Bush Commutes Sentences of Border Patrol Officers

Posted: January 19, 2009
1:01 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 Officers To Be released on March 20, 2009

 

President Bush commuted the prison sentences of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean today.

The announcement came on the last full day of Bush’s presidency. The sentences for Ramos and Compean are scheduled to expire March 20 but there was no immediate explanation for the time period between today’s announcement and that date.

Two years ago, Ramos and Compean began serving sentences of 11- and 12- years respectively for a 2005 incident in which they fired on a drug smuggler as he fled back into Mexico after bringing 750 pounds of marijuana into the U.S. near Fabens, Texas. As WND reported last week, the Department of Justice’s pardon attorney, Ronald Rogers, opened a file on the case and was considering recommending that the president commute the sentences.

 

Rogers said at the time the former agents apparently were not eligible for a pardon, which would nullify the punishment. But they might be eligible for a commutation, he said, which would result in a reduction of their sentences.

“Thank God for this commutation,” said Joseph Farah, editor of WND, who launched a petition and letter-writing campaign that re-energized the Ramos-Compean issue in the last 30 days of Bush’s term. “This will end the sleepless nights for their wives and children. This is the first step toward making these families whole, again.”

His petition collected more than 40,000 signatures by the time today’s announcement was made, and the letter campaign produced more than 3,000 FedEx letters to the White House.

“We can only thank Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi and the staff at WorldNetDaily because from the beginning you have been with us and you never gave up on the case,” Joe Loya, Ramos’ father-in-law, said today. “Your reporting had a lot to do with the decision today by President Bush to commute the sentences.”

The petition had described how the agents “are now serving outrageously long prison terms for shooting and wounding, in the line of duty, a fleeing illegal alien drug smuggler trying to bring almost 800 pounds of marijuana into the U.S.”

The smuggler was granted immunity for his illegal activities in return for testifying against the agents. After the trial, it was revealed the smuggler participated in another drug run into the U.S. while he held immunity.

The law under which the agents were ordered to serve minimum 10-year sentences for using a firearm in the commission of a crime never had been applied to law enforcement officers.

Monica Ramos embraces her husband, former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, two days before he was sentenced to 11 years in prison (Courtesy El Paso Times

Farah’s letter also noted several jurors complained they had been intimidated into voting “guilty” while they actually believed Ramos and Compean were innocent, yet the trial judge refused to set aside the verdict.

Among other factors raising public concern was the prosecutor’s statement that the sentences were too harsh.

The agents had attracted the support of a members of Congress, too. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., recently asked U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the prosecutor in the case, to support a commutation in their sentences.

“As Johnny Sutton said in his own words, this punishment is excessive,” Rohrabacher said. “Millions of Americans, members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats have spoken.”

“It becomes a debate about punishment,” Sutton said on the CNN Headline News Glenn Beck Program May 18, 2007. “I have a lot of sympathy for those who say, look, punishment is too high, you know, 10 years. I agree.”

More than 150 members of the House of Representatives, including both Democrats and Republicans, have signed onto various resolutions in support of either a full pardon or a commutation of sentence for Ramos and Compean.

On the Senate side, John Cornyn, R-Texas, had released an open letter to the president pleading for their freedom. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also joined the effort.

The burden of the sentences fell heavily on the families of the agents. Ramos wife, Monica, reported just this month that there was an attempted hit on her life and that of her children when someone broke into their El Paso home and filled it with gas, trashing photographs and pummeling their dog.

The attackers, while she was away, stole various items, ripped cherished wedding pictures and family photographs and even left the gas turned on.

“It was very intentional in that somebody was trying to hurt us,” she said on a radio program.

“He’s in there because he was stopping a drug smuggler,” she said. “And yet my kids have to go through an extensive search when we see him. … We’re not able to have any physical contact with him while we’re there.”

In a special letter released to WND before the commutation was announced, Compean thanked his supporters, especially for the cards and letters during his incarceration.

He said he feared being forgotton.

“I truly believed people would forget all about us. Once we reported to prison, I was very happy to see how wrong I was. I have received thousands of letters from people all over the country. I have also received letters from other countries such as Italy and even a few from soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

US Military Warning: Mexican Law Enforcement, Justice Systems May Collapse

Posted: January 15, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

Mexican army parades in Mexico City

Mexico is one of two countries marked for “a rapid and sudden collapse,” according to a Joint Operating Environment 2008 report on worldwide security threats prepared by the U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va.

The report states “the Mexican government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels.”

