NationStates Jolt Archive

""I'm on the verge of telling my guys to suspend civil liberties, and start frisking everybody," he says. "I'm at that point. What's wrong with that? I think the public would support it.

"You want to live by the Constitution, but by the same token you have a responsibility to protect these people. I don't know what else to do.""



http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2007/08/for_a_desperate_city_a_definin.html

New Jersey needs a new sheriff, and fast.

I wonder how many concealed carry licenses this idiot has issued as sheriff...

Funny how someone who is willing to ignore second amendment rights is also willing to ignore the rest... imagine that :rolleyes:

Sheriffs are elected, not appointed or promoted. Experience in law enforcement isn't a requirement. Knowledge of law isn't a requirement.

The people of New Jersey can't elect sheriffs properly, apparently.

Sheriffs are elected, not appointed or promoted. Experience in law enforcement isn't a requirement. Knowledge of law isn't a requirement.

Yeah, that doesn't sound crazy at all.

Sheriffs are elected,

Yet more insanity from that country...

Councilman Ron Rice Jr., who represents the Ivy Hill neighborhood where these killings occurred, held a neighborhood meeting Monday night to talk it over.

"I have a community that is scared right now, and they have a right to be," he said. "They would have no problem with officers getting out and frisking people. For all the claims about civil liberties, if it's going to keep them safe, they're all for it."

Interesting that this is being contemplated to stop the murder spree in the city of Newark.

Oh and this little gem:

Fontoura won't get his wish. We have laws, and he and his officers have to obey them whether they want to or not.

The Sheriff may want it but he will obey the law.

/thread ends

Sheriffs are elected, not appointed or promoted. Experience in law enforcement isn't a requirement. Knowledge of law isn't a requirement.

Whose brilliant idea was that?

Whose brilliant idea was that?

No clue, why are coroners elected?

Coroner are elected?

Why?

Coroner are elected?

Why?

Honestly, I have no idea.

Funny statute though, in my home county. Basically, if a Sheriff breaks a law, the only person who can legally arrest him is the coroner. I have no idea why. Although, nothing to worry about, because my dad is the Sheriff of said county, and the term "straight as an arrow" doesn't even begin to describe him.

The people of New Jersey can't elect sheriffs properly, apparently.

Can the people of New Jersey elect anyone properly? From what I hear that state is just about the most corrupt in the US when it comes to elections.

""I'm on the verge of telling my guys to suspend civil liberties, and start frisking everybody," he says. "I'm at that point. What's wrong with that? I think the public would support it.

"You want to live by the Constitution, but by the same token you have a responsibility to protect these people. I don't know what else to do.""



http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2007/08/for_a_desperate_city_a_definin.html

New Jersey needs a new sheriff, and fast.

I wonder how many concealed carry licenses this idiot has issued as sheriff...

Funny how someone who is willing to ignore second amendment rights is also willing to ignore the rest... imagine that :rolleyes:
Fire the idiot. No police officer will ever suspend civil liberties if I have anything to say about it.

Khadgar: It ought to be. It damn well ought to be.

Fire the idiot. No police officer will ever suspend civil liberties if I have anything to say about it.

Khadgar: It ought to be. It damn well ought to be.

Oh I agree, I thought that the dumbest fucking thing ever when I found out about it. One of the drivers who works for us was going to run. Glad he didn't, he'd of been a lousy sheriff.

Interesting that this is being contemplated to stop the murder spree in the city of Newark.

Oh and this little gem:



The Sheriff may want it but he will obey the law.

/thread ends

And corny misses the point. Who would have guessed?

And corny misses the point. Who would have guessed?

What point? That the fact that cop wants to suspend civil liberties? There is a difference between wanting to and actually having it done, are two different thing.

*shrugs*

I did not miss any points at all. I know the points.

Can the people of New Jersey elect anyone properly? From what I hear that state is just about the most corrupt in the US when it comes to elections.

Florida. Nobody in the US beats Florida. Read 'Kick Ass' by Carl Hiassen, and you'll understand. Or, hell, read any of his books. They're all good.

Fire the idiot. No police officer will ever suspend civil liberties if I have anything to say about it.

Khadgar: It ought to be. It damn well ought to be.

