The War on Police is over- Jeff Sessions

[Origanalist]

FEB 28 2017, 1:52 PM ET
AG Sessions Says DOJ to ‘Pull Back’ on Police Department Civil Rights Suits
by PETE WILLIAMS


Donald Trump's attorney general said Tuesday the Justice Department will limit its use of a tactic employed aggressively under President Obama — suing police departments for violating the civil rights of minorities.

"We need, so far as we can, to help police departments get better, not diminish their effectiveness. And I'm afraid we've done some of that," said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

"So we're going to try to pull back on this," he told a meeting of the nation's state attorneys general in Washington.


Sessions said such a move would not be "wrong or insensitive to civil rights or human rights." Instead, he said people in poor and minority communities must feel free from the threat of violent crime, which will require more effective policing with help from the federal government.

While crime rates are half of what they were a few decades ago, recent increases in violent crimes do not appear to be "an aberration, a one-time blip. I'm afraid it represents the beginning of a trend."

Sessions said he will encourage federal prosecutors to bring charges when crimes are committed using guns. Referring local drug violations that involve the use of a firearm, for example, to federal court can result is often a stiffer sentence than would be imposed by state courts.
"We need to return to the ideas that got us here, the ideas that reduce crime and stay on it. Maybe we got a bit overconfident when we've seen the crime rate decline so steadily for so long," he said.

Under the Obama Administration, the Justice Department opened 25 investigations into police departments and sheriff's offices and was enforcing 19 agreements at the end of 2016, resolving civil rights lawsuits filed against police departments in Ferguson, Missouri; Baltimore, New Orleans, Cleveland and 15 other cities.

On Monday, Sessions said he is reviewing the Justice Department's current policy toward enforcing federal law that prohibits possession of marijuana, but has made no decision about whether to get tougher.

article at hxxp://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ag-sessions-says-trump-administration-pull-back-police-department-civil-n726826

[CPUd]

[shakey1]

[Madison320]

I agree. Police are a state issue.

[pcosmar]

I agree. Police are a state issue.

I agree that the Police State is an issue,
they should not exist in a Free society.

They only exist in Authoritarian Society. And are necessary for such to exist.

Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a Free Society.

[Madison320]

I agree that the Police State is an issue,
they should not exist in a Free society.

They only exist in Authoritarian Society. And are necessary for such to exist.

Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a Free Society.

That'd be nice but impossible. You're always going to have police or people acting as police (George Zimmerman for example).

[pcosmar]

That'd be nice but impossible. You're always going to have police or people acting as police (George Zimmerman for example).

People acting as police ( forcing authoritarian edicts),, should be stopped,,

They should be ostracized,, and ridiculed verbally. and stopped physically if they persist.

Their aggression should be immediately stopped. (like a charging bear)

I recommend large and dangerous game ammo.

[Madison320]

People acting as police ( forcing authoritarian edicts),, should be stopped,,

They should be ostracized,, and ridiculed verbally. and stopped physically if they persist.

Their aggression should be immediately stopped. (like a charging bear)

I recommend large and dangerous game ammo.

The people stopping the people acting as police would be the police. Force exists. People are always going to try to force other people to do stuff against their will. It's all a form of government (police).

[pcosmar]

The people stopping the people acting as police would be the police. Force exists. People are always going to try to force other people to do stuff against their will. It's all a form of government (police).

People stopping tyranny with force are militia.

People who try to force people against their will should be shot. Immediately and repeatedly.

Government must have limits.(our Constitution defined certain limits). and police are not government.They are Enforcers of Control. Hired Guns.

Free people do not need to be controlled.

[fisharmor]

That'd be nice but impossible. You're always going to have police or people acting as police (George Zimmerman for example).

Zimmerman absolutely did not act like police.
There are photographs. The man was physically assaulted and pretty severely beaten. It was a clear-cut case of self-defense.
If he was acting like police, he would have drawn his gun and shot Martin in the back before he was even close, and then about a quarter million dollars in forcibly extracted tax money would be spent defending him.

[Madison320]

Zimmerman absolutely did not act like police.
There are photographs. The man was physically assaulted and pretty severely beaten. It was a clear-cut case of self-defense.
If he was acting like police, he would have drawn his gun and shot Martin in the back before he was even close, and then about a quarter million dollars in forcibly extracted tax money would be spent defending him.

I totally agree. I was just using that example because it seemed that mostly anarchists were against Zimmerman. They were calling him a "wanna be cop". Which I thought was highly ironic. Anarchists should've been in favor of "private" police like Zimmerman.

[Madison320]

People stopping tyranny with force are militia.

People who try to force people against their will should be shot. Immediately and repeatedly.

Government must have limits.(our Constitution defined certain limits). and police are not government.They are Enforcers of Control. Hired Guns.

Free people do not need to be controlled.

Militia, government, police. What's the difference? They all use force to make people do stuff they don't want to do.

[pcosmar]

Militia, government, police. What's the difference? They all use force to make people do stuff they don't want to do.

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

[Madison320]

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

So you're not an anarchist, you're just against governments that initiates force? A government that only retaliates against force is OK with you?

[seapilot]

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

I think it comes down to simply is the person/group paid to enforce the law or volunteer for free to enforce the law?

[Origanalist]

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

Plus rep . There is a big difference.

