Random stuff

I think it might not be a bad idea for the blue wearing grunts to ramp up any efforts they may have been making to let blue collar Janes and Joes know that they're also seriously sick of nanny state (et. al).   Doesn't matter how many agency sponsored efforts to do so are made, those always come off as phoney PR stunts, just like .mil commanders Christmas messages when they tell the troops how much they care.    

Bluntly put there are more non-leo's than leo's, so it doesn't really matter if the public has an incorrect view of the grunts in blue as enforcers of the power brokers....if that's what the general public perceives then that's what they're going to think you're dealing with when they meet a blue uniform.
Erase the thin blue line and redraw it at a wide line that includes Joe and Jane Bluecollar, but excludes actual criminals* and the political elite and their cronies.   When it comes to deciding the "Us vs Them" arguments,  the boys and girls in blue will be much better off if they and Joe and Jane Bluecollar BOTH consider each other to be in the same group labeled as "Us".  Might be poorer, cash wise, but much better off.  

Time to start generously exercising officer discretion for stuff that isn't Mal en Se, and making ample procedural errors when they can't use that discretion.  They do have a union rep to fall back on, don't they?   

Oh, and for the small percentage that are actually dirtbags who slipped past the screening to get a shield.....take the gloves off and run them out.  Don't back them up on calls.  Make their lives miserable.   Let both the good and bad members of the community (thugs included) know that the majority of the force doesn't have the back of the dirtbags.   Abandon them to the fate they so richly deserve. 



My apologies bro, but pensions shouldn't even be on the same playing field as the issues of Freedom and Liberty.   




 
 

The last bit there is why you shouldn't cast your vote based on the pension issue. 
Start editing out any promises you know they can't keep, won't keep, or that will otherwise disappear in a puff of smoke as soon as they get into office.  
That should leave...what? One or two things?

My idea...pick the one you think is least likely to be able to crush, degrade, or otherwise further limit what remain of our freedom and liberty. 
After all you have to ask yourself, "Would I prefer financial security for an old age where I'm treated like a prisoner, or financial insecurity where I can live as a free person?"

If the ship of state is being sailed into a socialistic authoritarian totalitarianism then elect a ships Capitan who's both more likely to crash the ship onto a rock and thus stop the voyage and also less likely to notice or interfere with  the crew and passengers who've been packing supplies into the lifeboats.



 

You remeber the difference between "malum prohibitum" and "malum in se", right?
"Bad because I said so" and "Bad in and of itself".

Enforce the laws that are based on the principle malum in se.  Murder, assault, robbery, ect.  
Ignore or screw up arrests on the stuff that's based on the principle of malum prohibitum.   

Burglary reports? Well, someone stole another persons property, right? That sounds an awful lot like a malum in se issue, doesn't it?

Barking dogs complaints?  How often do those really result in an arrest?  Cuffed and stuffed, taken downtown for booking?  Didn't think so. Citiaitn issued, and moving along, right?    

Ditto the music.  Maybe suggest a civil suit and provide a police report verifying the complaint.

Custody hand offs...?  Umm, bro, I said ,"to start generously exercising officer discretion for stuff that isn't Malum in Se, and making ample procedural errors when they can't use that discretion".    Is failure to comply with custody agreements malum in se or malum prohibitum?   

Nowhere did I say go to sleep and stop answering calls. Just to stop playing enforcer for a giant HOA. 
Seeing as were not on that other place I'll go out on a limb here......just because the hiring authority says to do something doesn't make that thing legal, lawful, ethical, or Constitutionally valid.   Trying to play "pass the buck" with the responsibility for having done something simply because you were told to do so by the hiring authority is not only busllshit, it's cowardly, and in the long run history will still hold you accountable even if you've managed to die of old age by the time it's addressed.   Nuremberg jailed quite a few folks that used the same argument to justify their actions,  and labeled more than a few others as guilty as well...and I think some of the smaller fish were probably nice folks generally speaking, but they just weren't along with orders because the powers in charge at the time "said so" and they had jobs, families, and pensions to think about.   
This is entering into the whole realm of things refered to by this quote:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

I'd say that most malum prohibitum laws would qualify as chains.  They're not based on any harm done by the person to another, but on offenses against dictates  made by the state.   Do you want to be enforcing that chain?  Or do you want to ignore the infraction, or simply make a procedural error that any first year law student could use to defend their client?



Are cops given the short end of the stick?  The sure are. They're (generally speaking) underpaid, overworked, and under appreciated.  The same can be said of the enlisted personnel in our armed forces. 
Does that mean either of them shouldn't be expected to tell their bosses to get fucked when they're told to infringe on the liberty and freedom of those who's Constitution they've sword to serve and defend? 
Or is it acceptable for them to comply and say that they were just following the SOP of the hiring authority?


Edited to add*

Did you see Schindler's List ?

When the powers that be tell you to enforce laws and ordinances that aren't malum in se, be like Oskar Schindler.   Nod your head, say "Sure thing, boss!", then do everything in your power to throw a monkey wrench into the works each and every time, each and every day.

Here are a few appropriate quotes:

Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man. We must not conclude merely upon a man's haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country. It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, — to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves. It is not, I say, unfrequent to see such instances, though at the same time I esteem it a justice due to my country to say that it is not without shining examples of the contrary kind; — examples of men of a distinguished attachment to this same liberty I have been describing; whom no hopes could draw, no terrors could drive, from steadily pursuing, in their sphere, the true interests of their country; whose fidelity has been tried in the nicest and tenderest manner, and has been ever firm and unshaken.
The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.