So, while he would like to do something and says it out loud, you would have him penalized for speaking his mind?

Sounds like the real problem here is you.

They don't elect the sherrif everywhere around here.... in my hometown and through most of this state the Sherrif is actually an appointed job that needs certain requirements.

Newark is a shit hole...in other news snow is cold.

Stupidity has reached critical mass. Will explode in 5...4...3...2...1...(Sheriff's head explodes)

The last specimen of the missing link, ladies and gentlemen.

So, while he would like to do something and says it out loud, you would have him penalized for speaking his mind?

Sounds like the real problem here is you.

He's seriously considering the idea and should at least be watched. He is not allowed to implement that sort of thing and as a public figure his words need to be measured more carefully. Sure, he has free speech, but if YOUR local sheriff was talking about "Suspending civil liberties" would you put up with it?

Sheriffs are elected, not appointed or promoted. Experience in law enforcement isn't a requirement. Knowledge of law isn't a requirement.

Doesn't that vary by state?

Doesn't that vary by state?

"In the United States a sheriff is generally (but not always) the highest, usually elected, law enforcement officer of a county. The political election of a person to serve as a police leader is an almost uniquely American tradition. (The practice has been followed in the British Channel Island of Jersey since at least the 16th Century[3]). All law enforcement officers working for the agency headed by a sheriff are called sheriff's deputies or deputy sheriffs and are so called because they are deputized by the sheriff to perform the same duties as he. (In some states, however, a Sheriff may not be a sworn officer but merely an elected official in charge of sworn officers.) These officers may be subdivided into general deputies and special deputies. In some places, the sheriff has the responsibility to recover any deceased persons within their county. That is why often the full title is Deputy Sheriff-Coroner, Deputy Sheriff Coroner or Deputy Sheriff/Coroner, and the sheriff's title is Sheriff Coroner or Sheriff/Coroner. The second-in-command of the department is sometimes called an undersheriff or "Chief Deputy". This is akin to the deputy chief of police position of a police department. In some counties, the undersheriff is the Warden of the county Jail (gaol) or other local Correctional institution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs#United_States

He's seriously considering the idea and should at least be watched. He is not allowed to implement that sort of thing and as a public figure his words need to be measured more carefully. Sure, he has free speech, but if YOUR local sheriff was talking about "Suspending civil liberties" would you put up with it?

Yes. If he actually moved to do it, I'd be the first to take action, but if he's talking about it, then I'd point him in the direction of the state capital, and the people authorised to do such things as declare martial law in an area - an action that sounds frankly a good idea if things are really that bad.

The sherriff here could have used less emotive terms, but if he's honestly unable to deal with the current situation, maybe a certain amount of outrage in the community is a good thing.

Yes. If he actually moved to do it, I'd be the first to take action, but if he's talking about it, then I'd point him in the direction of the state capital, and the people authorised to do such things as declare martial law in an area - an action that sounds frankly a good idea if things are really that bad.

The sherriff here could have used less emotive terms, but if he's honestly unable to deal with the current situation, maybe a certain amount of outrage in the community is a good thing.
Shouldn't that outrage be directed in part against the Sheriff himself? After all, he is supposed to be able to enforce the law and maintain order. If he can't, and his only recourse is to wish he had the power to suspend the Constitution, then maybe the criminals are not the only factor in Newark's problems. There might be another reason why Newark's criminals have such free rein.

He's seriously considering the idea and should at least be watched. He is not allowed to implement that sort of thing and as a public figure his words need to be measured more carefully. Sure, he has free speech, but if YOUR local sheriff was talking about "Suspending civil liberties" would you put up with it?

I would think that there would be ways to remove him if he decided to run Newark like his own little fiefdom...

The mayor also seems unable to handle what's going on there, despite the Honorable Mr. Booker's promises that they would retake the city.

Funny enough, I was going to suggest earlier that the National Guard might be used to recall him in an extreme situation -- but yes, it seems that perhaps the Guard working with the police in Newark to get control of the criminals might not be as insane an idea as I originally thought.

I would think that there would be ways to remove him if he decided to run Newark like his own little fiefdom...

