is best described by Albert Jay Nock in his book Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943):

    “… closer centralization; a steadily growing bureaucracy; State power and faith in State power increasing; social power and faith in social power diminishing; the State absorbing a continually larger proportion of the national income; production languishing; the State in consequence taking over one ‘essential industry’ after another, managing them with ever-increasing corruption, inefficiency, and prodigality, and finally resorting to a system of forced labor. Then at some point in this process a collision of State interests, at least as general and as violent as that which occurred in 1914, will result in an industrial and financial dislocation too severe for the asthenic [weak] social structure to bear; and from this the State will be left to ‘the rusty death of machinery’ and the casual anonymous forces of dissolution.”

  8. Dana says:

    Michael wrote:

    If an officer is supposed to be an enforcer of “the law”, you would not think it far fetched for the officer to be held to a higher standard of following the proper rules and procedures of his instructions, right?

    Yes, I do believe it is a public crime for an officer of “the Law” to deviate from what his government department instruct him to do.

    The department may put in place regulations and procedures which are more strict than the law, but violation of procedures which still does not violate the law cannot (reasonably) get the officer or other employee charged with a crime.

  9. Michael says:

    The department may put in place regulations and procedures which are more strict than the law, but violation of procedures which still does not violate the law cannot (reasonably) get the officer or other employee charged with a crime.

    Then why put in place to begin with if it is not important enough to be regarded as law? Is it just an option?? If the officer ignores it, can he even be punished?? If he is punished as a result, can he take it to court? Is it criminal or civil court he must take it to? Does he have a civil case against a public entity that is funded by the public??? Why should the public fund a rule that is only a suggestion but not law on an officer??

    Should not all rules and regulations on “public” employees be law? They do not work for the private sector do they? They work for the public…. isn’t any transgression against the public a crime??? Or does that only pertain to the public breaking public law, those in government are immune??

    Do those in government have a different set of laws they follow?? A different justice system…. a different class of citizens altogether?

    Isn’t working for the government a voluntary choice and they promise under perjury to follow the public laws or face the consequences of breaking that “public” trust???

    If there are no real threats to breaking the public trust…. then anyone, especially criminals, will feel better protected in being a member of the government class of citizens rather than a “mere” citizen with lower protections under the law.

    Sorry…. an officer is paid to follow rules and enforce them on others…. no excuses afforded to them.

    I am unconvinced.

  10. Dana says:

    Michael asked:

    The department may put in place regulations and procedures which are more strict than the law, but violation of procedures which still does not violate the law cannot (reasonably) get the officer or other employee charged with a crime.

    Then why put in place to begin with if it is not important enough to be regarded as law? Is it just an option?? If the officer ignores it, can he even be punished?? If he is punished as a result, can he take it to court? Is it criminal or civil court he must take it to? Does he have a civil case against a public entity that is funded by the public??? Why should the public fund a rule that is only a suggestion but not law on an officer??

    It’s the same as any other employment rule: the punishment can be anything up to and including losing your job. An officer would have a right to sue for wrongful termination if he believed that the punishment did not fit the violation, but he’d have to prove it in court.

  11. Michael says:

    It’s the same as any other employment rule: the punishment can be anything up to and including losing your job. An officer would have a right to sue for wrongful termination if he believed that the punishment did not fit the violation, but he’d have to prove it in court.

    You must have skipped over half my comment… hahaha

    The problem here is you are mixing up private sector vs. public sector employees…. you are mixing up private law, which is the law of equity with public law which is what we call criminal law.

    A public employee is not making a private contract with another party…. they are in fact making a public contract and when they are in violation of that public law, it is called a breach of the public trust.

    The public is trusting you with their lives, liberties and property!! Any violation of that trust is not a private contract where it can be settled in civil court!

    A police officer is not a damn mall cop….

    that’s my point.

    So yes, when they violate procedure it is a CRIME!

    Has it sunk in yet or do you need to read this a few more times???