The report is yet another indication the Bush administration sees the escalation of drug war violence in Mexico as a serious threat. Washington fears the war not only could spill over into the U.S., but also threaten the political stability of the government of President Felipe Calderon.

“How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state,” the report says. “Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.”

(Story continues below)

Adm. John Richardson, director for strategy and policy at Joint Forces Command, emphasized in an interview with WND that the aim of the report is not to make predictions.

“We go to great pains in this report to say it is not predictive and that it is hard to predict the future,” he said. “So, while we don’t have a crystal ball, we have to try to open up a discussion among senior leaders about the future so we are not caught unprepared for the potential trends we see out there.”

Richardson explained the report is a statement of worst-case scenarios that might face the U.S. military in the future.

“The report is designed to stimulate discussion among leaders aimed at the Joint Force commander,” he said. “The JOE 2008 is a think-piece that is not predictive and it is not a policy document. It is a problem statement identifying national security demands we believe the Joint Force faces at an operational level.”

WND reported yesterday that the Department of Homeland Security has developed contingency plans involving U.S. Northern Command to deploy the U.S. military to protect American citizens in the event Mexico’s drug war spills across the border.

Discussing the plans, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff noted that criminal activity in Mexico caused more than 5,300 deaths last year. The DHS contingency plans, he said, were ordered to prepare for a spillover of the type of violence in Mexico that has killed members of warring drug cartels, law enforcement officers and civilians.

Richardson said he was aware of the DHS contingency planning.

“This is exactly why we write the Joint Operation Environment, to give commands like Northern Command, as well as the other combatant commands, something to think about in maximizing their preparedness,” he said.

WND also has reported on the “Merida Initiative” under which the U.S. Congress at the strong urging of the Bush administration allocated in December $197 million of the $500 million authorized under a planned $1.6 billion program. The program aims to provide U.S. military assistance in the form of training and equipment to the Mexican military to help it combat the drug cartels.

Earlier in 2008, Congress funded $99 million under the Merida Initiative to Mexico through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

Richardson indicated the Joint Forces Command has not played a direct role in the Merida Initiative.

“The U.S. Joint Forces Command is a functional combatant command that supports USNORTHCOM and all the other combatant commands in a variety of ways, starting with development of future concepts, with our JOE 2008 being one of the most futuristic documents,” he emphasized.

“The JOE 2008 is a futuristic document looking eight to 25 years out, and we refine these concepts through experimentation and war games, so that the ideas which survive the refinement process are integrated into the larger picture of a capability development within the various combatant commands of the U.S. military,” Richardson said.

“We start with concepts and then refine those, with the goal of capabilities development and integrating across the services into a multi-national and coalitions-type of environment, so the concepts will work with everyone we potentially partner with.”

“As the capabilities are further developed, the time-line draws into more of the current situation where we provide training of joint force headquarters and provide joint force training, where we ultimately put together teams to respond to needs.”

In his 90-minute meeting in Washington with Calderon last week, President-elect Obama expressed his continued support for continuing the Merida Initiative.

WND has also reported that federal Border Patrol agents along the southern border with Mexico have been increasingly reluctant to fire their weapons against drug dealers after Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos were convicted and sentenced to prison for a 2005 incident. The two agents fired on a drug smuggler as he fled back into Mexico after bringing 750 pounds of marijuana into the U.S. near Fabens, Texas.

Mexico’s escalating drug violence adds political pressure to the stability of the Calderon government at a time when the country faces increasing unemployment as NAFTA exports to the U.S. have declined in the current recession.

Calderon was elected in September 2006 when Mexican courts declared him the winner after more than two months of uncertainty. Left presidential rival Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador claimed voting irregularities had stolen for Calderon a narrow victory by 233,831 votes of the 41.6 million cast.

Under Mexican law, Calderon cannot be re-elected after serving his six-year term as president.

US Border Patrol Arrests 3 Sex Offenders in 3 Days

Reported by: Rebecca Thomas Email: rebecca.thomas@abc15.com Last Update: 1/12 11:11 am

U.S. Border Patrol agents in southern Arizona said Monday that they have apprehended three convicted sex offenders who entered the country illegally within three days. Monday morning, agents form the Sonoita Border Patrol Station arrested a 26 year old Mexican man, convicted of felony lewd and lascivious acts with a child less than 14 years of age. He’s being extradited to Redwood City, where he also has a felony warrant out for his arrest. On January 11, agents form the Nogales Border Patrol Station arrested a 26 year old Mexican man , wanted in Madison, Wisconsin on charges of enticement and sexual contact with a child.  Then on January 10th, agents with the Naco Border Patrol Station arrested a 36 year old man from Mexico who’d been convicted of sexual assault and abuse in Perry, Iowa. U.S. Border Patrol agents use the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Index System (IAFIS), allowing them to identify individuals with a past criminal record in the U.S.

Copyright 2009 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Woman Arrested For Stalking State Trooper

Fairchance woman arrested for allegedly stalking state trooper

By Josh Krysak, Herald-Standard

12/31/2008

Updated 12/31/2008 08:27:36 AM EST

	Depp

A Fairchance woman is behind bars for allegedly stalking the commander of the state police barracks in Uniontown and his wife.

Trooper Charles M. Morrison said Roseanne Abbott, 31, of 159 Old Wynn Road was charged Dec. 23 before Magisterial District Judge Dwight K. Shaner with a felony count of stalking as well as a misdemeanor count of providing false information to law enforcement and a summary charge of harassment.

Morrison said Tuesday that the charges were filed against Abbott after she repeatedly stalked Lt. Charles L. Depp, 46, and his wife, Angela Depp, 42, both of Fairchance, during a period of several months beginning in September.

Morrison said Trooper Scott Krofcheck filed a misdemeanor stalking charge earlier this month against Abbott for allegedly following Charles Depp to work and stalking him and his wife at their home. She was charged with harassment at that time.

After those charges were filed, Morrison said Krofcheck warned Abbott that she would have to call the state police barracks if she had a problem in the future and could no longer “simply show up.”

However, on Dec. 19, Morrison said Abbott arrived at the police barracks in North Union Township unannounced and told an employee at the front desk that she had information about a man who pointed a gun at her.

Morrison said that he and Trooper James A. Pierce interviewed Abbott about the alleged incident and that her story was unclear and appeared to be fabricated.

Morrison said that following the interview, troopers continued to investigate Abbott’s claim and contacted other people Abbott said were in the area when the alleged threat occurred. Morrison said no one corroborated Abbott’s claims.

Morrison noted that she also mentioned Charles Depp and his children during the interview.

“I believe that she invented a crime so that she could come to the barracks,” Morrison said.

Morrison said after investigating the incident, he consulted Fayette County District Attorney Nancy D. Vernon before filing the charges.

Abbott was placed in the Fayette County Prison on $10,000 straight cash bond following her arraignment.

A preliminary hearing is set for today before Magisterial District Judge Wendy D. Dennis.

Police Officer Deaths Drop in ’08

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 54 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Fewer police officers died in the line of duty in 2008 compared to last year, reflecting better training and tactics, two law enforcement support groups reported Sunday.

The findings reversed the trend for 2007 when there was a spike in police deaths, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and another group, Concerns of Police Survivors.

The groups reported fatalities through Sunday.

Officer deaths this year totaled 140, compared to 181 in 2007.

Gunfire deaths dropped to 41 officers this year, compared to 68 in 2007. The 2008 number represented the lowest total since 1956 — when there were 35 — and was far below the peak of 156 officers killed by gunfire in 1973.

Traffic-related deaths also declined, with 71 officers killed this year, compared to 83 in 2007. It was the 11th consecutive year that more officers were killed in traffic incidents than from any other cause.

More than 61 percent of this year’s fatalities involved accidents and 39 percent resulted from criminal acts.

The only downside was deaths of women officers: 15 in 2008 compared to 6 a year ago. More women officers than before are in harm’s way, the groups said, because they’re taking on the same dangerous assignments as men.

Craig Floyd, chairman of the Memorial Fund, said in an interview that officers are getting better training and equipment.

More than 70 percent of policemen use bullet-resistant vests compared to fewer than half a decade ago, he said.

And officers are making better use of Taser stun guns and other non-lethal weapons that keep them a safe distance from violent offenders, Floyd said.

To avoid traffic deaths, officers are better trained in high-speed and defensive driving techniques. Police vehicles now have better safety equipment, including side air bags and a substance installed near the gas tank to suppress fire when the vehicle is struck.

The states with the most deaths were Texas with 14, followed by California with 12, then Florida and Pennsylvania with eight apiece,

Other factors cited by Floyd for the reduction in police fatalities:

_A record 2.3 million adult criminals behind bars, according to a study released earlier this year by the Pew Center on the States.

_A 2007 violent crime rate that held steady at the 2005 level, according to the Justice Department.

The Memorial Fund honors law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty and is in charge of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington.

