Missouri: Police Threaten, Detain Motorist for Parking After Hours

[Paddy]

Thus we have collusion among the three branches of the US government--much of it conducted openly under the auspices of the political parties. "I won't check your abuses of power, if you don't check mine."

If individuals did this, a libertarian would call it a 'free market contract'.  When govt does it, it's collusion.

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, individuals should be free to do things that governments are not allowed to do.  Seems pretty basic.   

[Paddy]

Yes, individuals should be free to do things that governments are not allowed to do.  Seems pretty basic.   

That 'us vs. them' mentality disenfranchises people.  We're supposed to be self governed, remember?

[Perd Hapley]

It's not an "us versus them" mentality at all.  An example of what I mean is that a soldier is not allowed to participate in certain political activities while in uniform.  This is because, as an agent of government, he is limited.  However, when not on duty, nor in uniform, he is free to do those same things.  This is because an individual has rights to do things that govt. is not allowed to do.

[Gewehr98]

Answer this: how is police investigating themselves not a conflict of interest?

Law enforcement is indeed beholding to the state and local government that hired them, as well as the citizenry that pays their wages. 

I can't vouch for all branches of LE, but I know that several Internal Affairs offices have cleaned house vs. sweeping things under a rug. I know, sounds incredible, doesn't it? 

So let's skip the "circling the wagons" broad paintbrush strokes, because that's disingenuous at best. 

An example of what I mean is that a soldier is not allowed to participate in certain political activities while in uniform. This is because, as an agent of government, he is limited.  However, when not on duty, nor in uniform, he is free to do those same things.

Fistful, I'd invite you to research that bit again.  Unless the rules changed in the last couple years or so, GIs were considered "on-duty" 24/7, and in my branch of military business, were not allowed to be politically active even when not in uniform. I remember that particular briefing very well.  Uncle Sam doesn't want the appearance of a political military endorsement, regardless of which GI has his hands in the cookie jar. It's too much of a hot potato.

As for our young cop-watcher in the video, yes, he's baiting for a response, and got one.  He's been trying to score results for some time, and this will probably bolster his confidence in trying similar tactics again.  And the responding (intimidating) officer?  His goose is cooked, no two ways about it.

[Len Budney]

Thus we have collusion among the three branches of the US government--much of it conducted openly under the auspices of the political parties. "I won't check your abuses of power, if you don't check mine."

If individuals did this, a libertarian would call it a 'free market contract'.  When govt does it, it's collusion.

The difference is what's in the contract: when Walmart makes a contract with Kellogg, it's to trade Kellogg's cereals for Walmart's money. When the branches of government collude, it's to extract money at gunpoint from the rest of us, or to issue a decree on pain of imprisonment. If Bill Gates hires a hit man, I'll happily call that "collusion" as well. If two private individuals decide to start a protection racket together, we can call that collusion too.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

Uncle Sam doesn't want the appearance of a political military endorsement, regardless of which GI has his hands in the cookie jar. It's too much of a hot potato.

I thought the problem was that exercising your first amendment rights implies independent thought, and soldiers are expected to render unquestioning, absolute obedience--which requires the absence of independent thought. Or in sanitized terms, it's "bad for morale," and "bad for unit cohesion," and "undermines the chain of command."

--Len.

[Gewehr98]

I didn't see the smiley icon after your post, Len.  I'll assume you forgot to put it there.

Maybe I joined a different military than others, but we were taught to obey orders, and also think on our feet when things got hot and heavy, with our flight checklists readily accessible.  During our UCMJ briefings, that meant disobeying unlawful orders, too.  Independent thought was not illegal, last I checked.  But thanks for reinforcing a stereotype. 

[Len Budney]

I didn't see the smiley icon after your post, Len.  I'll assume you forgot to put it there.

Yes, the smiley was definitely implied. I was roughly half in jest.

Maybe I joined a different military than others, but we were taught to obey orders, and also think on our feet when things got hot and heavy, with our flight checklists readily accessible.  During our UCMJ briefings, that meant disobeying unlawful orders, too.  Independent thought was not illegal, last I checked.  But thanks for reinforcing a stereotype. 

Well, there's a difference between "thinking" about how best to carry out your orders, and "thinking" about whether your chain of command is suffering from craniorectal inversion. The former is generally approved, but the latter will get you in serious trouble. In particular, one Lt. Watada refused what he deemed to be an unlawful order, and look where it got him? See, the catch in all that "unlawful order" business is: who decides which orders are "lawful"? Usually, the same guy that issued the order in the first place. So if an unlawful order comes from high enough up the food chain, you're basically screwed.

