43 votes

Peace Officer Vs. Police Officer

The President and the Sheriffs are the executors of the law. The President signs in laws with his or her pen, and the Sheriffs are the law enforcement body charged with upholding the Constitution and arresting individuals who are outside of “the law” – or more importantly – outside of the Constitution.

But what happens when statutory laws interfere with one’s natural, and individual rights? What happens when statutory laws erode your property rights and eliminate the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution?

At one point in time, the point of having law enforcement, was to protect one’s property and one’s property rights. That includes life and limb – your body and your life are property. But there has been a severe erosion of this concept, as we have more and more agencies, especially at the federal level of government, that seek to take and re-distribute your property and wealth. When law enforcement is used to erode your property, there is a problem.

We have a problem. Why is law enforcement being used to levy fines versus having law enforcement to protect people’s lives and property?

Speeding tickets, parking tickets, tickets for proof of insurance, tickets for expired license plates, tickets for emissions – all of these are examples of law enforcement’s authority and power being used to levy fees and fines (revenue generation for the government) versus to protect people’s property.

The great news is, since sheriffs are a part of the executive branch of government, and executors of the law – they can be petitioned by people living in their county to stand up and protect people’s property and individual, constitutional rights. The county sheriff can be petitioned to protect the Constitutional law instead of the statutory law (because there is a difference). The county sheriff can nullify statutory law that erodes property rights, and the county sheriff can even stop unconstitutional federal agencies if they come to indefinitely detain an individual who they deem a threat (http://casida2012.com/ndaa/individuals-counties-sheriffs-and...).

The word “sheriff” comes from “shire”, meaning county and “reeve” meaning representative. During the 11th century, the King of England would appoint a reeve for the shire to keep the peace in the county. Today, the shire-reeve, or sheriff, is charged with the same task. Sheriffs are popularly elected (unlike the Presidency with the corrupt electoral system), so it is really up to the people who their local executor of the law is. And it is up to the people to elect a sheriff and representatives who are more concerned with keeping the peace, versus using the heavy hand of the law to raise revenue.

There’s always a solution, and it is usually always local. So let’s start there, with our county sheriffs, to protect and defend our individual, natural rights and our property and wealth that we work so hard for. It is up to us to elect peace officers instead of police officers.

Originally posted at: http://casida2012.com/peace-2/peace-officer-vs-police-officer/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is some type of

This is some type of authoritarian argument. It's like saying murder isn't enough of a law.

Juries decide. It's based on the sense of the common man and what he would do. It's based on the sense of you wouldn't want somebody to do that to you.

I suggest you actually read legal history, instead of trying to justify from an arm chair the system we currently have. Our current legal system is radically different from the one that we had when this country was founded. And this isn't a philosophical discussion, it's actual history - and I'm on the side of the original one.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

FYI - all real laws have an

FYI - all real laws have an actual victim under common law and the idea of what natural rights are. "The State" isn't a real person and is not a victim. It's a key difference between real laws and phony laws.

You can endanger a real person, which includes wreckless driving. Therefore, there is a real victim, a real plaintiff, and a real accuser you can cross examine in court who is making the complaint.

You can not endanger "The State" by speeding. It may, and probably does involve no real person. There is no real victim. There is no one you can cross examine in court. It is a phony law, and violates several constitutional rights in the process.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Okay, so how is speeding not

Okay, so how is speeding not endangering other drivers and pedestrians? You say in one sentence that there must be a "victim" then in another sentence somebody only has to be "endangered". Who is establishing what is "dangerous" to somebody and what is not? There has to be a set guide for people to follow to know the limits of what is considered dangerous. One person might feel you placed them in danger by passing them at 90 mph and another might feel you placed them in danger by passing by them at 40 mph. How are you to know when somebody feels you placed them in danger? A standard has to be set. A speed limit is basically telling you what the acceptable standard is. It allows you to travel at an acceptable speed that protects you from being accused of placing other in danger and speeds are obviously determined by the characteristics of the road and its surrounding environment.

If there is no speed limit and the standard is only "was somebody put in danger" then you are giving even more power to the cops. You are then allowing them to determine what speed is dangerous on a case by case basis. Think about the possiblity for abuse in that scenario.

NO FRIGGIN' WAY!

I never thought of it like that. You can't let the cops pick what is reckless because they will just opine that more is reckless than not. There needs to be a clearly marked speed limit so that a Judge can determine guilt.

Is all speeding endangering

Is all speeding endangering anyone's life? If so, where is the plaintiff - the particular person who was victimized?

There are no victims on speeding complaints. This is a phony law. It is a law against the State, a victimless law. Engangering someone's life may have a real victim. But speeding tickets never have real victims as plaintiffs.

All real laws requires victims. That is our legal tradition, how it used to work before we got authoritarian, and you need to read up on basic legal history.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

So I guess people should be

So I guess people should be able to drive home from the bar shit faced drunk as long as they don't kill anybody? What would that do to my freedoms? How many people would fear driving at night because of the possiblity of being hit by a drunk driver?

When you set a speed limit you are allowing other driver's the freedom to know what to expect of other driver's. If there are no speed limits then everybody would be guessing what everybody else is doing. (Don't think major highway's here, think nieghborhoods and other more complicated road systems...I would agree that not every road needs a speed limit such as major freeways)

I don't know what else to say here...It's common sense. There has to be rules so other drivers know what they can expect of other drivers. If you break those rules, there has to be a means of punishment; otherwise the rules mean nothing. It's as simple as that. I don't need to read up on "legal history". There are certain things that just require simple common sense...maybe you should try not thinking so deep into this, you're making it out to be more complicated than it is.

If you were talking about other victimless crimes, such as prostitution and drugs, then I would agree with your way of thinking. But when it comes to driving on the road, there has to be standards everybody must follow, so drivers can operate the roads in a safe and somewhat controlled manner.

Your classic liberal argumentation

Your classic liberal argumentation exposes how you people remove the sense of accountability from society. Not causing an accident and being held accountable in a real justice system, not the pos we have now, is the motive for individuals operating safely. Liberalism perpetuates mistrust and unaccountability.

There is nothing liberal

There is nothing liberal about my argument. It's based solely on common sense. If you had any; you could understand it. Your vision of how society should operate would only prosper in the utopian dreamland in your head.

So

if there were no traffic laws in Manhattan, would traffic flow okay. Would commerce prosper? Would people be able to cross the street safely? Or are some laws needed?

You come up to an intersection and you see someone walking to your right. Who goes first? What will the car in the opposite direction do?

Misplaced priorities

The speed limits are one-size-fits-all rules...the speed limit in the industrial park where I work is 25 mph, whether or not there are any other cars or pedestrians present, at any hour of the day or night. The area has very limited traffic, no pedestrians, and is extremely wide with long visibility. There is NO safety issue that requires cars travel 25 mph...yet I have seen cops lay in wait for a driver going 5 or 10 miles over the 'limit.' Is the cop making us safer? Not one bit. But he is enriching the city through his tickets and fines. Safe operation of a vehicle is far more important than adherence to some arbitrary speed limit.

All of the little rules put in place to make us safe are examples of misplaced priorities. Instead of cops looking for real threats to person and property, they are focused on enforcing bureaucratic little rules under the guise of protecting the public. A drivers license, or car registration, or car insurance, does NOT predicate safe and responsible operation of a motor vehicle, just as the absence of these things does not authomatically lead to irresponsible behavior. The cops are making the bureaucratic mistake of assuming that if all of the little boxes are checked (license, check!, insurance, check!, registration, check!, emissions sticker, check!) they have 'done their jobs.' False.

As for license fees going to pay for roads, I can tell from the way you have phrased it that you know that is not true. The license fee has nothing to do with paying for roads. The theory is that if the driving 'privilege' is restricted to approved drivers, the roads will be safer. This is sort of like the argument that if the ownership of guns is restricted then only responsible people will have them...but we know undesirable people get guns anyway, and we know that many people, unable to get a license for various reasons, drive anyway. Licensing is just another hassle for otherwise innocent people to endure while it is just another law the scofflaws will ignore.

Emissions testing has shown that most auto pollution comes from a small number of 'super polluters.' These super polluters can be identified by drive-by emissions analysis as the cars are driving past on the highway. There is no need to hassle 90% of the drivers out there when the offending 10% can be identified without intrusive and arbitrary rules.

Cops should go back to the first rule: protect people and their property, and catch those who impose real harm on others.

bump

Thanks for posting this Tisha.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

meekandmild's picture

An unconstitutional act is not law

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

For more information see: CITIZENS RULE BOOK
http://www.apfn.org/pdf/citizen.pdf

You are awesome:

As I have watched the goings on around the country over the years, I notice that occasionally someone comes forward to fight the good fight. Not often enough, but it happens and I am so proud of those that do, for those of us that can't.
While many know and understand what you are presenting, also, many don't.
So I just want to say thank you for putting up the good fight and I hope you make the office you are going for. We need all the real honest people we can get in there.
Good luck Tisha.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I love my country
I am appalled by my government

Thank you!

We are so happy and excited to be building networks and alliances that can push back and do good things for the natural rights of individuals in ALL of our communities.

In Liberty,

Tisha

Candidate for Colorado's 3rd Congressional District - www.Casida2014.com
Imagine That! -->> www.ImagineThat911.com
That's Natural! -->> www.ThatsNatural.info
Rebellion! -->> www.PartyDumper.com

These subjects are things not taught in school.

I am grateful for Liberty candidates like Tisha who have this type of knowledge and are willing to take a stand and run for congress, to represent us all and the Constitution. Let's get her elected! Www.casida2012.com/donate

Not taught in school, but can be taught by us

As community-members and people who are out pounding the pavement - when we talk about these things, there are SO MANY people who want to listen. Education is OUR responsibility, and we absolutely have the power to educate the people in our family and community so as to make an immediate difference with what is going on.

Candidate for Colorado's 3rd Congressional District - www.Casida2014.com
Imagine That! -->> www.ImagineThat911.com
That's Natural! -->> www.ThatsNatural.info
Rebellion! -->> www.PartyDumper.com

I wonder what was meant by "corrupt electoral system?"

Surely, Ms. Casida doesn't favor electing a President by national popular vote...

I thought the same thing

scrolled down and there was your post. Pure democracy? Mob rule?

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Maybe some education is in

Maybe some education is in order regarding the electoral system and why it is necessary. I really don't even understand. But I do understand the condept of mob rule: 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what is for dinner.

Actually I think of it this way: 1 lion, 1 wolf and 1 lamb deciding what is for dinner.

They can both eat the lamb before the lion turns on the wolf.

I'm not

familiar with this group but they have a short summary referring to it.

http://resist44.com/pure-democracy-and-promises-of-hope

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

I notice when the police

started wearing black military type uniforms and driving black police cars they became less friendly.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Bumped for just being true on

Bumped for just being true on the face of it. Lol - (but not lol too).

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

They call us

civilians now. Soon they will be fully militarized and it's a consequence of never ending wars.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

On a side and unfortunate note,

if we could just ever bring our Troops home and stop fighting endless wars, the cops wouldn't be the only authority at home. There's no one left to protect us :(

Not cool. And Obamney both want more wars.

They are fully militarized.

You can't get pulled over for 5mph over these days without the entire division showing up as backup.

.

That is when they began "protecting and serving everyone..."

"...but no one in particular."

.