Concerns of Police Survivors provides support and counseling to surviving family members of officers killed in the line of duty.

___

On the Net:

Memorial Fund: http://www.nleomf.org

Police Survivors: http://www.nationalcops

Louisiana Citizen Shoots, Kills Man Attacking Officer

From “The New American” magazine page 41, April 3, 2006 by Kurt Williamson

 A Baton Rouge, Louisiana citizen wearing a neck brace and using a cane shot & killed a man who was attacking a police officer who had pulled the man over for a traffic violation.

 Perry Stephens, no age listed, said he heard Officer Brian Harrison yelling for help followed by gunshots. Upon responding to the officer’s calls for help Stephens found the officer on the ground with another man on top of him punching the officer.

 Stephens told the man attacking the officer to “get off” the officer and when the man refused, Stephens shot the man 4 times in the chest, but the man continued attacking the officer causing Stephens to shoot the man in the head killing him.

 The attacker, George Temple, had also been shot in the abdomen by the officer prior to Stephens coming to the officers aide.

 A witness at the scene told WAFB Channel 9 that Stephens “probably saved the officer’s life”, but also said he didn’t hear Stephens tell Temple to get off the officer prompting the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Temple was a negro, while Stephens is white, to claim racial bias in Stephens decision to shoot Temple.

 Temple was not armed, but he was a large, athletic man who competitively boxed, and he was definitely the aggressor in the incident.

 The District Attorney’s office is investigating to determine whether a reasonable person would think it was necessary to shoot someone a fifth time, in the head, after shooting the person 4 times in the chest.

 According to the article, Louisiana law allows the use of deadly force in defense of others to “prevent a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or great bodily harm.”

 It seems to me that Stephens acted properly if not heroically and should be given an award for his actions. Had George Temple not chosen to feloniously  attack a police officer he may just be alive today.

 For additional information visit these web sites:

www.thenewamerican.com and www.2theadvocate.com

Fed’s Are Not Police Officers

 There has been some confusion pertaining to the arrest authority of Federal law enforcement officers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

 Federal officers, or agents as they are sometimes referred to, are not general police officers and do not possess the authority to to affect warrantless arrests for traffic offenses or for misdemeanor crimes.

 In the case of Commonwealth v. Price, 543 Pa. 403, 672, A. 2d 280 (1996) the court held, citing Section 3052 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 3052), that Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not authorized under either State or Federal law nor under common law to make warrantless arrests for traffic offenses or for misdemeanor crimes. Federal Agents are “authorized to make warrantless arrests only where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person  has committed or is committing any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States (federal law).

Pennsylvania Constables Have Significant Arrest Authority

By Brian K. Lutes of Uniontown, PA, December 11, 2008

This article delves into the authority of Pennsylvania Constables to affect warrantless arrests for crimes committed in their presence. In future articles we will explore the Constables activities in the areas of Process service, Court Security, Training, Vehicle Code Enforcement, and the display of emergency lighting on Constables vehicles as well as other topics.

Contrary to the beliefs of most citizens, law enforcement officers, and even many Constables themselves, Pennsylvania Constables have full authority to make warrantless arrests for crimes in the Commonwealth.

I stress “warrantless arrests” due to the common belief that the only function of Constables, due mostly to ignorance of the laws and court decisions pertaining to Constables, is serving arrest warrants and other documents issued by the courts.

Most often this belief is expressed by, how should I say, the miscreants of our society? Well, however you say it, the bad guys. Usually they express this belief when they are out & about engaging in their less than honorable pursuits and observe someone in a uniform with a badge. The miscreants will stop what they are doing and look closely at the uniform in an effort to determine if the officer may be able to arrest them. Almost without fail when they determine the officer is a Constable, they say to each other “It’s just a Constable” and they go back to their misdeeds without concern.

This perception of Constables must be corrected as sooner or later a Constable who is on his game is going come across a bad guy who honestly believes a Constable cannot arrest him without a warrant and will resist the Constable when told he is under arrest creating a very dangerous situation for the Constable & the suspect.

In addition, Constables can be a very positive factor in law enforcement’s ever increasingly difficult job of getting the bad guys off the street; if they know and understand the authority they can exercise.

The PA Supreme Court has noted in the case of In Re Act 147 of 1990, 528 PA 460,463 (1991) “Constables are Peace Officers charged with the conservation of the peace, and whose job it is to arrest those who have violated it; It is the Constables job to enforce the law and carry it out, just as the same is the job of District Attorneys, Sheriffs, and the police generally”.