The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. — Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.


How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!


Samuel Adams

Sure.  My inserted comments in green.

From Wiki-
Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson:[3]

Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).
"Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).

Examples of crimes and torts that might be considered as malum prohibitum—but not malum in se—include:

building or modifying a house without a license
copyright infringement (civil suit matter. not criminal)
illegal drug use
illegal hunting (who owns the land or the animals?  (Not the hunters land?  Civil suit by the owner.  Wild animals on the hunters land?  No one owns them, no one is the victim. They aren't "the King's deer")
operating a business without a license
prohibition of alcohol
surrogacy for profit
weapon possession
Jaywalking
Hitchhiking

From Lectlaw.com

Mala Prohibita

Mala prohibita (the singluar is malum prohibitum) is a term applied to any action is criminalized strictly by statute and statutory law. The phrase is Latin, and translates as wrong because it is prohibited. This class of crime is contrasted with crimes mala in se, the Latin term for "wrong in itself," and both are taken directly from the old common law system. Consequently, not much weight is placed on them in modern courts, though the distinction remains an interesting one.

Crimes mala prohibita are usually those which incur no serious punishment, such as minor infractions and misdemeanors. However, the primary feature of crimes mala prohibita is not their lack of severity, but that they are acts criminalized by statute in an effort to regulate the general behaviors of society. As a general rule these do not include crimes that directly harm the person and property of others. Consequently, crimes mala prohibita do not usually carry powerful moral stigmas along with them. There is nothing wrong in itself with a Briton driving on the right side of the road, but it is still a crime malum prohibitum in the United States. Some familiar crimes mala prohibita are drug abuse (personal problem) , drunk driving (personal problem until they injure someone else, then a criminal assault or homicide charge and feel free to take them to the cleaners in a civil case for damages as well) , gambling, public intoxication, carrying a concealed weapon (a right, not a crime) , and parking in a handicapped zone (maybe a civil issue of trespass if pressed by property owner) .

Crimes mala prohibita are sometimes powerfully established in the traditions of the United States, and sometimes so short-lived that they can even be called experimental. U.S. legislation is ceaselessly criminalizing and decriminalizing. In an attempt to optmize society's performance and prosperity, the criminal law is continually undergoing changes on legislative and judiciary levels and, because they exist more firmly in the letter of the law than in the hearts of mankind, crimes mala prohibita are the ones most often transformed.


Looking for an easier way to figure this out? 
Try this-
Who is/are the victim(s) of the "crime"?
If you can name individuals (you don't have to know them personally) then  it may be malum in se.
If the victim is just "society" or "the state" then it's most probably a malum prohibitum law.
Likewise in most cases where the the law is based on the "potential" for harming others. 



I'll add a few others-

Prostitution. After all he or she owns the orifice/appendage central to the issue...if they want to rent out it's use why should anyone else have a say in int?  We don't question renting out the use of arms, legs, backs, or brains.  Why penises, vaginas, or anuses?    If someone is forcing them to rent those out, how would that be different than someone forcing another to rent out the use of their arms, legs, back, or brain?  Slavery is slavery., right? Not just when it's slavery of genitalia.  

Drug Sales.    No one is twisting the arm of the buyer. Cavet emptor.   Eliminating this one from the list of enforced laws doesn't mean giving dealers a free pass on assault or murder charges, just that the sale of those agricultural products in and of itself wouldn't be an issue.

Helmet and Seatbelt laws.  If they want to splatter themselves on the road that's their business.  Who made you their mother?  DO feel free to NOT pay their medical bills if they're uninsured (that's on them).

Tax issues(any)  Should be an issue for civil suit, not criminal enforcement.  I can't think of any tax issues which are a threat to public safety, can you? Then no need for handcuffs or threat of force applied by the state through LEOs.  Serve them papers like any other civil suit and move along.

 

This is and has been  probably the chief problem in discussing this with you. 
No one, myself included, is accusing your wife of anything yet every time these discussions come up you get defensive about this.
I strongly suspect you'd take criticisms of issues in the firefighting professions better than those of LE.

Chill.


Here's the sad truth......somewhere between issuing speeding tickets and machine-gunning Jews there is a tipping point, and much like the old saw about how to make frog soup, the folks in the pot of water being slowly heated are the ones least likely to recognize when that tipping point comes.
Meaning: What's the line at which a LEO should say F/U to the hiring authority...I'm not doing that.   
Should they wait for orders to go for full insertion, or should they start ignoring the boss when he's saying for them to just rub the tip around the opening?

I 100% realize that the overwhelming majority of LEOs took the job with the best of intentions, and most of them will risk their lives for strangers in a heartbeat.  Decent people do that sort of thing, and I think most cops are decent people at heart.    It's what they do under orders that worries me, as it's known that when under orders from someone perceived as an authority figure that those same decent people can and will do horrific things.  Just one example.


Please, stop taking these discussions as an attack on your wife.  They aren't.  You two are still invited up to Chez LowKey in Alaska anytime you want, for as long as you care to stay....even if that's for decades when your pensions have been gutted by the politicians.