We can look at the actions of politicians who abandon their duty to protect American citizens in the name of politics in the recent example of antifa terrorism in the Communist Hostile A**hole Zone (or whatever longwinded and pompous name the leftists came up with this time): In the recent shooting of 2 black youth by CHAZ gunmen, a woman was arrested for rendering criminal assistance while attempting to destroy evidence of the shooting. Her actions were recorded on video. The country prosecutor released her without charging her (Posobiec, 2020) (Gutman and Brownstone, 2020). This office also released rioters while conflating them with protesters.
If domestic terror is, as Berkebile (p.5) defines it, “the premeditated use or threat to use violence by individuals or subnational groups against noncombatants in order to obtain a political or social objective”, and LE refuses to deal those who use assault, vandalism, and arson in pursuit of their political goals, or the sworn officials sharing those goals to the point of supporting the terrorists with stand down orders and dropped prosecutions (see 18 USC 242 here), then LE fails it’s duty.
The danger of politicization in LE goes beyond a failure to uphold the oath to defend; once citizens realize that they are not being protected from threats against them, then they rely on Hobbes’ ideas regarding their own security.
“The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them.”
Thomas Hobbes, “Leviathan”, pt. 2, ch. 21
That was the major point behind the post made by Ace, that I posted yesterday, and that you should read here.
The Constitutional Justification for Arresting Democrats
The first thing I have to say is that LE is under attack on three fronts currently; a propaganda war (the "war on cops", lawfare (as you noted, the prosecution of officers for doing their jobs), and political sabotage (by the democrats, yes, but what I don't see past a few Trump tweets is action in support of LE by republicans). So I understand the difficulty that the line LEO is currently in.
As for me, my own neck is not on the chopping block, so it is EASY for me to throw out theoretical solutions that if practically applied by others, require them to make choices with likely negative consequences.
You correctly note that LE has to follow lawful orders. The first order that any LEO officer has to obey is his oath. That oath is to defend the Constitution. Article VI clause 3 of the United States Constitution requires that all who hold office in the United States take such an oath. I am not aware of any jurisdictional LE oath that does not include that wording. Horwitz (2009) argues that the Constitution is a "meta-rule of construction" designed for "national self-preservation". Because the Constitution is the underlying law of the land, no order or law that counters that self-preservation is valid, and you also note that. While “the oath can all too easily become 'a meaningless and perfunctory recitation' rather than an acknowledgment of the high level of responsibility that it is meant to imbue in its takers” (Hundley & Wamsley, 2012, p.644), the reality is that when it is politicians, jurists, or burrocrats that are violating the Constitution, defending the law becomes a political act subject to the counter use of force (legal actions, firings, doxxing of officers’ personal information); in addition, there are definitely agencies whose chains of command have been suborned by politicians...in other words, enforcing the law can have negative consequences. We need to keep in mind that many people, including co-workers, suffer from normalcy bias.
How do politicians, jurists, or burrocrats violate the Constitution? By not defending the citizen. This is recognized by 18 USC 242:
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States...”
18 USC 242 is further underlined by the Constitution in the Guarantee Clause
The Guarantee Clause requires the United States to guarantee to the states a republican form of government, and provide protection from foreign invasion and domestic violence.
Citizens not only have the right to be protected by the government, it is the primary purpose of government. Heyman (1991) walks though the history of the concept. Madison makes this point absolutely explicit in explaining this Constitutional framework in The Federalist No. 10; protection of man and his property "is the first object of government" (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 2001, p. 42). “Stand Down” orders are illegal. Another area of contempt for the law is in “sanctuary cities”; 8 USC 1324 is explicit about harboring illegal invaders. While I can argue in 4 areas where illegal invasion is harmful to citizens, I have yet to see any argument where there is a plus benefit to Americans, other than “cheaper goods”...never balanced against the cost of unemployment or maintaining welfare rolls.
Snyder (2000) refers to Justice Douglas who “expressed the opinion that in America ‘the domains of conscience and belief have been set aside and protected from government intrusion’ except for the Article VI oath requirement mandating officials to swear they support the Constitution”. Politicians and burrocrats do not get to violate their duty to protect citizens simply because the politicians and burrocrats decide that their feelfeelz about governance or “justice” outweigh the law. Williams (2010 p. 336) points out that “Neglect in Duty” in English common law is a concept which applies to any public officer in any polity; he quotes Stephen to the effect that ‘Every public officer commits a misdemeanour who willfully neglects to perform any duty which he is bound either by common law or by statute to perform’. Snyder (2000) also points out that the Constitution can be altered by legal means, which means that there is no just reason for politicians and burrocrats to violate the law they are bound by law to enforce. Finally, Gudridge (2003) relates the concept of oath to the concept of the rule of law by institution, not by individuals holding office.
The mechanism for enforcing the law varies by state at one level; In Texas, I know that any sworn officer can arrest anyone he sees committing a felony. The laws regarding misfeasance and/or malfeasance of office also differ across the country. But Davidson and Stone (2000) rightly point out that our divided system of government does not flow from one point, and neither does the enforcement of our laws. DeShon (2000, p.7), referring to his own state, states “It is quit clear that both the U. S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution hold police officers and politicians accountable for their actions”, but the point I make in this is that all law (and thus law enforcement) in this country originates from the Constitution.
