Are Police Blindly Robotic?
On the Free Keene forum a discussion/debate has sparked into existence regarding the topic of whether or not the police are blindly robotic in their enforcement of the law. My position on this important question is that the police have no choice but to be blindly robotic and accordingly will enforce any law that they’re directed to. If a police officer wants to keep their job, they have no choice.
Let me articulate my argument as to why they are forced to be blindly robotic… why it is a terrible thing… and why society would be better of if this was not the case.
In the State of New Hampshire just about all people who have the “authority” to arrest someone (initiate force) answer to an organization called Police Standards and Training. PSTC (for short) has the authority to determine what the appropriate training of new police officers will be, as well as revoke or suspend a certification of an individual law enforcement officer for a violation of its rules.
In order to be appointed (and remain appointed) as a police officer in New Hampshire one must comply with the rules set forth by PSTC. This diktat (as it pertains to police officers of towns) can be found in this law. The law reads:
Any permanent constable or police officer who is either elected under the provisions of RSA 41:47 or appointed for full-time duty under the provisions of RSA 105:1, and who is in compliance with the requirements of RSA 188-F:27, shall continue to hold such office during good behavior, unless sooner removed for cause by the selectmen, after notice and hearing, or unless the town has rescinded its action as provided in RSA 41:47. Any such elected permanent constable or police officer shall be deemed to be a permanent policeman, and entitled to benefits under the provisions of RSA 103 if otherwise qualified.
“(W)ho is in compliance with the requirements of (PSTC).”
So, as a matter of law, in order for one to become or remain a police officer… they must be in compliance with the rules of PSTC.
One of the rules that PSTC imposes on a governmental unit that wishes to employ a new law enforcement officer is that they conduct a background investigation. The background investigation requires the following:
Pol 301.05 Background Investigation. The following shall apply to the background investigation required on the applicant by the agency:
(g) The hiring authority shall evaluate the results of its background investigation and the agency shall not appoint or invest with authority an applicant who:
(16) Whose general character and reputation in the community are such that a reasonable person would doubt that the applicant would conduct him/herself with honesty and integrity and uphold the rule of law.
In order to even become a police officer you need to be someone who will “uphold the rule of law.” Not “uphold moral laws” or “uphold laws that address real crimes.”
Correct me if I’m wrong… but if this rule were in place during the 1960′s and a person who told everyone they would never enforce Jim Crow laws applied to be a law enforcement officer, they legally could never become one. Why? They don’t believe in blindly upholding the “rule of law.” You know, words on paper that did the following:
- Made slavery possible,
- Implemented the mass murder of Jews in Germany; and
- Presently causes people to be put in cages like animals for possessing plants.
So… if you want to BECOME a police officer, you must be someone who believes in the “rule of law.” If you believe in the “rule of law” you support doing precisely what it is that the legislature says you should… until the courts say otherwise. This blind belief and support of the “rule of law” could cause you to hurt a great many people… but that’s okay, right? It’s the law.
There are very few people who have state “authority” to arrest without answering to these rules. The two reasons for this exemption are either constitutional or specific statutory exemption. For the hell of it, I’ll list three examples:
1. The “High Sheriff” elected to one of New Hampshire’s ten counties.
Becoming a sheriff in New Hampshire is a constitutional right (specifically Part I, Article 71)… which makes it beyond the reach of a legislature-created regulatory body.
2. The Commissioner of Agriculture Markets, and Food.
The Commissioner of Agriculture, Markets, and Food and his “inspectors” have police authority pursuant to this law. This law requires that the “inspectors” meet the requirements of PSTC… oddly, it nowhere mentions that the actual Commissioner him/herself must comply.
3. The mayor of a city.
This law from 1855 gives the mayor of a city the power of a sheriff (ie: arrest) without any statutory requirement that the mayor comply with PSTC’s rules. This law is also the closest law found in the New Hampshire Revised Statues that has to do with “peace officers.” Note the extent of the mayor’s enforcement authority. This law is how all “peace officer” laws should read.
-/-
My conclusion: Unless you are someone who believes in the blind, robotic, unquestioning “rule of law,” you cannot even become a police officer. Your own moral judgment is not allowed. You must substitute your own judgment for that of the majority.
Blind belief in the “rule of law” is responsible for countless cases of mistreatment of people throughout history. Blind belief in the “rule of law” is responsible for countless cases of mistreatment of people today.
Comments
20 Comments on Are Police Blindly Robotic?
Isn’t this from a guy who couldn’t hack the world of law enforcement? What a bunch of losers!
Isn’t this from a guy who couldn’t hack the world of law enforcement? What a bunch of losers!
Hey Jeff… thanks for reading and commenting here.
I don’t mind you coming here and expressing your negative opinion of me. That is allowed here and I/no one will delete your negative opinion.
I would respectfully ask you though: do you think my logic is incorrect? If you do, please tell me why.
Specifically: Would a potential applicant to be a law enforcement officer in 1964, subject to this rule, be prohibited from obtaining employment if he or she was known by everyone in the area/community by statements claiming that they absolutely refuse to enforce a Jim Crow law?
( For more info on Jim Crow laws, please click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws )
The reason I couldn’t “hack the world of law enforcement” is because the “world of law enforcement” is as blind today as it was between 1857 and 1965′s as it continues to enforce bad laws that hurt people. This blindness is institutional, I’m trying to point that out.
Again, thank you for reading/commenting here.
It’s Mississippi.
It’s 1940.
The law reads: “Any person…who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five thousand (5,000.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both.”
Mississippi’s Police Standards and Training Council has a rule like the one I posted above.
I write an article in a local newspaper saying I’ll never enforce this particular law because it is horrible, draconian, and hurtful.
I apply to be a police officer.
Can I be hired?
…Jardis, you’re scaring the shit out of us. If we’re lucky, you will soon scare ALL the SHIT out of us…Glad you added the qualifiers “blind obedience” & “robotic”…As a general idea, having something like an objective “Law”, which is as closely followed as humanly possible, IS a good idea. But if you’re saying something more like “Blind obedience to bad laws is a bad idea”, well, THAT I can agree100%. ……… Trouble is, here in Keene, too many cops & other “law enforcement” types think they can get away with doing whatever the fuck they want, knowing they can get away with whatever the fuck they want. THAT is WRONG! For example, in last weeks’ video from the “Heika & the Bullhorn” incident, WHICH FELONY was Eli Rivera CLAIMING he COULD arrest the other young woman for???…Or was Eli Rivera only spouting FELONY-TALK BULLSHIT???…you know what I think.NH=POLICE STATE.
Hey, thanks for commenting 
Can you please tell me how I’m scaring people? Did I get too legal-eezy? I felt like I had to qualify my remarks with the black and white demands of the government and its interests in its law enforcers. I hope I was able to do this.
But if you’re saying something more like “Blind obedience to bad laws is a bad idea”, well, THAT I can agree100%.
Yes sir/mam, that’s exactly what I was trying to say.
The “rule of law” is the rule of law though, isn’t it?
What rule of what law? By whose interpretation? By whose / what / which “authority”???…What about appellate / review processes???…Any oversight? What effect, if any, do “conflict of laws” statutory provisions have?…etc.,…
What rule of what law? By whose interpretation? By whose / what / which “authority”???…What about appellate / review processes???…Any oversight? What effect, if any, do “conflict of laws” statutory provisions have?…etc.,…
By “rule of law” I mean the prevailing and current statutory or constitutional mandate imposed on all individuals.
Slavery was the “rule of law” and was found to be constitutional. (As you most likely already know.)
I don’t believe in the “rule of law” because the “rule of law” in the context of the state as it is precisely what has caused millions of people to suffer in the past… and it causes millions of people to suffer now.
I believe in the rule of natural law. Politicians cannot change that.
Bradley Jardis writes: –>By “rule of law” I mean the prevailing and current statutory or constitutional mandate imposed on all individuals.
Slavery was the “rule of law” and was found to be constitutional. (As you most likely already know.)
WHICH “CONSTITUTION”? State of NH? Federal? Which statutes? NH? Are you saying “rule of law” is a bad idea, PERIOD., or are you saying “rule of law” as practiced, is not a good idea?…I still say, that IN GENERAL, having a written, codified law, which is as fairly enforced as possible, is a good thing. But, the reality is that we have “rule by whatever the rulers say the rules are, with special favors for their “friends”, and special harms to their “not-friends”. Not the same thing. As for Natural Law, who enforces THAT, and what are the penalties for violating Natural Law???…
BTW: How is that “Shire Society” document NOT just another Constitution-type, set of simple statutes? In other words, SAME THING, as the current system of (unjust)laws???also BTW, :Slavery is still legal. It’s just not called that anymore…unless you wanna talk “wage slaves”, & “debt slaves”, in a LITERAL sense…
WHICH “CONSTITUTION”? State of NH? Federal? Which statutes? NH? Are you saying “rule of law” is a bad idea, PERIOD., or are you saying “rule of law” as practiced, is not a good idea?
Slavery was ruled constitutional under the federal constitution… and through the supremacy clause it was shoved down the throats of all the states.
“Slavery” was not just “tolerated” by the federal Constitution…. it was specifically codified… in three different places, actually.
Here is my favorite example (Article IV, Section 2):
“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
This, of course, was repealed by the 13th Amendment. It was completely the immoral the entire time it was in existence… and it completely complied with the “rule of law” standard as is expected to be complied with by new police applicants today.
Are you saying “rule of law” is a bad idea, PERIOD., or are you saying “rule of law” as practiced, is not a good idea?
I’m saying that might does not make right… and that the majority cannot enact laws that repeal moral standards.
I still say, that IN GENERAL, having a written, codified law, which is as fairly enforced as possible, is a good thing. But, the reality is that we have “rule by whatever the rulers say the rules are, with special favors for their “friends”, and special harms to their “not-friends”. Not the same thing.
Do you individually have the right to tell me that I cannot grow a tomato plant in my house? No.