  12. Jeffery says:

    another police officer has had their life ruined because of lawless behavior by citizens

    So anything a cop does to a citizen is justified if the cop suspects the citizen has broken a law? Or does this only apply to Blacks and Hispanics?

    The response should be proportional to the offense, right? A cop that pulls a gun on a jaywalker, slams her to the ground and kneels on her throat has overreacted, wouldn’t you agree? What if that jaywalker breaks free, would it be ok with Teach and gitarcarver if the cop shot her for fleeing? After all, now she’s committed several crimes – jaywalking, resisting arrest, disobeying an officer, assault etc. The list of charges would depend on the existence of a videotape.

    What if the jaywalker’s husband happens upon the situation and is carrying an AK-47 like most good Americans should?

  13. Dana says:

    Michael carries on:

    The problem here is you are mixing up private sector vs. public sector employees…. you are mixing up private law, which is the law of equity with public law which is what we call criminal law.

    And the criminal law is not different for police officers, other public employees, and civilians. There are no separate laws to do what you want to see done, and such will never be passed.

    A public employee is not making a private contract with another party…. they are in fact making a public contract and when they are in violation of that public law, it is called a breach of the public trust.

    Wherever you went to law school, you need to get a refund. A public employee is, in effect, making a work contract — it may be a union contract — with the public entity which hired him. That is not a contract with the public in general, or the public could fire him.

    The public is trusting you with their lives, liberties and property!! Any violation of that trust is not a private contract where it can be settled in civil court!

    No, the public are entrusting the police department, not the police officer, and it is only through the police department (for violations of departmental regulations) that the officer can be punished, unless he also violates the criminal law, in which case he can be prosecuted.

    A police officer is not a damn mall cop….

    that’s my point.

    So yes, when they violate procedure it is a CRIME!

    Sorry, wrong answer: violation of procedure which does not rise to a violation of the law is not a crime, no matter how much you may wish it to be so. Misdemeanors and felonies are established by the legislature, not the police departments.

    Has it sunk in yet or do you need to read this a few more times???

    Well, it has certainly sunk in that you think such should be actual crimes, but what you think should be, and what actually is, are two different things.

  14. Jeffery says:

    Teach and gc,

    Did you actually watch the video?

    If you did, please explain how you can defend the actions of the officer.

  15. Did you actually watch the video?

    I can’t speak for GC, but I sure did. Including the part where the hooligans moved aggressively towards the officer. I bet GC did, as well.

    Did you?

    If you did, please explain how you can defend the actions of the officer.

    We have. Multiple times. You don’t want to listen. Which is nothing unusual from any liberal, who see and hear only what fits in their narrow world view, especially when they have a Narrative to push.

    How can you defend the actions of these kids? How do you defend them moving aggressively towards an officer? I bet if you saw people moving towards you, Jeff, you’d react. I bet if you had a bunch of people coming towards you, you’d want an officer to protect you.

  16. gitarcarver says:

    Michael,

    Your definition of “public misconduct” is a nice bit of writing but as far as I can tell, it has no basis in the idea that a cop or public official that violates a procedure has somehow violated the law.

    If an officer is supposed to be an enforcer of “the law”, you would not think it far fetched for the officer to be held to a higher standard of following the proper rules and procedures of his instructions, right?

    Wrong. I am against special privileges for law enforcement officers (such as the so called “bill of rights” for cops.) At the same time, the standards should not be raised just because someone has a badge. Either the actions of a person is legal or it is not. Violating “procedures” in any company or endeavor is an internal issue and not a crime. A crime is breaking the law.

    Then why put in place to begin with if it is not important enough to be regarded as law?

    Because it is not law to begin with. Remember that ol’ separation of powers that most of us learned in 2nd grade? Do you really want the police department making laws?

    The problem here is you are mixing up private sector vs. public sector employees

    No, the problem is that you want two sets of laws for people. Dana’s comment was right on the mark and you missed its meaning.

    Has it sunk in yet or do you need to read this a few more times???