--Len.

[Gewehr98]

In particular, one Lt. Watada refused what he deemed to be an unlawful order, and look where it got him

Would that be an anecdotal Lt. Watada, or a data-point Lt. Watada? 

(I could rattle off some UCMJ cases where the refusal of the order was supported after review...)

Same goes for good-cop, bad-cop examples.  Is it indicative of a system-wide pandemic, or is it the occasional bad apple spoiling it for others?

[Len Budney]

In particular, one Lt. Watada refused what he deemed to be an unlawful order, and look where it got him

Would that be an anecdotal Lt. Watada, or a data-point Lt. Watada? (I could rattle off some UCMJ cases where the refusal of the order was supported after review...)

Anecdotal, of course--but I wasn't trying to use him as data. Only as an illustration. Refusing an order from the President will never be supported after any review, because the command comes from higher up the food chain than the reviewers. It may well be upheld if you refuse your sergeant's order to lob a hand-grenade at some villager's chickens. Yes of course. But orders from on high may not be questioned, because they come from the same guys who get final say on whether the orders are lawful or not.

--Len.

[roo_ster]

Len:

What you describe sounds an awful lot like national/foreign policy, which definitely is the responsibility of the civilian, elected gooberment poobahs.  It is not PV1 Snuffy's place to make policy.

If GWB gave the order to kill every Iraqi, burn their villages, and sew their fields with salt, I have no doubt that a goodly number of GIs would refuse to obey and that they would be cleared on review, as they would be in compliance with the UCMJ and every ROE and law of warfare briefing they have received.

[Len Budney]

What you describe sounds an awful lot like national/foreign policy, which definitely is the responsibility of the civilian, elected gooberment poobahs.  It is not PV1 Snuffy's place to make policy.

So if they decide it's "policy" to secure "lebensraum" by invading Canada, for example, the it's not for Snuffy to object to his orders.

Well, in a practical sense that IS how it works--which is why the boys at Nuremburg really did have a point: refusing to obey their orders would have gotten them shot; yet obeying their orders, it turns out, got them hanged. And the suggestion that they could reasonably have obeyed their superiors' unlawful orders was basically self-righteous malarkey. So, too, is it mostly malarkey that US soldiers are truly expected to disobey unlawful orders: they may get away with it if the order originated in the lower echelons; but orders from on high may not be questioned.

I humbly submit that the catch-22 exists because we accept without question the basic assumption that the chain of command should exist in the first place. Eliminate the chain of command, and the problem goes away. In its place, we should arm and train every man, woman and child in the continental US. If 600,000,000 Hottentots are stupid enough to invade, then we'll shoot twice and go home.

If GWB gave the order to kill every Iraqi, burn their villages, and sew their fields with salt, I have no doubt that a goodly number of GIs would refuse to obey and that they would be cleared on review, as they would be in compliance with the UCMJ and every ROE and law of warfare briefing they have received.

They might. IF public outrage were great enough to impeach GWB, for example. But if GWB gave the order and remained President afterward, the refusenik GI's would be in some hot water.

--Len.

[Bogie]

Well, in the case at hand...

Y'all have to realize that St. Louis "metro" is made up of probably 100 small municipalities.
 
None of whom talk to each other, or really like each other all that much. Some of the "cities" have 60 citizens, and 20 cops (who do nothing but issue speeding tickets).
 
Many of 'em don't know how to "be" cops, beyond the speeding ticket thing.
 
And more than a few of the politicians, down through the patronage-job "officers," are corrupt.
 
And that's not counting St. Charles county, or the other side of the Mississippi...
 

[roo_ster]

What you describe sounds an awful lot like national/foreign policy, which definitely is the responsibility of the civilian, elected gooberment poobahs.  It is not PV1 Snuffy's place to make policy.

So if they decide it's "policy" to secure "lebensraum" by invading Canada, for example, the it's not for Snuffy to object to his orders.

Well, in a practical sense that IS how it works--which is why the boys at Nuremburg really did have a point: refusing to obey their orders would have gotten them shot; yet obeying their orders, it turns out, got them hanged. And the suggestion that they could reasonably have obeyed their superiors' unlawful orders was basically self-righteous malarkey. So, too, is it mostly malarkey that US soldiers are truly expected to disobey unlawful orders: they may get away with it if the order originated in the lower echelons; but orders from on high may not be questioned.

