Category Archives: Justice System

Justice System, Labor Unions, Libertarianism, Social Issues

A Good Police Officer Is A Humble Police Officer

2 Comments
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

I have a great respect for police officers. Like soldiers, they selflessly put their lives on the line for my safety. But a good police officer is a humble one. They understand that they are not above the law—they are there to serve and protect the citizenry. When a humble and respectable person is wrong, they admit it. More importantly, when they’re wrong, and a 12-year-old kid asks for their badge number, they give it up and show dignity and honor for the job they are charged with. This Las Vegas police officer however, has traded such dignity and honor for a sense of entitlement and a god-complex.US_Park_Police_badge[1]

He did something illegal by parking his motorcycle where a motorcycle shouldn’t be parked unless he had been chasing someone, or doing other official police business that required an emergency parking job. As it turns out, he was getting food/drink and he got called out on his illegal parking by young Jeremy Drew, a kid with a pretty good sense of justice.

If this officer had a shred of dignity, he would have looked at Jeremy and said something like, “You know, you’re right. My sincerest apologies. I was wrong to park here. Here’s my badge number, and if you feel a duty to report me, then by all means, you should do so.” Would the officer had been so kind had I parked my motorcycle there while I got lunch?

Las Vegas PD Officer In Question
Las Vegas PD Officer In Question

Then that officer should seriously reflect on why he became a cop in the first place, and whether he’s serious about defending the Constitution and local laws—therefore not violating them himself. He then should either resign if he doesn’t have the honor to do the job properly anymore, or change his way of thinking and behaving if he does.

Many police get upset when we citizens show little respect for them. To those officers I say this: don’t do actions that are disrespectful, hypocritical, arrogant, or plain illegal, and you won’t usually get disrespected. The corrupt among you, the indifferent among you, and the good officers who do nothing about the bad ones, serve as the main reason respect for the badge is waning.

We all know bad cops are bad, but that’s simply not the whole issue. I understand the idea of the police “brotherhood,” but if one of your fellow officer’s is out of line and you accept it, allow it, and/or condone it, you’re indifference might as well be an endorsement. If it is a crime for a person watching a murder to do nothing (depraved indifference), then you as police officers should also do something to stop your fellow officers when they do wrong as well.

The honor for the badge should be far more important than the honor for the random person behind it. If they don’t respond apologetically and remorsefully—showing clear signs such behavior will cease, then maybe a discussion with superiors or internal affairs is in order.

While most police officers are good, the ones that are doing illegal and/or inexcusable acts are rarely dealt with when their offense is only a misdemeanor like above, and this tolerance of bad behavior is exactly why America has shifted from a country that heralded Andy Griffith to a country that embraces the “F*** the police” mantra so prevalent in pop culture these days.

In another instance, on May 26th, 2012, a Portland Maine law student who remained unnamed by choice, was carrying a sidearm, as is his Constitutional right. A resident with what appears to be little understanding of the rights to carry a sidearm, decided to call the police and report the innocent open-carrier. Officers were dispatched to the scene. See the story here:

Again, an officer was in the wrong, and reacted incorrectly once confronted by a citizen who was in the right. Here’s what should have transpired but didn’t.

  • An officer should have never been dispatched. The person who called the police should have been advised by the dispatcher that carrying a weapon is a legal act and that they cannot dispatch an officer unless it appears there is an illegal act happening.
  • The officer merely did his duty in responding, but he was incorrect in his interpretation of the law. I can forgive an officer for not being in command of the laws like a lawyer—a law degree takes a lot longer to attain than your typical police academy certification. But if someone is telling you the law, and they seem to know what they’re talking about, especially when you don’t, then stop acting like you do. The law student was right, which means the officer was either purposefully being incorrect, or just wasn’t certain and thought he knew the law. Either way, arguing with someone when you don’t know you’re right is pure arrogance. What would have been so hard about saying, “You may be correct, let me check with my superior” or “You’re right sir, my mistake” once corrected by the law student.

There are a litany of videos of police officers abusing their power, these are merely two. The military and police are somewhat similar, yet where the military is revered for its respect and honor, the police are too often not. The one glaring difference between the two is labor unions—soldiers aren’t unionized. When union entitlement mentalities take over a workforce, the workers rarely fear for losing their job. Someone with little fear of getting fired, isn’t so compelled to do the right thing—in government, this is a recipe for abuse.

When legislators, police, and other government employees violate the law, the penalties imposed are usually far less severe than what John Q Public might endure if he committed the same offense. This is fundamentally wrong in a country where “We the people” give power to the government.

Instead, government officials should be penalized more severely. I didn’t take an oath to defend the Constitution, but they did—they know better. If we can’t trust them, who can we trust? And if we can’t trust them, “We the people” who actually have the power according to our Constitution, might as well get rid of them. Would you hire an employee if you thought they would steal from you?

Barney Fife and Andy Griffith from The Andy Griffith Show
Barney Fife and Andy Griffith from The Andy Griffith Show

We voters must vote to rid our government of organized labor so that we can better hold the rule-breakers accountable. But police must start to care about the honor of their profession and police themselves as stringently is they police us. Doing so will yield top quality public servants. Until then, we get the Barney Fifes and/or Joseph Miedzianowskis instead of the Andy Griffiths and Elliot Nesses. We deserve better.

Guns & The 2nd Amendment, Justice System, Libertarianism

Contrary To Popular Belief, Laws And Police Rarely Prevent Crime

4 Comments
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

What are laws actually for? If you’re thinking to prevent crime, think again. While I don’t support anarchy, if there’s no laws to be broken, there’s no crime, right?