Nothing easier. He would be in violation of federal and, no doubt, state law if he did such a thing. He may want to "tell his guys to suspend civil liberties," but he doesn't have the authority to do so. He could be suspended, even charged with a crime.

There seem to be a number of people in the US who seem to think that being elected means that they are not or should not be subject to the law. They are wrong, of course. I blame poor civics education in our schools.

Nothing easier. He would be in violation of federal and, no doubt, state law if he did such a thing. He may want to "tell his guys to suspend civil liberties," but he doesn't have the authority to do so. He could be suspended, even charged with a crime.

There seem to be a number of people in the US who seem to think that being elected means that they are not or should not be subject to the law. They are wrong, of course. I blame poor civics education in our schools.

Beyond the swift consequences involving the court system, I could also see him being removed from office by the governor with the help of the National Guard, if anyone was nutty enough to follow his orders and try to prevent him from being removed.

But that's getting into action-movie territory. ;)

Beyond the swift consequences involving the court system, I could also see him being removed from office by the governor with the help of the National Guard, if anyone was nutty enough to follow his orders and try to prevent him from being removed.

But that's getting into action-movie territory. ;)

I don't know if they'd have to go that far. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sheriffs I believe are county officials. If he needed to be removed, and he had corrupted his own force so badly that none of his deputies would obey an order from the governor or attorney general to take him into custody, I'm sure another county's Sheriff or State Troopers or municipal police could be ordered to do it. And if his force was so corrupted that no local deputy or official could be appointed to act as Sheriff in his place until the next election, then I'm sure that county could be put under the temporary jurisdiction of another county.

The sheriff appears to have discovered what law enforcement officials in the UK have known for years--it's much easier to bully law-abiding citizens than to risk running up against actual criminals.

Yes. If he actually moved to do it, I'd be the first to take action, but if he's talking about it, then I'd point him in the direction of the state capital, and the people authorised to do such things as declare martial law in an area - an action that sounds frankly a good idea if things are really that bad.

The sherriff here could have used less emotive terms, but if he's honestly unable to deal with the current situation, maybe a certain amount of outrage in the community is a good thing.

Point, Dodec. Point and match.

Can the people of New Jersey elect anyone properly? From what I hear that state is just about the most corrupt in the US when it comes to elections.

Fl...

Florida. Nobody in the US beats Florida. Read 'Kick Ass' by Carl Hiassen, and you'll understand. Or, hell, read any of his books. They're all good.

Damn you! >_>

Beyond the swift consequences involving the court system, I could also see him being removed from office by the governor with the help of the National Guard, if anyone was nutty enough to follow his orders and try to prevent him from being removed.

But that's getting into action-movie territory. ;)

Contrary to popular belief, First Blood was actually a documentary filmed in real time, where a green beret was brought in to take a smalltown sheriff out of power after he'd refused a subpoena by the state supreme court.

Shouldn't that outrage be directed in part against the Sheriff himself? After all, he is supposed to be able to enforce the law and maintain order. If he can't, and his only recourse is to wish he had the power to suspend the Constitution, then maybe the criminals are not the only factor in Newark's problems. There might be another reason why Newark's criminals have such free rein.

Depends on the situation. If the sheriff has deployed every resource he has, tried the best strategies he knows, and the situation isn't getting better, then he's done everything that could reasonably be asked of him.

In those circumstances, either A), he isn't getting the resources he needs, in which case local and state government should be scrutinised, or B) he isn't getting any help from the populace. In a B) situation, no amount of resources short of a cop (or guardsman) on every street corner is going to make a difference, the problem has become endemic, and it's the lawless culture itself that must be destroyed.

Coroner are elected?

Why?

I bet New Jersey is pretty similar to Pennsylvania with the way it's government is set up. In Pennsylvania the Sheriff and Coroner are both elected. The reason for this is that the Coroner has a check on Sheriff power. One of the lesser known powers of Pennsylvania Coroners is the power to serve process against the Sheriff.

This is a vestige of probably the oldest example of checks and balances in the English Legal System. Back in the early feudal/monarchical government system, there were two primary taxing authorities. There was the King and there was the Shire. The local King's taxmen Were the Coronas (In Old English this pretty much meant "The Crowns" or "The Crown's Men" or "The Crown's".