I humbly submit that the catch-22 exists because we accept without question the basic assumption that the chain of command should exist in the first place. Eliminate the chain of command, and the problem goes away. In its place, we should arm and train every man, woman and child in the continental US. If 600,000,000 Hottentots are stupid enough to invade, then we'll shoot twice and go home.

If GWB gave the order to kill every Iraqi, burn their villages, and sew their fields with salt, I have no doubt that a goodly number of GIs would refuse to obey and that they would be cleared on review, as they would be in compliance with the UCMJ and every ROE and law of warfare briefing they have received.

They might. IF public outrage were great enough to impeach GWB, for example. But if GWB gave the order and remained President afterward, the refusenik GI's would be in some hot water.

--Len.

Len:

There is a whole lot that is ate up in your post, but I will make an attempt at setting it straight.

1. The German soldiers on trial at Nuremberg were not on trial for making war against the Poles, Czechs, or such.  They were on trial for Law of War-defined war crimes, genocide, & other such activities.  PVT Snuffy (or von Snuffy if you want him to be German) can not be tried for following lawful orders in war, such as, "Assault the enemy dug in on hill 456 and hold it against counterattack,"  even if the enemy country did nothing to warrant an attack.

The Germans on trial claimed that they were ordered to murder civilians wholesale and to refuse those orders was to risk death.  They were lying, as folks were allowed to transfer out of units that specialized in that sort of work all the time.  They stayed in those units willingly and were hung justly.

2. A chain of command exists in any large organization.  Militaries have been run without them in the past, but they are largely ineffective compared to a well-disciplined organization.  Even colonial and Revolutionary War militias had a command structure.  What you propose is not only impractical, inefficient, and unrealistic, it is not in the American militia tradition.

Good luck with that whole eliminating the chain of command thingy.  Don Quixote can always use a hand when jousting at windmills...

3. I think you have little or no military experience, from the content of your postings . I suspect that lack of experience is what (mis)informs your opinion of folks in the armed services.  My own cynicism regarding things military has been honed by experience in the belly of the beast and I have no illusions about human nature, human organizations, and the like. 

That said, the content of your posts on this subject is pretty self-discrediting to anyone with military experience.  If your purpose is to convince others by means of fact, logic, and debate, I would counsel some other means or getting some pertinent experience.  If your purpose is disinformative (and wish to take advantage of the fact that most in America have no military experience and might mistakenly take your assertions as truth) then write on as you have.

[roo_ster]

What the chain of command is not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIxQhNGhHTo

[Len Budney]

1. The German soldiers on trial at Nuremberg were not on trial for making war against the Poles, Czechs, or such.  They were on trial for Law of War-defined war crimes, genocide, & other such activities.

Count one of the charges leveled against the SS and the Gestapo at Nuremberg was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war." Count two was "waging aggressive war." Atrocities were covered in count three, "war crimes." Genocide, including the holocaust, were count four, "crimes against humanity."

The US is arguably guilty of the first two crimes, and Nuremberg itself is the precedent. There won't be any war-crimes trials, because the US is basically untouchable, but if there were, Nuremberg would be cited in justification of a charge of "waging aggressive war." US soldiers who happen to agree that the Iraq invasion is "aggressive war" are obeying a strong precedent when they refuse deployment as an "unlawful order."

The Germans on trial claimed that they were ordered to murder civilians wholesale and to refuse those orders was to risk death.  They were lying, as folks were allowed to transfer out of units that specialized in that sort of work all the time.  They stayed in those units willingly and were hung justly.

Not all of them, arguably. Those accused of the Malmedy massacre were deprived of due process, and it isn't clear that all were guilty. However, I am by no means defending anyone convicted at Nuremberg. I only point out that Nuremberg sets a precedent which is as impossible to follow today as it was then.

2. A chain of command exists in any large organization.  Militaries have been run without them in the past, but they are largely ineffective compared to a well-disciplined organization.  Even colonial and Revolutionary War militias had a command structure.  What you propose is not only impractical, inefficient, and unrealistic, it is not in the American militia tradition.