[Ender]

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

You are attempting to defend criminal behavior,, simply because criminals rule.

THIS.

The militia in the 2nd Amendment meant every man, 14 and up, protecting their local community, ESPECIALLY against a gov gone wrong.

[shakey1]

No They don't.

The militia are the people.. They are the victims of police.

Militia is Defensive. Non aggressive. It is a Voluntary Defensive Force.

Government is not supposed to make people do anything against their will. If it does,, it is wrong.
Enforcers who do so are wrong.

They are criminal.

Affirmative... much like the draft.

[pcosmar]

So you're not an anarchist,

No I am not.
I favor limited govt. and I favor enforcing those limits.


I am in favor of destroying any agent of tyranny.
I am opposed to authoritarian Policy and enforcers of such policy.

I would suggest you educate yourself on both proper government,, and on the origin of police.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

[Anti Federalist]

Meantime, the War on Us continues, unabated.

[Madison320]

No I am not.
I favor limited govt. and I favor enforcing those limits.


I am in favor of destroying any agent of tyranny.
I am opposed to authoritarian Policy and enforcers of such policy.

I would suggest you educate yourself on both proper government,, and on the origin of police.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

So you're in favor of limited government but not government police? Why can't you have limited government with a police force that only enforces proper laws like murder and theft?

What's the difference between a sheriff and a cop?

[fisharmor]

So you're in favor of limited government but not government police? Why can't you have limited government with a police force that only enforces proper laws like murder and theft?

To your earlier point, not even anarchocapitalists go as far as to say "I am against all government".
"Government" is a word that means something. "State" is a word that means something. They are not identical concepts.
"Anarchist" means something. It means someone who is opposed to (an-) a monopoly ruler (-archon).
I generally don't call myself an anarchist because of the confusion behind this word. I advocate a stateless society wherein governance is determined by the free market.

To the quoted point, pcosmar is not a fellow advocate of statelessness, but we see eye-to-eye on the subject of police. We both agree that law enforcement duties can be, and also are more appropriately suited to being, accomplished by private citizens.

The point where I (and others like me) go farther is in that I also see the statist legal system being abjectly opposed to fundamental concepts of liberty.

What's the difference between a sheriff and a cop?

Today? Nothing.
Some people presume that sheriffs are better because they are (supposed to be) a reactive force, as opposed to proactive.
When you see LEOs hanging out behind billboards poaching for revenue, they are not sheriffs. Sheriffs are supposed to serve warrants, and bring in people the system has already determined to be out of line, rather than going out and finding (or making) people out of line, which is the entire job of police.

Unfortunately you can find a whole pile of dead dogs and beat-up autistic kids in sheriff records, too. So I recognize they're better in that they are (supposed to be) reactive. But they are still fundamentally anti-liberty.

[anaconda]

I agree that the Police State is an issue,
they should not exist in a Free society.

They only exist in Authoritarian Society. And are necessary for such to exist.

Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a Free Society.

In a free society can I hire an armed bodyguard? If so, how many? Then, can I join with several of my neighbors, pool some money, and hire a small armed security detail? To what sorts of alleged indiscretions can our security detail respond? If other neighbors object to our security detail, what is their recourse?

[Origanalist]

In a free society can I hire an armed bodyguard? If so, how many? Then, can I join with several of my neighbors, pool some money, and hire a small armed security detail? To what sorts of alleged indiscretions can our security detail respond? If other neighbors object to our security detail, what is their recourse?

This happens every day without the force of the state behind it. Kind of a silly question.

[anaconda]

This happens every day without the force of the state behind it. Kind of a silly question.

You may have missed my point. At what point does the state come into existence and when does the society have police? I was responding to the statement that "Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a free society." A free society is not a violence free society. Do I make the society authoritarian the moment I hire a bodyguard?

[pcosmar]

What's the difference between a sheriff and a cop?

boggles,,,

OK, a Sheriff is an elected servant,,whose job it is to insure that rights (of anyone, accused of anything)are protected.

A cop is a hired gunman,, who takes orders for pay.. Mercenary to the highest bidder.
At best an enforcer,, to enforce laws imposed on people . Laws that the people themselves will not enforce.
At worst,, well,, we have not seen the worst yet.

[pcosmar]

You may have missed my point. At what point does the state come into existence and when does the society have police? I was responding to the statement that "Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a free society." A free society is not a violence free society. Do I make the society authoritarian the moment I hire a bodyguard?

Answered here.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Police (the concept and practice) was imported from Authoritarian Europe.. some years after the revolution.

Law enforcement is a civil duty of every person.
it does not require Government,, though it should be respected by proper government.

[anaconda]

Answered here.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Police (the concept and practice) was imported from Authoritarian Europe.. some years after the revolution.

Law enforcement is a civil duty of every person.
it does not require Government,, though it should be respected by proper government.

Thanks for the link! I will definitely check it out.

[anaconda]

Sessions is a jackass.

[Origanalist]

You may have missed my point. At what point does the state come into existence and when does the society have police? I was responding to the statement that "Control Enforcers are not needed nor welcome in a free society." A free society is not a violence free society. Do I make the society authoritarian the moment I hire a bodyguard?

I would say that if your bodyguard had legal authority to arrest anyone for any trumped up reason they want to come up with, confiscate their belongings (and their bank account), write them tickets ....eh, you get my point. They aren't really defending you are they?