Reference check: Off duty LEO and NO GUNS signs

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

I'm pretty sure I don't like the idea of a police department controllable by local gov't. If you were at a town meeting or similar, and were making a stink, officials could unlawfully order officers to remove you, and the officers wouldn't be able to practically (due to risk of their jobs) refuse. I feel the people we are supposed to lobby, protest, convince and discredit should not be the ones controlling law enforcement.

 

[2a4all]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

I'm pretty sure I don't like the idea of a police department controllable by local gov't. If you were at a town meeting or similar, and were making a stink, officials could unlawfully order officers to remove you, and the officers wouldn't be able to practically (due to risk of their jobs) refuse. I feel the people we are supposed to lobby, protest, convince and discredit should not be the ones controlling law enforcement.

Officials can't unlawfully order the police to do anything. The cops could (and likely would) refuse, as theyare also sworn to uphold the law, and performing unlawful acts puts them in violation of the law.

That said, if you were disruptive enough, you could lawfully be arrested for disorderly condut, breach of peace, interfering with a government activity, inciting a riot, etc. And this would also be trueif LE was via an elected Sheriff.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

2a4all wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

I'm pretty sure I don't like the idea of a police department controllable by local gov't. If you were at a town meeting or similar, and were making a stink, officials could unlawfully order officers to remove you, and the officers wouldn't be able to practically (due to risk of their jobs) refuse. I feel the people we are supposed to lobby, protest, convince and discredit should not be the ones controlling law enforcement.

Officials can't unlawfully order the police to do anything. The cops could (and likely would) refuse, as theyare also sworn to uphold the law, and performing unlawful acts puts them in violation of the law. which is why I said 'practically'. It isn't possible for those under direct control of another to not be influenced. thats the whole reason for separation of powers.

That said, if you were disruptive enough, you could lawfully be arrested for disorderly condut, breach of peace, interfering with a government activity, inciting a riot, etc. And this would also be trueif LE was via an elected Sheriff. Hence why I qualified by later stating 'lobby, protest, convince and discredit.

I stated 'unlawfully remove' which would preclude anything in your second paragraph.