Thursday, July 30, 2009
Nationalized Health Care
Yes, I know, this is suppose to be a law enforcement blog. BUT... the possibility of Nationalized Health Care is becoming a sore point with me. Cause I lose benefits at the same cost. And I have heard how it benefits illegal alliens. But here is another part of the population that will benefit greatly. Drug users. Yes, natural born citizens who prefer the life under the fog of illegal narcotics. Now, it will be easier for them to seek and obtain medical and dental and optical care. And they don't pay a penny for it. Not even through employment taxes. And certainly not through sale tax cause they don't exactly spend their monies in a positive manner. ugh... the losers in the Nationalized Health Care program are the ones who work and pay taxes. People who work more than 40 hours a week to keep shelter over their and their family heads, clothes on their backs, and food in their stomachs.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
9-1-1 Does Not Mean 4-1-1
Why do people think calling 9-1-1 to get the non emergency phone number for the police is acceptable? Are people really that dense? Are people really that stupid? That lazy?
Just another example of how little regard people have for their local law enforcement.
Just another example of how little regard people have for their local law enforcement.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Simple Observation
Just a simple observation. An action I see, or rather hear, daily from both sides of the telephone.
Why is it when the person who is speaking to someone who English is not the primary language... or when the person who is speaking English as a second or third language...
... almost always each end talks much louder than normal. Does the speaker really believe the listener will understand better if the volume is raised?
Why is it when the person who is speaking to someone who English is not the primary language... or when the person who is speaking English as a second or third language...
... almost always each end talks much louder than normal. Does the speaker really believe the listener will understand better if the volume is raised?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Constitutional Rights - Part Three
Note: When I started this write up/blog, after two hours of writing, I realized that it was so long, no one would truly read what I wrote. Not that I write for any special person to read, I am hoping someone is taking the time to read my wanderings. So will be breaking this up into three Parts over the proceeding three days.
Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Clearly, law enforcement personnel are not eligible for this Amendment. Due to the very nature of our job judges and jails don't want us in the jail awaiting trial, so bail is not excessive. It is more likely to be released on OR for the safety of the law enforcement person. But excessive fines nor excessive punishment? Please. We must be made an example of. Are we not held at a higher level of proper behavior than the average citizen? We aren't allowed to be emotional or upset or angry. We must have ice water in our veins. Fighting back? Charges of police brutality. Make a citizen obey a simple law? Charges of Abuse of Authority. Write a speeding ticket? Charges of harassment and not going after actual criminals. Well, you get the idea.
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Apparently, when John Madison wrote this Amendment he was saying that not all Amendments already approved cover all the rights that the People will need. But as a member of the Law Enforcement family, individual/People rights are not guaranteed. Just look at my comments and views and opinions stated above.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
In other words, what our Federal Government has not covered with Amendments, our State laws should. Ha. We all know how much the Federal Government has encroached on our daily lives. Our State laws get more restrictive to follow along what our Federal Government has decreed. Usually on the offer of monies to go along with those new dictates. And law enforcement, expected to work their job with even more restrictions and higher expectations of behavior. For us, the chain of law makings are Federal, State, County, City, Agency, Public Opinion, SOP, media, and maybe, just maybe, finally our personal self.
Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Clearly, law enforcement personnel are not eligible for this Amendment. Due to the very nature of our job judges and jails don't want us in the jail awaiting trial, so bail is not excessive. It is more likely to be released on OR for the safety of the law enforcement person. But excessive fines nor excessive punishment? Please. We must be made an example of. Are we not held at a higher level of proper behavior than the average citizen? We aren't allowed to be emotional or upset or angry. We must have ice water in our veins. Fighting back? Charges of police brutality. Make a citizen obey a simple law? Charges of Abuse of Authority. Write a speeding ticket? Charges of harassment and not going after actual criminals. Well, you get the idea.
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Apparently, when John Madison wrote this Amendment he was saying that not all Amendments already approved cover all the rights that the People will need. But as a member of the Law Enforcement family, individual/People rights are not guaranteed. Just look at my comments and views and opinions stated above.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
In other words, what our Federal Government has not covered with Amendments, our State laws should. Ha. We all know how much the Federal Government has encroached on our daily lives. Our State laws get more restrictive to follow along what our Federal Government has decreed. Usually on the offer of monies to go along with those new dictates. And law enforcement, expected to work their job with even more restrictions and higher expectations of behavior. For us, the chain of law makings are Federal, State, County, City, Agency, Public Opinion, SOP, media, and maybe, just maybe, finally our personal self.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Constitutional Rights - Part Two
Note: When I started this write up/blog, after two hours of writing, I realized that it was so long, no one would truly read what I wrote. Not that I write for any special person to read, I am hoping someone is taking the time to read my wanderings. So will be breaking this up into three Parts over the next three days.
When we take the oath at the time of our hire for a law enforcement job, we promise to uphold the laws of our city/county, state and Constitution. What is not part of the oath is our willingness to give up our own Constitutional Rights, our Bill of Rights in the Constitution. For example:
Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If you are even thought to be part of a crime, you are put on leave. And the double jeopardy? Well, let's see... there is the IA investigation/charges/actions. And then the actual crime issues. That is, if you are actually part of a crime. And then the media prosecution, that goes on long after the actual event or trial has happened. And not be a witness against self? Oh please, like we have any personal space that isn't open to our supervisors at any given time. On duty and off duty. Don't they tell us that even our off duty time is subject to scrutiny and we must uphold our actions and opinions accordingly? Does that not deprive us of some personal life and liberty without or with a very limited about of due process of law?
Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The speedy and public trial is done in the newspapers and on the news stations. Not in the courts. Are they not? Don't these "news" writers make a decision on your guilt (not your innocence) and report it as fact? If you think not I suggest you just turn on any news station and pick up any newspaper or google for news article that pertains to a member of law enforcement that is being investigated or alleged to be part of a crime.
Amendment VII - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Twenty dollars? Okay, even looking over that point, law enforcement staff are open to lawsuits unlike any other career, due to the type of work we do and the subject manner we handle. As dispatchers, we can be sued in civil court for matters that officers can not. Now tell me, is that fair? Is that right? Oh yeah, we don't have a union or organization with power like officers have.
When we take the oath at the time of our hire for a law enforcement job, we promise to uphold the laws of our city/county, state and Constitution. What is not part of the oath is our willingness to give up our own Constitutional Rights, our Bill of Rights in the Constitution. For example:
Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If you are even thought to be part of a crime, you are put on leave. And the double jeopardy? Well, let's see... there is the IA investigation/charges/actions. And then the actual crime issues. That is, if you are actually part of a crime. And then the media prosecution, that goes on long after the actual event or trial has happened. And not be a witness against self? Oh please, like we have any personal space that isn't open to our supervisors at any given time. On duty and off duty. Don't they tell us that even our off duty time is subject to scrutiny and we must uphold our actions and opinions accordingly? Does that not deprive us of some personal life and liberty without or with a very limited about of due process of law?
Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The speedy and public trial is done in the newspapers and on the news stations. Not in the courts. Are they not? Don't these "news" writers make a decision on your guilt (not your innocence) and report it as fact? If you think not I suggest you just turn on any news station and pick up any newspaper or google for news article that pertains to a member of law enforcement that is being investigated or alleged to be part of a crime.
Amendment VII - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Twenty dollars? Okay, even looking over that point, law enforcement staff are open to lawsuits unlike any other career, due to the type of work we do and the subject manner we handle. As dispatchers, we can be sued in civil court for matters that officers can not. Now tell me, is that fair? Is that right? Oh yeah, we don't have a union or organization with power like officers have.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Our Constitutional Rights - Part One
Note: When I started this write up/blog, after two hours of writing, I realized that it was so long, no one would truly read what I wrote. Not that I write for any special person to read, I am hoping someone is taking the time to read my wanderings. So will be breaking this up into three Parts over the next three days.
When we take the oath at the time of our hire for a law enforcement job, we promise to uphold the laws of our city/county, state and Constitution. What is not part of the oath is our willingness to give up our own Constitutional Rights, our Bill of Rights written in the Constitution. For example:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
As a member of law enforcement, we don't have the right to state our views or opinions. At least, not in public. Has to be behind closed doors. And hope there is no audience because it could come back and bite you in the ass at a court case (remember the Simpson trial) or for disciplinary action (for those of us who blog our thoughts/opinions and are threatened with our jobs if we continue).
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Most officers carry firearms off duty. After all, never know when a suspect they have dealt with decides for a little payback. But those of us who also deal with these same suspects are not permitted to carry a weapon for protection. After all, we are invisible, they don't know our names. Right. Testifying in court or other information that can be derived from watching the people coming and going from the department is obtainable. And there are those family members who have been known to carry off their own retribution. But we are not candidates for retribution? Okay... Guess those dispatch centers that have been shot up were just accidents?
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Anyone ever hear of eminent domain? Okay, this one we haven't had to give up by joining law enforcement.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Our work lockers are open for search and seizure at any given time. Our purses and other personal items we carry to work are open for search and seizure at any given time. Our phones calls are monitored. Our computer work is monitored. At the agency there is no, I repeat no, right to privacy.
When we take the oath at the time of our hire for a law enforcement job, we promise to uphold the laws of our city/county, state and Constitution. What is not part of the oath is our willingness to give up our own Constitutional Rights, our Bill of Rights written in the Constitution. For example:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
As a member of law enforcement, we don't have the right to state our views or opinions. At least, not in public. Has to be behind closed doors. And hope there is no audience because it could come back and bite you in the ass at a court case (remember the Simpson trial) or for disciplinary action (for those of us who blog our thoughts/opinions and are threatened with our jobs if we continue).
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Most officers carry firearms off duty. After all, never know when a suspect they have dealt with decides for a little payback. But those of us who also deal with these same suspects are not permitted to carry a weapon for protection. After all, we are invisible, they don't know our names. Right. Testifying in court or other information that can be derived from watching the people coming and going from the department is obtainable. And there are those family members who have been known to carry off their own retribution. But we are not candidates for retribution? Okay... Guess those dispatch centers that have been shot up were just accidents?
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Anyone ever hear of eminent domain? Okay, this one we haven't had to give up by joining law enforcement.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Our work lockers are open for search and seizure at any given time. Our purses and other personal items we carry to work are open for search and seizure at any given time. Our phones calls are monitored. Our computer work is monitored. At the agency there is no, I repeat no, right to privacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)