Is America Becoming Lawless?

Once upon a time there was universal respect for the police. Children were told by their parents that the police were there to help and if they were ever lost or in trouble, find a policeman. Oh, of course, there were bad and corrupt cops. They were then and are now a small minority of the law enforcement officers. I am not sure when the current attitude by some started. It seems like it was within the last year or two. Maybe it was since Rodney King. Lets talk about Rodney King for a moment.

Rodney King ran from the cops, and refused to comply with the cops orders. He resisted arrest. He received a number of non lethal reminders that he was not listening to the police. Most visible was the use of batons to strike him in the legs and torso to compel him to submit to arrest. Every person in the world, it seems, saw the few seconds of video of King being struck. Most never saw or heard the repeated verbal commands to submit to arrest. What came out in the criminal trial of several of the officers was that the police agency employing the officers required they use non lethal force to compel compliance. In street terms, the department's policy required they use baton strikes rather than putting hands on to gain control. Why, you might ask, was this the department policy? Reason: Lawyers and disability claims. You see, cops get hurt when they have to place hands on and go to the ground to fight an arrestee. It is cheaper for the agency to mandate pain compliance procedures, instead of fighting. Less injuries for the officers. So, in reality, the officers followed department policy, and that is why they were found to not have used "excessive force"

In the past year, a number of alleged race based actions have made international news. In all but one (where the officer shot the black person in the back as he was running away) were adjudicated with the officers being cleared of all wrongdoing. Yet, the US. Dept. of Justice and even our President had crap to say. Justice began investigating the department for past racial bias and use of excessive force on minority members. The city / county cannot bear the cost of defending themselves on a federally based civil rights lawsuit brought by the Feds, so they enter in to consent decrees. In effect, the U.S. Department of Justice takes over policy and procedure in the department and become the new Chief of Police. The mayor and other city / county officials in these large cities frequently come out and complain about their own police department. The officers, rightly so, feel they have been sold out by their elected officials, and their department. Arrests go down.

So, now begins the spiral effect that is consuming America. Here is how it is working. The cops feel they are on their own and their city does not trust them to do their jobs. Rather than risk starting a so-called "racial incident" they let minor crimes slide. Arrest go down.The stop patroling the bad neighborhoods. Violent crime spikes. Certain minority members of the community feel emboldened. They have become even more violent and open about their crimes. There are parts of a dozen major U.S. cities where there is, in effect, no policing now. Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis to name a few has seen shootings and murders go up 100, 200, 300 percent over last year. If the police try to keep the peace or investigate a crime, the local residents interfere and prevent them from doing their job. Some community members get even more bold and commit even more violent acts....and so on.

An atmosphere is growing where the police are portrayed as the enemy. Hatred of the police is epidemic in these large cities. Crime is out of control and the situation is getting worse. So, what caused this?. In my opinion, it is the abandonment of law enforcement by government official from the local council person up to the Attorney's General and the President. It fosters a license for crooks to do their thing, and if the cops come around, use claims of racial discrimination and excessive force to indict the police.

What is the answer? Government official have to back their local law enforcement. If they don't, the crime rate is going to grow and grow. If things do not change, it will be unsafe for most Americans to even enter many of our cities, go out at night, or even leave their homes. I believe personally that our current federal administration wants control over local law enforcement, and are using this crisis to further this goal. Cops have to act lawfully and within the Constitution. Every police act must be within the law as defined by the 4th, 5th, and sixth Amendment.

The effect of this current atmosphere is that officers are leaving their jobs in droves. Vacant officer positions remain unfilled. Moral is nationally the lowest it has ever been. Ultimately, officer standards will be lowered to fill positions. Many of the new officers hired under the coming lowered standards should not be wearing a badge. Use of force will go up.

Not a pretty picture. Ultimately, law and order must return to the cities now out of control. The price of this in terms of arrests and enforcement will be high and it will be painful. If we do not take back the cities, we will have a nightmare that will make the current picture look serene. If this does not happen, we will have a lawless nation. Martial law will be declared in many cities.

Urge your local officials to support and defend their law enforcement officers. Get involved with your communities support for its police. If we do not stop the current trend, this country will look like some central America third world country with cops patrolling in armored personal carriers or in pick up trucks with machine guns mounted in the bed. What American city will be the first to have tanks sitting in intersections?. My bet is Chicago. What's yours?