The Local feudal authority "The Shire" which I believe is sort of like a modern day County or Parish, had an official known as the "Reeve".

Over time the names of these two offices evolved into Coroner and Sheriff. "Sheriff" comes from "Shire Reeve".

Almost every legal system has some concept of rights. There are also many different sorts of rights. The English legal system in the days of feudalism did not emphasize human rights very much but it was extremely highly develloped in the area of property rights. Land and taxes were pretty much the main areas of this focus.

If a Sheriff was corrupt and had somebody murdered, this got the local coroner upset. Unfortunately, they probably did not care too much about the murder victim. Instead they were cheesed because this death had a negative effect on the King's tax revenues. For this reason, the Coroner had the power to investigate wrongdoing on the part of the Sheriff.

Anybody that died in a Sheriff's custody was a case for the Coroner to investigate to make sure that the death was not the result of foul play. I am not sure but I also believe that Coroner death investigations may have been a bit broader so that a Coroner could keep track of how many of the locals died so that the local Reeve and his superiors could not falsely claim more deaths in their region in an attempt to improperly avoid paying some of their taxes to the King.

I love the idea that he could even entertain the idea of, at his discretion, "suspending people's civil rights."

That's a helluva scary mentality.

I love the idea that he could even entertain the idea of, at his discretion, "suspending people's civil rights."

That's a helluva scary mentality.

1. Attain public office with some power (President, Speaker of the House - even Mayor or local Sheriff)

2. Wave boogeyman when something bad happens.

3. Suspend civil rights.

4. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I bet New Jersey is pretty similar to Pennsylvania with the way it's government is set up. In Pennsylvania the Sheriff and Coroner are both elected. The reason for this is that the Coroner has a check on Sheriff power. One of the lesser known powers of Pennsylvania Coroners is the power to serve process against the Sheriff.

This is a vestige of probably the oldest example of checks and balances in the English Legal System. Back in the early feudal/monarchical government system, there were two primary taxing authorities. There was the King and there was the Shire. The local King's taxmen Were the Coronas (In Old English this pretty much meant "The Crowns" or "The Crown's Men" or "The Crown's".

The Local feudal authority "The Shire" which I believe is sort of like a modern day County or Parish, had an official known as the "Reeve".

Over time the names of these two offices evolved into Coroner and Sheriff. "Sheriff" comes from "Shire Reeve".

Almost every legal system has some concept of rights. There are also many different sorts of rights. The English legal system in the days of feudalism did not emphasize human rights very much but it was extremely highly develloped in the area of property rights. Land and taxes were pretty much the main areas of this focus.

If a Sheriff was corrupt and had somebody murdered, this got the local coroner upset. Unfortunately, they probably did not care too much about the murder victim. Instead they were cheesed because this death had a negative effect on the King's tax revenues. For this reason, the Coroner had the power to investigate wrongdoing on the part of the Sheriff.

Anybody that died in a Sheriff's custody was a case for the Coroner to investigate to make sure that the death was not the result of foul play. I am not sure but I also believe that Coroner death investigations may have been a bit broader so that a Coroner could keep track of how many of the locals died so that the local Reeve and his superiors could not falsely claim more deaths in their region in an attempt to improperly avoid paying some of their taxes to the King.

Well, no, Coroners were originally created (three in each county) to keep the pleas of the Crown, so when the General Eyre trundled into town the good people of that county could be held account for crimes committed since the Eyre's previous visit, and so that the Crown could collect the fines from said crimes.

And the Shire Reeve? Appointed by the Crown, essentially to manage its interests in a Shire, and to collect taxes for the King. Much like any other Reeve was appointed by land owner to manage his interests within his land.

I do not believe that such a decision would infringe upon our civil liberties. The pertinent section of the Constitution provides for "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

There are several points of debate here.