The arrest authority of PA Constables is defined generally in PA law in Title 13 of  the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated, commonly referred to as Purdon’s Statutes (P.S.), 45 et seq. which states: “Constables of the Commonwealth, in addition to the powers already conferred upon them, shall and may, without warrant and upon view, arrest and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of  a breach of the peace, vagrancy, riotous and disorderly conduct or drunkenness,or who may be engaged in the commission of an unlawful act tending to imperil the personal security or endanger the property of the citizens, or violating municipal ordinances, for the violation of which a fine or penalty is imposed. Any person arrested with or without a warrant, shall be entitled to trial.”

   In The case of Commonwealth v. Frombach, 420 Pa Super. 498 (1992) the PA Superior Court determined that the PA Legislature by 13 P.S. 45 et seq. (above), “Conferred on Constables the power to without warrant and upon view, arrest and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of a breach of the peace.

A breach of the peace has been defined generally as any of “a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. It includes not only violent acts but acts and words likely to produce violence in others” (see 310 U.S. 296, 308) In its broadest sense the term refers to any criminal offense, or at least any indictable offense (see 207 U.S. 425). Breaches of the peace have been defined by state courts as “disturbances of the public peace violative of order and decency or decorum (see 147 N.W. 2d 886,892). And as “any violation of any law enacted to preserve peace and good order” and “signifies disorderly, dangerous conduct disruptive of public peace (see 261 A. 2d 731, 739).

In the case of Commonwealth v. Taylor, 450 Pa. Super. 583, 677 A. 2d 846 (1996)the Superior Court, citing the Constables authority to affect warrantless arrests for breaches of the peace, determined that Constables have the authority make arrests for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. (see also Commonwealth v. Corley, 507 Pa. 540,491 A.2d 829 (1985)) where the court held that a private citizen can affect an arrest when a felony has been committed and the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony.

In further exploration of the authority of PA Constables it must be noted that in the case of Commonwealth v. McGavin, 305 Pa. Super. 528, 534, 451 A. 2d 773 (1982)the Superior Court held that the statute authorizing  Constables to make warrantless arrests, 13 P.S. 45 et seq. (above),requires that the offense for which the warrantless arrest is made be an offense that (1) is committed within view of the Constable, and (2) constitutes a breach of the peace (described above).

In a real world scenario this seems to indicate that should a Constable observe 2 men fighting in the street, the Constable has authority to make arrests for disorderly conduct, etc., but should a Constable observe a man sitting on a sidewalk bleeding from his nose and upon investigation learns that the man was assaulted by an identified individual, the Constable should secure the scene & protect the victim from further harm and then would need to contact the law enforcement agency for the jurisdiction so that they could make the arrest on information received from the victim since the Constable did not witness the breach of the peace.

Also, in the bloody nosed victim example above, if the victim or a witness  were to point out the person(s) with whom the victim was fighting, it seems  the Constable would be authorized to detain,  not arrest, the individual(s) for investigative purposes. If the Constable decides to detain, not arrest, the accused individual(s), he would be justified in performing a pat down frisk of the individual(s) in an effort to be certain the individual(s) does  not possess dangerous weapons and he may even place the individual(s) in handcuffs while waiting for the arrival of the jurisdictions law enforcement agency (see Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A. 2d 299 (1994); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657 (1996); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S. Ct. 690 (1981).

In short, based on the court’s language in the McGavin case above, it seems that a Constable has authority to make arrests for crimes in progress that he sees taking place.

However, recall that in the Corley case the court held that “even a private citizen can effect an arrest when a felony has been committed and the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony”. Note that the court did not say that the citizen must actually observe the felony being committed. Rather, the court said the citizen can affect an arrest for a felony when the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony.

 In summation, Pennsylvania Constables are authorized to affect warrantless arrests for breaches of the peace committed in their presence and may detain for investigative purposes individuals they reasonably believe to be engaged in criminal activity.

In addition, Constables, the same as private citizens, may affect an arrest for a felony if he reasonably believes that a felony has been committed and that the person he has arrested committed the felony.