CHEAT SHEET ON THE CONSTITUTION FOR POLITICIANS AND REPORTERS

OK, I have had it. Elected officials and reporters are getting it wrong....almost all of the time. Many of them are attorneys and ought to know better. I can understand their lack of a good legal education if they went to Standford, Yale, Princton, or Harvard, where their "legal fundementals" are classes like: "Social Justice and the Constitution", "Law of Women and Minorities", or "Insider Trading Made Easy" The criminal law course was more about the professors view of social justice, than murder. The rest of us actually had to learn the law. Here is a quick check list for the above individuals who despite a legal education, don't know a friggin thing about the law.I am not going to cite case law here since this blog is for non lawyers. Even if many looked the case up and read it, they likely would not understand many of the words of art and the legal premise of much of the holding without law school, so I am going to make this simple enough for Geraldo (who is a lawyer, by the way) or an MSNBC reporter.

1. "That Racist Cop Searched Me Without a Warrant"

Yep, he did, and he can under the constitution. Actually, that racist cop can search you in a number of ways without a warrant. First, if he reasonably suspects you are engaged in or about to engage in a public offense, he can detain you. Yep, you cannot leave. If he has reasonable suspicion (a legal term which means a hunch with a little more, maybe), he can detain you for as long as it is reasonable necessary to confirm or dispel his educated hunch. Now in the course of this detention, information is developed based on anything almost, that you are armed, he can pat down your outer clothing for a weapon. So, yes, given the above he can search (sort of) you without a warrant.

2. "That Cop Arrested Me Without a Warrant"

Again, yes he did, and he can under the law and the constitution. Having a warrant to arrest a person is not required under the law (except for when you are home in your house) If the cop has probable cause to believe you have committed a public offense, he has the power to take you into custody. And, now he can REALLY search you. Any illegal item he finds during this search "incident to his or her arrest" that is illegal or fattening (just kidding) can be used as evidence against you.....All without a warrant of arrest.

3. "That Cop Did Not Read Me My Rights, So The Case Is No Good"

Wrong Kemosabi. You have no right to be advised to shut the hell up and if you don't, what you say can be used against you. Miranda says only that a person must be advised of their Miranda rights if and when "custodial interrogation" is conducted. That ain't "where do you live; what is your date of birth, blood type, etc" Being arrested does not trigger a requirement a person be advised of any so-called "constitutional" right.

4. "They Can't Charge Me With Murder Because I did Not Premeditate The Killing"

Wrong again. Murder is the killing of a human being with malice. Malice here does not mean hatred, it most simply means ill will. Malice for murder can be shown any one of four ways, but premeditation is not a requirement to be convicted of murder. (Pay attention Geraldo, you're getting it wrong daily on national TV). Premeditation can make the murder first degree, but it is not required to prove common law (murder, second degree) murder.

5. "That Cop Searched My Car Without A Warrant" "He Can't Use My Machine Gun Against Me"

Again, wrong. If the police have probable cause to believe your car contains evidence of a crime, they do not need a warrant. They can search anywhere in your vehicle, including the trunk and even inside your spare tire. Period. It is called the Automobile Exception (to the warrant requirement)

6. "I was Charged With XXX Even Though I Didn't: (fill in the blank, like shoot the gun or break into the house). I Will Beat The Rap"

Probably not. If you assist someone to commit a crime with the intent to provide that assistance, you are just as guilty as the doer and face the same penalty. People who help other people to commit a crime are treated as a "principle" and, as such, are equally liable.

7. "I wasn't even there, and they charged me with the same crime, I'm Getting Off!"

Perhaps not. You see, when two or more people agree to commit a crime and each one does some small act in furtherance of the objective, they are "co-conspirators" Under these rules, co-conspirators are liable for any crime committed by another member of the conspiracy, and even crime not discussed in the agreement as long as the crime was reasonably foreseeable.


There are many, many other legal issues the elected officials and the reporters are getting wrong every day. Too many for this entry. Please, do not get your legal training from TV, even if it is Judge Judy. The odds are they are wrong, more often than not. I just wish the electeds and the reporters would either get some small level of legal knowledge. It seems only reasonable since they protray themselves as all knowing on TV and the papers. It is not too much to ask.