There is a strong correlation between “sanctuary cities”, and those cities issuing “stand down” orders. Every LEO in these jurisdictions has to make a choice as to whether he enforces the law against all law breakers (18 USC 242 and 8 USC 1324 come immediately to mind). There are valid personal reasons not to do so; failure of support from other officers, retribution from politicians, loss of income, sponsored rioting. And I think as well of the long-term consequences of allowing politicians and burrocrats to violate the law with impunity. A quick view, mostly through the lens of New York City:
- increased assaults on citizens and law officers (refer to the jump in murder in NYC after the decimation of the AntiCrime Units). Also see Moore et al., (2020)
- increased lawfare against LE based on political, not legal grounds, like this:” Man accused of punching NYPD chief, cops on Brooklyn Bridge released without bail” (Rosenberg & Barone, 2020)
- The dishonesty of these politicians; DiBlasio contends that NYC is safer; “We now have fewer people in our jails than any time since World War II and we are safer for it and better for it.”...despite the rise in violence. (Bannister, 2020)
- The economic effects of leftism go in only one direction...down. Those LEO that choose not to enforce the law based upon financial security need to see the living conditions of police in countries that have gone done the leftist road; Venezuela is a prime example. See Gagne (2017)
There is definitively a lot more to explore down this path in terms of politicians versus the law...with LE in the middle, but I’m going to stop here.
This country is in for a bumpy ride for the next few years, and as a LEO, you are going to be taking the brunt of it. No matter which path you take, I wish you good luck, and offer my prayers for your safety...and I extend these wishes to all of you defending this country.
Getting from here to there
In this article,Taking Suggestions for the Next Information War Post : Winning the Information War for America's Police, I discuss the need to conduct informationwar to get LE to focus on their jobs through discussion of duty and self-interest. I make these three points:
- The first component of this Information War is helping policemen understand their Constitutional duty as a community; many individual policemen already understand this!
- The second component of this Information War is helping policemen see that it is in their self-interest to defend the Constitution.
- The third component of this Information War is demonstrating to police that the Political Class treats them as an enemy already; this is the War on Cops you may have heard about
If you don't understand that the propaganda(War on Cops) and lawfare targeting police are the sharp end of a IW campaign designed to make ALL police fall in line with a globalist/leftist agenda, then you don't understand why a counter IW to get the cops to do their damn job is so necessary.
Now I have mentioned 18 USC 242 and 8 USC 1324 above, but there is an additional legal tool that can be used against the democrats, who are the party that is operating the open side of the war against America. RICO...
The RICO case against the Democratic Party
And I have not mentioned sedition (18 USC 115)...or incitement to riot (5 USC 7313), either. Here's a snippet about rioting:
(1) inciting a riot or civil disorder;
(2) organizing, promoting, encouraging, or participating in a riot or civil disorder;
(3) aiding or abetting any person in committing any offense specified in clause (1) or (2); or
So there a LOT of legal tools for dealing with the filth of the left...what is required on the part of the LEO is the will to act based on his understanding of the law, of his duty, and the long term negative consequences to his self-interest for failing to act on that duty.
Maybe YOU can help him with that.
references and other reading
Berkebile, R. (2017). What Is Domestic Terrorism? A Method for Classifying Events From the Global Terrorism Database. Terrorism and Political Violence, 29(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2014.985378
Gutman, D., & Brownstone, S. (2020, July 10). Woman released following arrest in connection with fatal CHOP shooting investigation. The Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/woman-released-following-arrest-in-connection-with-fatal-chop-shooting-investigation/
8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
18 U.S. Code § 242—Deprivation of rights under color of law. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 3, 2020, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
Bannister, C. (2020, July 16). De Blasio: ‘Fewer People in Our Jails than Any Time Since WWII – and We Are Safer for It and Better for It.’ CNSNews.Com. https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/de-blasio-fewer-people-our-jails-any-time-wwii-and-we-are-safer-it-and-better
Davidson, M., & Stone, E. W. (2000). Responding to official misconduct where should responsibility lie? The Brookings Review, 18(1), 32–35.
DeShon, R. W. (2000). Police Officers Oath Of Office And Code Of Ethics A Question Of Knowledge [Eastern Michigan University School of Police Staff and Command]. http://www.dejurerepublicformichigan.org/files/OATH_ETHICS.pdf
Gagne, D. (2017, March 27). Military and Police Corruption: Venezuela’s Growing Evil. InSight Crime. https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/corruption-military-police-growing-evil-venezuela/
Gudridge, P. O. (2003). Office of the Oath, The. Const. Comment., 20, 387.
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (2001). The Federalist Papers. Hazleton, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Heyman, S. J. (1991). The first duty of government: protection, liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment. Duke Law Journal, 507–571.
Horwitz, P. (2009). Honor’s constitutional moment: The oath and presidential transitions. Northwestern University Law Review, 103(2), 1067–1080. Retrieved May 12, 2015
Hundley, M., & Wamsley, G. (2012). John Rohr’s legacy: Constitutional literacy and the public service. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 34(4), 642–647. Retrieved May 12, 2015
Moore, T., Marsh, J., & Golding, B. (2020, July 15). NYPD chief of department injured during protest on Brooklyn Bridge. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2020/07/15/nypd-chief-of-department-injured-during-brooklyn-protest/
Rosenberg, R., & Barone, V. (2020, July 17). Man accused of punching NYPD chief, cops on Brooklyn Bridge released without bail. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2020/07/16/man-accused-of-punching-chief-monahan-released-without-bail/
Snyder, V. (2000). You’ve Taken an Outh to Support the Constitution, Now What-The Constitutional Requirement for a Congressional Oath of Office. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 23, 897.
Williams, T. F. (2010). Neglect of duty and breach of trust: Ancient offences in the modern battle against impunity in the public service. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 13(4), 336–350. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1108/13685201011083867
Pobosiec, J. (n.d.). Jack Posobiec us on Twitter: “Evidence tampering?” / Twitter. Twitter. Retrieved July 12, 2020, from
Congratulations @stevescoins! You received a personal badge!
You can view your badges on your board And compare to others on the Ranking
Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz: