|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 14, 2014 10:55:23 GMT -6
yantaylor,
Where to start.....
It's easy enough to look up so you don't have to "hear" how things are in the States, where any government from town to federal can amend its laws. That's annoying, but you don't seem to understand your own laws and legal system either. Your laws are not made in Brussels and forced upon you. Name one law that is in force in England not voted on by Parliament and the public via your own procedures? England can leave the EU anytime it wants to.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 14, 2014 12:36:09 GMT -6
linklinkThe people of my country don’t have a say if we stay with Europe or not, and no referendum has taken place and it’s down to Cameron and his cronies to say we are staying, do you have any knowledge of any referendum taking place in the UK to vote on if we stay or opt-out? Steve I may have not made myself clear, what I meant was that the UN does not have any rule over the US, but doesn’t the US has to ask the UN for permission before entering into sanctions with an opposing nation?
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Sept 15, 2014 7:09:07 GMT -6
Ian, we generally go to the UN and other nations to gain consensus for sanctions. The sanctions are obviously better the more nations you have enforcing them, but the US has enforced sanctions on their own on a number of occasions.
By the way is Scotland going to pullout or are they just going to topple the current PM?
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 15, 2014 8:58:12 GMT -6
Hi Tom, they decide on Thursday when they have a ballot, and by Friday you never know we may be rid of them. Just got to get the Welsh and the Irish to leave and we will be free , I wish Scotland could topple Cameron as he only got in power due to the Liberals jumping in bed with the Conservatives as they never had an overall majority. Try and find a copy of what Alex Salmond wants (the Scottish bloke who wants to break away), he wants independence all right but also wants a lot more, talk about have your cake and eat it. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 15, 2014 9:59:33 GMT -6
To what Steve wrote I would change "most" Federal law enforcement to "all" Federal law enforcement agencies are created by statute, the oldest being the U S Marshall created by statute in 1789. Conflict arises as to jurisdiction, and from what I understand that was the issue in the Bundy affair. Sometimes Ian the issue is cloudy. Is it Federal law being enforced or is it state law. The county sheriff does not have jurisdiction to enforce Federal law, nor does the U S Marshall or any other Federal agency have the authority to enforce state law. The conflict arises when it is unclear whose law is the one in question, and seemingly conflicting issues are in dispute.
What tends to drive me bat crap is the fact that all statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the president are constitutional, having the same weight and authority as if they were contained in the basic document, while those statutes are in force. To be constitutional does not mean, and this is the drives me bat crap part, that such and such a law, agency, or act must be in the basic constitutional document to be valid. There are those who think it must be in the constitution itself. Were that so, why would this same constitution have created a legislative branch to make law, an executive branch to sign into and enforce law, and a judicial branch for interpreting the meaning of law and how that law applies. There would be no need.
One example is murder. Under most instances murder is a violation of state law. Federal agencies such as the FBI may render technical assistance to the state in solving the crime of murder, like fingerprint and DNA typing, both directly if necessary or through funding to state laboratories and the like. When that murder is of a Federal official, or on a Federal reservation in a state, or an act of terrorism, it becomes a Federal crime, and Federal law enforcement agencies become the lead, most times with the state rendering assistance, but not always, dependent upon circumstance. Nothing is straightforward in a Republic made up of fifty parts.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 15, 2014 10:28:45 GMT -6
The issue with constitutional authority has more to do with the persons you are dealing with and their personal views. Most groups recognize the sheriff's authority but don't recognize the federal authority. Its not who is correct as much as what they believe.
I have met Cliven Bundy years ago when we doing some law enforcement action in Arizona and he was not involved. Once he found out we were state officers there was no issue.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 15, 2014 10:52:31 GMT -6
Non-recognition of Federal authority, when Federal authority has jurisdiction, is the issue, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance of our system of law is not a get out of jail free card.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 15, 2014 12:33:24 GMT -6
And I thought the command structure of the German OKW 1944 was over complicated. I suppose the graphics of the USA may play apart, some of those states are enormous, and when each state was made up of different counties that makes the waters even muddier, although I do prefer the way the New England states call there county seat “Shire Town”, which is along the lines of the English counties and shires.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 15, 2014 18:38:51 GMT -6
Someday Ian you must have Steve give you a run down on Unlawful Flight To Avoid Prosecution. That is a real head turner.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 16, 2014 2:46:05 GMT -6
Just googled Unlawful Flight Chuck, hmmm... I do need a run down.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 16, 2014 6:15:42 GMT -6
From the US Constitution 10th Amendment the states have the authority not granted to the federal government. That is where the Sheriff has the basis for the authority. The states give that authority through their constitutions.
In Arizona that authority is designated to the Sheriff in ARS 11-441.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 17, 2014 12:29:40 GMT -6
Steve, there is a law over here called “Joint Enterprise” and it has caused a right old stir; linkI don’t know if there is a similar law in the States. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 27, 2014 8:10:19 GMT -6
Ian
I don't think the police use military equipment in the manner that the military uses them. Why should a police officer give up a ballistic vest, helmet, or armored vehicle that is brought to protect the police from serious injury. Their daily uniform would not be mistaken for military in most law enforcement agencies. When there is an active shooter, riots with looting, or infiltration of non resident persons to stir up trouble it causes a reaction that requires more protective equipment.
That the other side thinks it unfair and should be able to inflict injury or death on an unprotected police officer seems wrong to me. Lets ask the police officers wives to vote on it.
It is not what you wear, weapons you have, or protective equipment that should be questioned. It's the unlawful use that should be challenged and in this country that can be done either in criminal court or in civil courts. I assure you that agencies do not want to pay at millions of dollars for a wrongful death. We train a lot in the use of force.
Lets have the store owners vote if the want the police to leave because of the lack of defensive equipment.
Lets look at those active shooters in LA where the police weapons were ineffective.
Lets ask for volunteers to go in the bars when the bikers are fighting and see if they reject their protective equipment.
You see day in and day out the police have to go into potential and actual danger. They would like to go home to their families at night with no more holes in their body than what they started with and all parts still working. Every weekend the bars have something going on that results in arrest. The event in Ferguson is not the typical weekly event but there are life threatening events occurring all the time. When I left the Verde Valley the Marshall's office had 3 second chance vest awards on their wall for officer life saved.
It is a small Department.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Sept 27, 2014 10:32:18 GMT -6
Ian, please don't think Steve is making more out of needed equipment, small departments are overworked and under funded. The attached list is not complete officer killed in SC this week. If an armored vehicle or upgraded vest saves one life the expense is worth it. www.odmp.org/search/year/2014Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 28, 2014 5:53:51 GMT -6
Tom/Steve, yes I can appreciate the dangers police officers have to work under, it’s hard to explain to you guys that I have never ever seen a British armed police officer, we go to Europe once or twice a year, even now the sight of armed police patrolling the streets and bars in Spain does seen unnerving, and they don’t seem as approachable as our own British Bobby.
P.S. has anyone heard anything off Chuck, he has not logged on now for five days, which is a little unusual for him, as he is always on line day in day out. I tried to e-mail him but I got no response.
Its ok just got word off Fred that Chucks computer has suffered a mishap.
Ian.
|
|