Lemonade Liberation Day Cop Says He Would Enforce Segregation

[uberrrich]

viva la segregation!

[WorshipInTruth]

This cop actually seems like he is a decent guy, problem is that he is not aware of his own powers of discretion. Lack of education of constitutional law seems to be the main problem regarding police enforcement, I bet you 95% (or more) of law enforcement officers couldnt tell you (off hand) the amendments in the Bill of Rights.

[bellatrixthechicken]

The problem here is that the USA has more laws and regulations than any other country on earth, and that is a fact. This officer has a point, but there are also many contradictions in the laws. And congress is so corrupt that saying our laws are a representation of what the people want is a laughable statement.

It is the right of the people to pick and choose what laws to follow as a jury, where the people judge both the defendant and the law.

[mrthatsrightbabe]

a completely brainwashed person...

[OrganicRobotWarrior]

So he doesnt care what the laws are--like if they wanted to kill Jews he would probably do it-so fuck em,smash!!

[Ducky888888]

Maybe there is a law that you cant sell stuff around the capitol, idk.

Plus they havent had a permit either, so you cant say anything.

[destyniboutique]

What a PUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!

[whoarentyou]

So if the law was to rape, kill, murder, or torture, he would do it. Because it is his job and he just would be following orders.

He could have at least said he would leave his job rather than enforce a law that is obviously completely immoral.

[pretzelzetzel]

@whoarentyou you're retarded. that's a totally different situation. "if the law was to rape, murder, kill or torture"? really? those crimes different in kind AND degree from racial segregation.

[whoarentyou]

@pretzelzetzel

So morally, it's acceptable to be enforce racist laws if that is the law? To me that just tells me you are happy to have racism. Is it okay because the 'victim' are the people who suffer are the law breakers?

[ArizonaSean]

Probably not a member of Oathkeepers.

[waypasthadenough]

If you sit home waiting your turn you deserve to have your gun taken from your cold dead hands.

The Founders didn’t wait for the Brits to knock down their doors. They gathered at the green and stood up like men and they killed government employees all the way back to Boston.

What will you do when it’s time to hunt NWO hacks, republicrats and commies(“Liberals” and ‘progressives’)?

Don't understand? Follow my links. Read the quotes page first. Then read my column ‘Prepping for Slavery’

[BABYJESUSX]

coon of the year.



[MrSammy1776]

This cop is a dumbfuck.This is exactly the same defense the Nazi's gave."We don't make the laws we just carry them out",well sir,what if they are illegal laws? and you have dumb arse cops who dont know the law serving the laws out?

[rogeriosantos77]

clown

[whiteislandrec]

The "squabble" ....LOL

The "squabble" HAH

The "squabble squabble"...is that like a Turkey's gobbler? LOL

Squabble squabble....

What a waste of a life.

[kneelienews]

Um, he would enforce a law that would deny him his own basic human rights. WOW

[promontorium]

He's got a point. It's not the police's job to right the wrongs of our legal system. While I would expect a moral officer to fight the law as best he could, and to refuse to commit a cruel or unusual act, law enforcement isn't the place to expect a revolution. How can a person overturn an injust law in court if the police never enforce it. Certainly it would make people's lives easier in many ways if police didn't enforce unjust laws, but it would represent a fundamental destruction of law.

[altnews]

@promontorium Uh, no, he hasn't got a "point". There's something called "discretion" which police should be using in their day to day activities. There's also a precedent which was set with the Nuremberg trials which stated that an officer ordered to carry out an unjust order could refuse to do so, so I don't see how this arbitrary enforcement of laws would "represent a fundamental destruction of law" as you say.

[goodmendosomething]

@promontorium It's called the Nuremberg defense for a reason, because it was tried and was rejected. "Just following orders" does not absolve someone if that order leads them to commit an immoral act, and enforcing segregation is immoral.

[RoflCopterAce]

@goodmendosomething A problem arises when you decide that your definition of morality is universal enough to justify defiance of a law that your country as a whole has established. You say "enforcing segregation is immoral." What about the arrests of the lemonade vendors? What if you backed your car into another by accident, then decided that the traffic laws that would have required you to pay were "immoral"? Mass murder is universally immoral. That's why the Nuremberg defense didn't work.

[goodmendosomething]

@RoflCopterAce So, you don't believe racism to be universally immoral?

[RoflCopterAce]

@goodmendosomething

No. I believe racism to be immoral, but its prevalence in society makes it clear that my viewpoint is not universally accepted. If enough people in my country decide that there should be a law that separates individuals based on their skin color, I hope that the people I trust to enforce the law regardless of their personal beliefs enforce that new law as well. I may not choose to continue living here, but I will respect the system, even if that means moving somewhere else.