Binghamton, NY Officers Attacked by Crowd

NewsChannel34.Com

updated 11:47 p.m. ET, Mon., Dec. 8, 2008

Two Binghamton police officers are out of the hospital tonight, after being treated for concussions they got early Saturday morning, while trying make an arrest outside the American Legion Post at 76 Main St. According to police Captain John Chapman, 200 people attending a private party left the Legion just before 3 a.m. In the parking lot, several fights broke out. From across the street, the two officers, whose names are not being released, saw a man hit a woman. When they went to arrest him, he fought back, and others in the crowd attacked the cops, knocking one of them unconscious. The man, who hit the woman, and those who assaulted the officers, got away

Click here to read this story on www.newschannel34.com

The Purpose of Police in a Free Society

By Jack Hays

 It is very easy for law enforcement officers to lose sight of their purpose; With 6 years of experience as a police officer I know this to be true. We often get caught in the vicious trap of trying to do all we can to get the bad guys off of the streets while at the same time trying to protect the good guys in a politically correct manner.

 it is nearly impossible, but somehow we must get the job done, and we do.

 It is not easy enforcing laws in a free society. It would be much easier enforcing laws in a society where the citizens have, what some would call a healthy, fearful respect, of men with badges on their chests. A society where the citizens know that you don’t dare step out of line or the police will show up and make an example of you for all to see. And, if you want to work in that type of society you only need to move to China, Cuba, or any one of several Eastern European countries where law enforcement officers are feared and the citizens step aside when they approach.

 In those societies police officers are looked upon as keepers making sure no one steps outside of the boxes their government masters have drawn for them and making sure that citizens who express displeasure with those same government masters are taken away for re-education before they corrupt their neighbors with crazy notions of freedom of speech and assembly.

 However, thank God we do not live in such a country; at least not yet, and a key determining factor in whether or not we ever will, falls on the shoulders of us, the law enforcers.

 We are the individuals that are on the street, among the people, our neighbors & families, applying the rules of civil society as laid down by our fellow employees of the people, legislators. And it is us that decides whether or not to write the ticket or make the arrest for whatever violation of law we observe or discover; It is our discretion (The reasonable exercise of a power or right to act in an official capacity; involves the idea of choice, of an exercise of the will, 94 N.W. 2d 810, 811).

 Our #1 job while serving our fellow citizens is to live up to our Oath of Office to “Support, Obey and Defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same… and I do further solemnly swear that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of law enforcement officer with fidelity”. We have all taken this oath, or something very similar to it, before we ever pinned that precious badge on our chests. But, how many of us ever really thought about and realized the significance of that oath we so willingly took? I fear not enough of us have.

 When we take the oath of office we swear before God that we will, above all else, support, obey, & defend our Constitutions. We do not swear to get the bad guy at all costs. We do not swear to be creative, without technically telling a lie, in our report writing to get the warrant. We do not swear to tell the Chief that the guy swung at us to justify cracking the guy with our flashlights, although those things do understandably sometimes happen. We swear an oath to uphold our Constitutions and the protections therein.

 The Constitutions we have all sworn to uphold are the very foundation of our uniquely American lives. Our Constitutions are the only thing standing between our way of life and the subservient lives of Cubans or the Chinese. Every time our Constitutions are violated our American way of life suffers. It especially suffers when it is violated by those of us that have sworn to uphold it.

 Our purpose as law enforcement officers, every time we put that badge on is to go out and preserve our uniquely American way of life by enforcing, or not enforcing, our laws in accord with our oaths to the Constitutions.

  We, I say we because those of us who are charged with enforcing the laws are subject to those same laws, as Americans, have a right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and when those rights are violated by someone who murders, steals, assaults, or kidnaps one of our fellow citizens we show up taking action to live up to our oaths by arresting the individual, depriving them of their liberty, pursuit of happiness, and possibly their life, for violating the rights of the victim(s), not technically killing the victim, but for violating the victim’s right to life.

 We also, as a result of our oaths to support, obey, & defend the Constitutions have a responsibility to not enforce, by exercising our prosecutorial discretion (defined as “The wide range of alternatives available to a prosecutor in criminal cases, including the decision to prosecute, the particular charges to be brought, etc… or not to prosecute (see Lafave, Arrest 72 (1965)), laws passed by the legislatures that violate our Constitutions. Consider this: “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionally dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it” (16th American Jurisprudence, 256, 2nd edition).

 For example, say the town council adopts an ordinance, which our courts have defined as “A local law that applies to persons and things subject to the local jurisdiction” (see 90 F. 2d 175, 177) that says no one in the town is allowed to possess a gun for any reason and that law is put on the books in the town. We as law enforcement officers can rightly refuse to enforce the law because it is in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, “…The right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed” and Article 1 Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of PA “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned” that we took an oath to obey. 

 Our purpose in our free society is to insure that we, as citizens and law enforcers, remain free not just from molestation of our lives by the “bad guys”, but from those who would destroy our American way of life under the guise of lawmaking in our legislatures.