What constitutes an "unreasonable" search? In my opinion, quickly verifying that someone is not in possession of illegal items without unduly harrassing him is completely reasonable as such a precaution can, at the cost of little inconvenience, save lives.
What is function of the operator "and" in the clause? Generally, if both those distinct activities (ie, seaches and seizures) were to be subject to restrictions, the word "or" would have been used. However, the Framers carefully worded the sentence, lending it to the possibility that both search-less seizures and seizure-less searches are perfectly legal, although searches and seizures, when taken together, are not.
Does frisking a person equate to a "search"? I think not. Glancing at the definition of the word, one finds that it is "the activity of looking thoroughly in order to find something or someone." I would not describe a frisk as "thorough"; indeed, it is merely a perfunctory examination.


Although I am not a legal scholar, this seems to be sufficient justification for implementing the policy, at least pending an adverse decision by the Supreme Court.

I do not believe that such a decision would infringe upon our civil liberties. The pertinent section of the Constitution provides for "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

There are several points of debate here.


What constitutes an "unreasonable" search? In my opinion, quickly verifying that someone is not in possession of illegal items without unduly harrassing him is completely reasonable as such a precaution can, at the cost of little inconvenience, save lives.
What was is function of the operator "and" in the clause? Generally, if both those distinct activities (ie, seaches and seizures) were to be subject to restrictions, the word "or" would have been used. However, the Framers carefully worded the sentence, lending it to the possibility that both search-less seizures and seizure-less searches are perfectly legal, although searches and seizures, when taken together, are not.
Does frisking a person equate to a "search"? I think not. Glancing at the definition of the word, one finds that it is "the activity of looking thoroughly in order to find something or someone." I would not describe a frisk as "thorough"; indeed, it is merely a perfunctory examination.


Although I am not a legal scholar, this seems to be sufficient justification for implementing the policy, at least pending an adverse decision by the Supreme Court.

Hasn't it occurred to you that part of the reason why this part of the Constitution is so strictly interpreted in favor of the citizens (generally) is to protect them not only from the simple act of frisking but also to protect them against intimidation and harassment?

If cops could just go around frisking anyone they pleased with impunity, this would quickly degenerate into intimidation tactics, and there's no question of it's harassing nature.

if you have to resort to that level of semantic analysis to make your point, then I humbly suggest that you're trying to shoehorn the language into sounding like it supports this intrusion.

if you have to resort to that level of semantic analysis to make your point...

Yes, God forbid we analyze what the Constitution actually says instead of relying on what we want it to say! :rolleyes:

Yes, God forbid we analyze what the Constitution actually says instead of relying on what we want it to say! :rolleyes:

Go away troll

Go away troll

I was simply insinuating that properly analyzing the Constitution isn't a bad thing, as the previous poster seemed to suggest. Do you think properly analyzing the Constitution is a bad thing?

I do not believe that such a decision would infringe upon our civil liberties. The pertinent section of the Constitution provides for "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

There are several points of debate here.


What constitutes an "unreasonable" search? In my opinion, quickly verifying that someone is not in possession of illegal items without unduly harrassing him is completely reasonable as such a precaution can, at the cost of little inconvenience, save lives.
What is function of the operator "and" in the clause? Generally, if both those distinct activities (ie, seaches and seizures) were to be subject to restrictions, the word "or" would have been used. However, the Framers carefully worded the sentence, lending it to the possibility that both search-less seizures and seizure-less searches are perfectly legal, although searches and seizures, when taken together, are not.
Does frisking a person equate to a "search"? I think not. Glancing at the definition of the word, one finds that it is "the activity of looking thoroughly in order to find something or someone." I would not describe a frisk as "thorough"; indeed, it is merely a perfunctory examination.


Although I am not a legal scholar, this seems to be sufficient justification for implementing the policy, at least pending an adverse decision by the Supreme Court.

Ah, yes, FAG! Wonderful satire indeed!

But in case anyone actually believes this, I'll use my logic to disprove it:

1) Unreasonable = without probable cause (aka warrant) or permission of owner (in this case, the person)

2) "And" is used because the amendment protects against BOTH searches AND seizures, rather than either one (what "or" would mean)

3) Yeah, it is. A frisk is (supposed to be) a thorough search outer person.

I was simply insinuating that properly analyzing the Constitution isn't a bad thing, as the previous poster seemed to suggest. Do you think properly analyzing the Constitution is a bad thing?

I don't, especially that Tenth Amendment that makes all those power grabs of the Executives that aren't in the other amendments illegal.