[RoflCopterAce]

@goodmendosomething

If I had the willpower of the brave men and women that helped our country recover from racism in legislature did, I'd practice civil disobedience in the way they intended it: with the utmost respect for the authorities that arrested me, but with unwavering insistence. However, I don't know that I could truly trust myself to do that should I ever meet the opportunity, if only for lack of determination.

[evilmatchbox]

@goodmendosomething I dont think that is his point, I think he is trying to say that its hard to classify something as universally immoral because when do you stop calling things immoral because everyone has a different view.

[bIametheniIe]

@goodmendosomething Godwin! Automatic lose for you.

Hey, do you understand basic US History?

[goodmendosomething]

@bIametheniIe

Wow, that is incredibly vague, care to elaborate?

[promontorium]

@goodmendosomething I have applauded everything you've done. However I disagree on one thing, and calling me a Nazi sympathizer won't solve our disagreement. That's pretty low of you. As much contempt as I have for corrupt law enforcement, I believe it is wrong, and backwards to assume you can have a police force that will 100% refuse to enforce any and all laws they even slightly disagree with. KILLING MILLIONS IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO ARRESTING SOMEONE, your argument is invalid and inflammatory.

[goodmendosomething]

@promontorium We were not equating this Officer or you with a Nazi and not using an argument ad Nazium, saying you were "following orders" as a defense of your actions no matter who you are or what the context is referred to as the "Nuremberg defense". I find it unlikely that this Officer would lead people into ovens, but the particular attitude and sentiment that he expressed in this short clip s what allowed such things to occur.

[promontorium]

@goodmendosomething That is an absurd interpretation of the "Nuremberg Defense". If all people following any orders are using this defense, then the term has no meaning. I would appreciate, if you are an anarchist to just say that., but instead you hide behind a bullshit appeal to holocaust victimization. I'll say this clearly, because you seem to ignore it, it is impossible to have laws, have a justice system, have police, without enforcement. It would all be meaningless without enforcement.

[goodmendosomething]

@promontorium You are right, following an order isn't the issue here, he said he would do essentially anything as long as it was an order merely because it was an order.

[promontorium]

@goodmendosomething Following lawful orders arresting people for breaking laws that are on the books is precisely what police are for. Changing laws or judging them is what the legislative and judicial branches are for. You are warping an anti-state, anti-law ideal to try to excuse illegal behavior. I appreciate the protest, I disagree with the law, but your argument is invalid, because America is a state, and we do have laws. Your opinion is irrelevant to precise legal proceedings.

[goodmendosomething]

@promontorium So if the law was to arrest and imprison red heads, the officer should do it?

[promontorium]

@goodmendosomething Your micro argument is completely irrelevant to your overall argument. It is simply impossible to have laws, courts, and police without enforcement. Picking and choosing when to enforce a law is counter to the concept of law itself, although police do selectively enforce, this isn't what they are "supposed" to do, and you can't blame cop qua cop. Disagree with the system? Change it. But as is you are wrong. Overthrow the government if you want this fantasy system.

[promontorium]

@goodmendosomething To put this simply, your idea of how society should exist is not the reality of this state by design, and it is unreasonable to think that the agents of this state would follow your personal political theory simply because you want them to. You are judging them as if they are failing in their duty, but they are doing their duty precisely as this nation intended. It is not them that have failed. This nation by design does not view arrest as a moral issue or a violation.

[destyniboutique]

@promontorium This mindset is exactly the problem. He is just "doing what he is told." Well what he is being told is a bunch of bullshit. He needs to have a mind of HIS OWN!!! I bet he gets his ass beat by some other black dudes tonight LOL

[USDAChuckSteak]

@destyniboutique What he is "told to do" is put in place by elected officials. Officials elected by "the people". So is is doing what "the people" want. That is exactly what you want law enforcement to do...the biding of the people. We do not expect law enforcement to pick and choose what laws they enforce. If you disagree with a law you should get your elected officials to change it, not expect the cops to ignore it.

Simple right?

[WorshipInTruth]

@promontorium It is called COMMON LAW, police are given an insane amount of discretion meaning that cops can decide on their own whether or not they want to make an arrest or enforce a certain law. If a jury (or an officer of the law) decides that a certain law is unjust then they do not have to enforce it. Perhaps you should learn a little more about how this country works.

[elsensei1]

wow. what a mindless thug.