It would be better to describe my proposal as a decentralized chain of command rather than NO chain of command. Militias would certainly be organized, and would adopt some organized form of cooperation between militias. The C in C is absolutely vital to an offensive army, but much less so to a defensive army. History has vindicated the founders' fear of a standing army.

Good luck with that whole eliminating the chain of command thingy.  Don Quixote can always use a hand when jousting at windmills...

I don't deny it. My whole life is quixotic. Being a Christian is quixotic: a shrinking minority believe in it, and to think that you can convert the world by preaching to it is laughable. Advocating liberty is quixotic: most of the world lives under tyranny, and in the so-called "free" world at least half of all citizens live forcibly at others' expense on tax dollars. Convincing them to let go the government teat is as likely as convincing them to hit themselves in the head with a hammer. Advocating non-initiation of force is quixotic: man has preyed on his fellow man since before we came down out of the trees. Convincing him to stop it is as likely as convincing a fish not to swim.

I say what I do because I believe it's right; not because I think I have a snowball's chance of getting what I ask for.

3. I think you have little or no military experience, from the content of your postings .

You think correctly. My knowledge of the subject is second-hand, and I won't pretend otherwise.

I suspect that lack of experience is what (mis)informs your opinion of folks in the armed services.

I'd appreciate if you'd point out specifically where I go wrong. Partly because I'd like to get it right, but partly because you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying. All I've said in this thread is that the soldier who declares the C in C's orders "unlawful" is FUBAR, and it doesn't matter what those orders are. The likelihood such a soldier will be cleared is slim, and depends on a massive public outcry against the President's actions. I'd be surprised if you can honestly disagree with that statement.

You happen to believe that the President has only issued lawful orders. I do realize that. But the vital question I'm raising is, "Who decides?" Who determines whether an order was lawful? And whoever they are, can they overrule decisions of the Commander-in-Chief? How exactly would the President be reigned in if he did order a massacre, for example? Again, I'd be surprised if you seriously disagree with my point.

--Len.

[vernal45]

I am afraid that I would have to break a personal rule and kick an officers A$$ on the side of the road.

[Bogie]

Like I said before.

Y'all ain't seen this before, except for maybe Fistful... Sigh...
 
STL is a serious clusterbleep. You do NOT want to Drive While Attitudinal here...

 

[WeedWhacker]

Cops set up "stings" all the time . . . like having a policewoman stand on a street corner decked out like a hooker, with a squad car or two around the corner ready to zoom in and arrest anyone who propositions her.

No propositioning required. Bet the victim wishes he'd a camera at the time...

[Perd Hapley]

The cop's been fired.  I'd look for some documentation, but it's been a long day.  Sorry.  I've heard it on the radio several times today. 

[DustinD]

No propositioning required. Bet the victim wishes he'd a camera at the time...

How daft do the police have to be to arrest someone while they are with their family? Did they really think those three where looking for a foursome?

[Perd Hapley]

Did they really think those three where looking for a foursome?   

Well, cops do see a lot of sick stuff out there.   

[K Frame]

This is special...

A website in Missouri frequented by police had at least one death threat against Brett Darrow from someone claiming to be a police officer.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1967.asp

"I hope this little POS punk bastard tries his little video stunt with me when I pull him over alone- and I WILL pull him over - because I will see "his gun" and place a hunk of hot lead right where it belongs."

I feel really good about that officer having a badge and gun.

The AR15 board is also mentioned.


Then we have this bit of interesting information...

"The videotape from Kuehnlein's police cruiser is currently missing and the sergeant is currently on unpaid leave."

Missing? Really? http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/srlinks.nsf/story/58DCD550F5762E05862573540075A253?OpenDocument


Ah, here we go. The officer involved has been fired: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/D46A8EE4AB8299A68625735D000200C0?OpenDocument


Looks like the officer was no stranger to legal problems himself... He was accused of propositioning a 17 year old girl, assault, and theft...
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/B37E0AAF74CD32448625735E0008BA00?OpenDocument

[Bogie]

Right. I'll say it again.

If you don't live in the St. Louis area, you don't understand the atmosphere...
 
Lemme put it this way - the St. Louis County officers (they patrol the portions of STL county which do not belong to municipalities, or whose municipalities contract with them) will walk into businesses and TELL THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO put up a "no guns" sign. The municipalities do not communicate with each other. St. Louis city and St. Louis county are also COMPLETELY separate entities. St. Louis is NOT in St. Louis County...