Do you and three other people have the right to tell me that I cannot grow a tomato plant in my house? No.
How is it that you and 51% of the people suddenly gain the magic ability to tell me that I cannot grow a tomato plant in my house? How is it that your use of violence to enforce this becomes a moral act?
So long as there can be a collection of words on paper with an appearance of legitimacy… there will be people ganging up on others who haven’t harmed anyone else.
Did you know that the private prison industry here in the United States spends a considerable amount of money lobbying against the end of the drug war? Why, oh why, would that be?
In a voluntary society if you barged into someones home because they were growing marijuana… and you attempted to kidnap the owners, you’d probably be dead.
As for Natural Law, who enforces THAT, and what are the penalties for violating Natural Law???…
Protection is a valuable service that is needed/has a big role in the marketplace. Here is a good explanation of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense_agency
BTW: How is that “Shire Society” document NOT just another Constitution-type, set of simple statutes? In other words, SAME THING, as the current system of (unjust)laws???
I am no constitutional scholar… but I’d say the BIG difference is this provision:
“Second, no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual;”
Smack a 28th Amendment onto the Constitution mimicking that… and BAM! We have a voluntary society where violence is not institutionalized.
Thanks for asking that question. I’m sure others might be confused about that very issue as well… I wrote a blog asking others to comment on it
also BTW, :Slavery is still legal. It’s just not called that anymore…unless you wanna talk “wage slaves”, & “debt slaves”, in a LITERAL sense…
Very good point, thank you for making it.
And thank you kindly for participating here 
The Constitution quote may also have refered to indentured people,either to tradesmen,or as debt settlement.Temporary slaves,of a sort.Not for sale. —bil
Twice now, I forgot to put in the anti-spam#, and this browser \”lost\” the replies that I had written…crap…suffice to say, I think your arguments are silly & evasive, and maybe this is better discussed on the forum…\”tomato plants\”???…WTF???…
…and, where the hell did the backslashes come from???…
Discretionary powers are dangerous… they’re used by un-Republic geared nations to keep the population in check, particularly where there is no guarantee of civil liberties.
Of 100 violations of a victimless crime, it only takes a few police/combined governmental “interests” to bring it to prosecution, when and where they see fit or told.
The rest of the unconvicted feel lucky and blessed and scornful of the few who complain about their unalienable rights violated, as do the rest of the untouched population viewing it.
There should be no gray areas in ethical black and whites.
We all have job descriptions. Police job descriptions should always uphold the Bill of Rights… that is their only discretion to judge.
We all have job descriptions. Police job descriptions should always uphold the Bill of Rights… that is their only discretion to judge.
You realize that the US Constitution still says a black person is 3/5ths of a person? Before the 13th and 14th Amendment passed the police would just be “doing their job” when they locked up a slave to bring them home. Up till that point they were just upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Were the cops/feds doing the right thing at that time? Shouldn’t they have just stopped?
I’ll grant you that point, Brad, but it should not be up to a police officer or any other public official to pass judgement on a law’s moral standing or not. That is the job of the judicial branch.
Letting peaceful people of various genders, ethnic backgrounds, etc go about their business despite a law (although morally the high ground to do so) actually creates a defacto police state capitalized on by authority.
When some laws are enforced, and others less enforced, there is no recourse to injustice. There is no black and white.
I’ve witnessed this phenomenon for over 14 years in a foreign socialist leaning nation.
When one considers the real powers on the books held by a police force with near full backing of their employers, to arbitrarily exercise restraint or aggression based on the “discretionary powers” of the fellow on the ground creates a split world of justice.
That split world assures near complete compliance.
A catch 22.
However, when a law is applied equally and continually in all relevant instances, the merits or lack of, of a law become more clear to the citizen… the “people”, who in turn can hold their government bodies accountable.
Seldom cited laws or interpretations of law become a more powerful weapon than an asp, pistol, or set of handcuffs.
The real tyranny.
I appreciate your comments, at any rate.
Cheers
I’ll grant you that point, Brad, but it should not be up to a police officer or any other public official to pass judgement on a law’s moral standing or not. That is the job of the judicial branch.
Have you ever read the Dred Scott decision? Once the SCOTUS declared what it did in the case do you think the law enforcers who blindly followed the judgment of politically appointed lawyers were doing the right thing?
Shouldn’t they have just refused?
“Have you ever read the Dred Scott decision? Once the SCOTUS declared what it did in the case do you think the law enforcers who blindly followed the judgment of politically appointed lawyers were doing the right thing?
Shouldn’t they have just refused?”
They should have refused with their feet, such as you did, by resigning or abandoning their positions however possible.
It’s the same thing I tell my foreign deployed brethren these days.
One can’t change the system from within. It’s the duty of every public official to act according to the letter of the law, or order given until such time as the law or the order is at odds with their own moral beliefs.
That brings true accountability to our government.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Legislation discussion? February 4, 2012
- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Free Minds TV February 3, 2012 - EP 239 [S7E04] February 3, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Re: For the politically inclined February 6, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 6, 2012
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012