    You mean I need to keep reading to continually see how you are wrong?

    Tell me Michael, that pesky 14th Amendment thing that is out there…. doesn’t that apply to everyone?

  17. gitarcarver says:

    We have. Multiple times. You don’t want to listen.

    Exactly.

    There is no point in trying to explain something repeatedly to someone who has shown they are not willing to listen or examine the argument.

  18. Jeffery says:

    But of course, the officer had nothing to worry about if he had not been brutalizing the boys’ friend.

    Yes, if I was brutalizing a young girl, I would fear her friends intervening. But wouldn’t the solution be to not brutalize young girls?

    The rapid response from the Chief was appropriate.

  19. gitarcarver says:

    But of course, the officer had nothing to worry about if he had not been brutalizing the boys’ friend.

    Good thing he wasn’t doing that, huh?

    Yes, if I was brutalizing a young girl, I would fear her friends intervening. But wouldn’t the solution be to not brutalize young girls?

    You keep using that word. I dunna tink it means what you tink it means.

    If the girl had not left the scene and returned to incite the crowd, would any of this have happened?

    The rapid response from the Chief was appropriate.

    You mean the response that has more people making death threats against the members of his department?

    That response?

    Time will tell but if other cities are any indication, you’ll start to see a reaction from the rank and file in response to the Chief throwing one of their own under the bus.

  20. Jeffery says:


    But of course, the officer had nothing to worry about if he had not been brutalizing the boys’ friend.

    Good thing he wasn’t doing that, huh?

    Once a Denier, always a Denier. You and the Teach described what he did as “detaining” her, as if he only asked, “Please, stay right here, Miss”.

    You are once again left to defend the indefensible. Does being the most extreme rightist on an extreme right-wing blog encourage any self-examination?

    It was a bunch of rowdy kids at a pool, not the Bloods and the Crips. The only violence came from the cop and that blonde lady that started the whole thing. But “people like you” are wet-your-panties terrified of Black people (and gays, Muslims, Mexicans…) and prefer to have your armed surrogates control them. Sorry Carver, but Homie don’t play dat no more.

  21. Dana says:

    Jeffrey goes off the deep end:

    Once a Denier, always a Denier. You and the Teach described what he did as “detaining” her, as if he only asked, “Please, stay right here, Miss”.

    Trouble is, the young lady did resist arrest; are you taking the position that resistance of arrest does not justify forcible restraint?

  22. Michael says:

    Ok, sorry, late in responding…. I run a business and it keeps me busy!

    Let me try to work backwards from the comments.

    Tell me Michael, that pesky 14th Amendment thing that is out there…. doesn’t that apply to everyone?

    Yes, it is a protection of all Citizens to equal treatment under the law. The part you miss is the voluntary contracts that are made by those who serve in public office or the military. All of which are required to support and defend the constitutions in the their respective jurisdiction. They are subjects to more public law than any citizen in that case, therefore the 14th amendment is still not violated. The citizen has entered a voluntary public contract to serve his fellow man with the understanding that there is serious consequences for violating their oath of office. (that’s how it’s supposed to work)

    However, since this is something I seem to have to argue about, with both conservatives and liberals, this only explains why there is no accountability in government, because their is no true mechanism to punish public officials who breach the public trust outside of paid vacations and MAYBE they lose their position.

    Again… why have government at all, when those in government can ignore their own restrictions and punishments under the law?? And they have obviously convinced the public that they are not subject to criminal punishment for breaching the public trust and that they should be treated like a private citizen who is working for Microsoft or Walmart.

    No, the problem is that you want two sets of laws for people. Dana’s comment was right on the mark and you missed its meaning.

    What’s funny is that there is many more sets of law in America…. technically , but your head might explode if I try to explain that to you… so let’s stick to two that is easy to explain.

    Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.
    According to William Geldart, Introduction to English Law 146 (D.C.M. Yardley ed., 9th ed. 1984),

    “The difference between civil law and criminal law turns on the difference between two different objects which law seeks to pursue – redress or punishment. The object of civil law is the redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution: the wrongdoer is not punished; he only suffers so much harm as is necessary to make good the wrong he has done. The person who has suffered gets a definite benefit from the law, or at least he avoids a loss. On the other hand, in the case of crimes, the main object of the law is to punish the wrongdoer; to give him and others a strong inducement not to commit same or similar crimes, to reform him if possible and perhaps to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with retribution.”

    When there is a breach of trust within public office, we are not looking for a redress of grievances as a society, although an individual may seek redress directly from the breach, the society as a whole is seeking a punishment for the breach of trust.

    Hopefully that explains my position and the law’s purpose and use regarding the two laws that, yes, do really exist in America… there are in fact two different clerks of courts and two separate law books for each, along with separate courtrooms, usually on different floors of the same courthouse to hear information and trials.

    Because it is not law to begin with. Remember that ol’ separation of powers that most of us learned in 2nd grade? Do you really want the police department making laws?

    First off, I never said I WANTED the police to make their own laws, nor do they. My point was muddled a bit regarding the question of being arrested for breaking a procedure. I should have asked, what procedure did he break that was not written into law by the legislatures?? Any procedure broken by a cop is breaking the law written by legislatures, which sums up my point with Dana. Yes, the officer should be charged with a crime for breaking a procedure, because he or she is in fact breaking the law.

    Wrong. I am against special privileges for law enforcement officers (such as the so called “bill of rights” for cops.) At the same time, the standards should not be raised just because someone has a badge. Either the actions of a person is legal or it is not. Violating “procedures” in any company or endeavor is an internal issue and not a crime. A crime is breaking the law.

    There is no endorsement of special privileges to officers by me. They are exercising the same police powers that each of us already have. In fact there is nothing the government can legitimately grant anyone that is not already possible for the average citizen to do. otherwise what is the source of this power if not from the people themselves??

    A police officer, military personnel, or any other public office holder/employee is not working for a business under contract law. They are in fact operating under public law and direction of the legislative body of that particular jurisdiction. Any breach of those rules and regulations as imposed by legislatures is “breaking the law”.

    Again, you are mixing up private sector versus public sector employment…. they are not the same thing, nor should they be treated the same…. this ignorance is the source of many problems including unionizing, which has no place in the public sector, but is definitely protected in the private sector. And many other blurring of the lines issues that have resulted from treating public sector employees as if they are working for Walmart.

    Your definition of “public misconduct” is a nice bit of writing but as far as I can tell, it has no basis in the idea that a cop or public official that violates a procedure has somehow violated the law.

    And hopefully this has already been explained…. the procedure is written by legislatures, so yes, it is breaking the law.

    Well, it has certainly sunk in that you think such should be actual crimes, but what you think should be, and what actually is, are two different things.

    What I think is irrelevant… we are talking about the law. Not working at Walmart. What actually is happening is public officials getting away with breaking the law and the public is too ignorant to know this and no one in government is going to explain it to you because it does not serve themselves very well.

    Sorry, wrong answer: violation of procedure which does not rise to a violation of the law is not a crime, no matter how much you may wish it to be so. Misdemeanors and felonies are established by the legislature, not the police departments.

    Again, all rules and procedures of every department in all the branches are established by the legislatures and is in fact a crime when violated. Punishment is detailed by the legislatures as well. Could be federal, state, county or city laws and usually a combination of the few.

    No, the public are entrusting the police department, not the police officer, and it is only through the police department (for violations of departmental regulations) that the officer can be punished, unless he also violates the criminal law, in which case he can be prosecuted.

    You cannot trust a police department, only the individuals in it… a police department is nothing but a piece of paper… Each individual officer is required to swear a public oath and make a public contract. The public is not required to trust anyone… the law requires trust or the officer faces criminal charges. That is the proper procedure. Again, he is not a mall cop.

    Wherever you went to law school, you need to get a refund. A public employee is, in effect, making a work contract — it may be a union contract — with the public entity which hired him. That is not a contract with the public in general, or the public could fire him.

    You are very incorrect. An employee of Walmart or the Mall is not required to swear a public oath and form a public contract. The private citizen owes no obligation to the public when contracting privately. A public employee is not making a work contract with a private business. They are in fact making a public contract under the public laws and are under the rules and directions of the legislative body. You sir or madam, need a refund on your legal education.

    And the criminal law is not different for police officers, other public employees, and civilians. There are no separate laws to do what you want to see done, and such will never be passed.

    In fact they are not different at all. Most laws are not applicable in all cases. When you are a public employee you are subject to whatever laws and regulations the legislatures have written for your particular position. This is not a case of separate laws, but applicability of those laws depending on circumstance and position.

    So I apologize that I did not clarify myself as clearly before, but now you should understand. If not, I’m sorry and that explains why no in government is afraid of the people themselves… there is no one to enforce the violation of the law by those in government who break them.

    There is no Constitution where it cannot be enforced.

  23. gitarcarver says:

    And they have obviously convinced the public that they are not subject to criminal punishment for breaching the public trust and that they should be treated like a private citizen who is working for Microsoft or Walmart.

    Yet you have said that you don’t want them treated the same way as a private citizen working for WalMart or Microsoft. Dane specifically said that in the private sector those who violate procedures are dealt with discipline, bad performance reviews, possible firings, etc. You have stated that you want police who violate procedures to be charged with a crime.

    Which side of your mouth are you talking out of today?

    What’s funny is that there is many more sets of law in America

    Oh good grief. Are you that obtuse? There are not two sets of laws for the same actions based on two different people.

    They are exercising the same police powers that each of us already have.

    This is not correct. Try making a traffic stop and impersonating a police officer. Try speeding to a alleged crime scene. Try arresting a person for a misdemeanor that did not occur in your presence. People can lie to you with impunity in discussing an alleged crime. You can’t do that to the police. I can go on, but it won’t matter to you.

    A police officer, military personnel, or any other public office holder/employee is not working for a business under contract law.

    Wrong again. There are contracts written between police unions and cities. There is nothing in those contracts or case law that allows the contracts to be treated differently than a contract between unions and a private sector company.

    this ignorance is the source of many problems including unionizing, which has no place in the public sector, but is definitely protected in the private sector.

    The right to assemble to advance a common cause or idea is a right the Constitution implies and the Courts have recognized. A union is nothing more than a assembly of people for a common cause or idea. So once again, you are advancing ideas that show you support two sets of laws for people (one in the private sector and one in the public sector). Furthermore, you are basically saying the Constitution only applies to certain people and only when you want it to.

    And hopefully this has already been explained…. the procedure is written by legislatures, so yes, it is breaking the law.

    Except for one thing…. legislatures don’t write procedures. No matter how many times you stomp your feet and shout to the heavens, you are wrong.

    For example, local police departments determine radio procedures, review procedures of reports, uniform standards, weapon procedures, etc. None of those issues are ever addressed by the legislature, but yet you think that if a cop wears a tie pin that is against procedures, he should be arrested.

    Again, all rules and procedures of every department in all the branches are established by the legislatures and is in fact a crime when violated.

    Again, you are mistaken. You can say it all you want, but all you are doing is showing your ignorance.

    You are very incorrect. An employee of Walmart or the Mall is not required to swear a public oath and form a public contract.

    No, they were very correct. The employment contract a LEO signs is with a legal entity. In most cases that is an incorporated government entity such as a city. The contract is not with the “people” in general.

    So I apologize that I did not clarify myself as clearly before, but now you should understand. If not, I’m sorry and that explains why no in government is afraid of the people themselves… there is no one to enforce the violation of the law by those in government who break them.

    No one understands because you are factually incorrect. The government has nothing to fear from people such as yourself who do not understand the basic rights, freedoms and structure of the country.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8710 access attempts in the last 7 days.