The legislature writes laws to set a standard for law-abiding citizens to know what will and won’t land them in jail. It’s the best way to ensure fairness in prosecution.

Some legislators may believe that would-be murderers would pause and think, “I want to kill this person, but Nancy Pelosi says that’s wrong,” but I think most reasonable people know this is simply not true.

Nancy Pelosi (D - California)
Nancy Pelosi (D – California)

Taking it further and speaking in absolutes; a law cannot stop a crime—criminal acts are physical actions. In order to stop a moving object, you need another physical object to interfere. Isaac’s Laws of Motion, remember? But a law is just words on a page and cannot technically prevent anything. A police officer could, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

Let me give an example of why this nuance of defining standards is important and what happens when it’s done wrong.

In 1995, after the repeal of the national 55 mph speed limit, Montana passed a daytime “reasonable and prudent” law. In what could be one of the most glorious acts of libertarianism ever enacted, the state entrusted the people of Montana to determine for themselves a safe speed to travel under the conditions at any given time. To many people’s surprise, studies showed that letting people drive as fast as they wanted actually reduced highway fatalities. They got to where they were going faster too.

Montana Reasonable and Prudent Speed "Limit" Sign
Montana Reasonable and Prudent Speed “Limit” Sign

Then on March 10th, 1996, at a brisk 85 mph, along came Rudy Stanko and his Camaro, when Kenneth Breidenbach, a Montana Highway Patrol officer pulled him over, citing him for unsafe driving in relation to speed. See the legal arguments here.

Stanko was initially convicted, but “Reasonable and prudent” wasn’t properly written, making Stanko the victim of bad law.

Stanko’s attorneys appealed, stating that the “reasonable and prudent” statute was constitutionally vague—they were right. The judge agreed that a person cannot be cited for not driving reasonably and prudently unless the state first defines reasonable and prudent, which it hadn’t. As such, Stanko had no way of knowing if he was doing something that would earn him a ticket, and thus no way to avoid doing it.

Although I hated to see the Montanabahn go, we cannot allow police officers and courts to arbitrarily decide why one person doing 85 is OK, and the other is not. Why? Officer Ken or Justice Joe, for instance, could cite their cheating ex-girlfriends at will for something they let everyone else get away with—I assume you get the point.

As a libertarian (and a Corvette owner), I of course hoped that Montana would have attempted to define reasonable and prudent, which I concede may have been monumentally difficult, but instead, they reverted back to an actual speed limit of 75 mph, and this great bastion of libertarianism died a sad yet preventable death.

So now that I’ve illustrated the purpose of laws and what a good law does, to be fair, I should point out that some laws may serve as a deterrent. However, crimes of a violent nature are also usually crimes of passion, which are usually only preventable with a weapon, not a law.

So do police prevent crime?

Think about all the times you might call the police. More often than not, they are called because either a crime is in progress or has been committed. Also, when police pull someone over, they are doing so because a traffic law has been broken, not because you were about to run a red light—which was clearly still yellow—dammit.

In both instances, the crime is investigated and/or prosecuted, not prevented. It is a very rare occasion you would call the police before a crime is perpetrated and the police would intervene to stop the act before it was able to be carried out. EC689123235C04BEBFE698A4CC_h231_w308_m5_caksoayGp[1]

Again to be fair though, as evidenced by high rates of recidivism, when police arrest someone who committed one crime, they are often preventing the next one on that felon’s “to-do” list.

To all police officers, if you’re one of the many honorable and law-abiding people putting your life at risk for me on a daily basis, I appreciate you immensely—as we all should. So please don’t assume I’m criticizing your sacrifices.

But I believe preventing crime is ultimately a duty of the people. This is one of the many reasons why we have the 2nd amendment and why we all should be more apt to take advantage of it. We should encourage citizen-based crime prevention options, and stand your ground legislation should be nationwide. If a criminal knew most of the neighborhood was armed and would gladly shoot them without repercussion, the innate sense of self-preservation might just override the desire to steal your car stereo—it is not worth dying for.

As far as the police go, I firmly believe that as a nation we should have far less police officers in favor of more police detectives. I don’t blame the officers themselves, they’re just doing a job, but too often the police serve as a means of income for the community via traffic enforcement instead of preventing and solving crime, and this isn’t in the people’s best interests.

So how do we prevent crime then? As you may have imagined, I have some suggestions. Here’s but a few:

  1. Stop writing unneeded laws: I won’t go deep into the drug debate here, but it is a perfect example. Most violent drug-related crimes occur because recreational drugs are illegal. This idea was proven beyond any doubt during alcohol prohibition and its subsequent repeal approximately 80 years ago. Deep within our nature exists a truism: if you encroach on mankind’s freedom, we will lash out—sometimes quite violently. Don’t believe me, tell your kid not to do something, see what happens.YourSpeed
  2. Reign in entitlements: As long as we’re paying welfare mothers to have welfare babies that serve more as a source of income than an outlet for an abundance of motherly love, we’re going to have children who grow up with little to no sense of morality. If I feel I’m entitled to your car, I’ll likely just take it? However, if we force people to sink or swim, we’ll have a lot more people who develop a good work ethic. People who work for things appreciate them and don’t feel compelled to take what others worked for due to another innate quality in most humans—empathy.
  3. Improve education: Get rid of teacher’s unions, public schools, etc., and have proper free market education. If free markets can make a better car, and I think Russia vs. America proved this, then it can build a better school too. Studies have shown private schools routinely outperform their public counterparts. One look at any prison shows that most of the people in there can’t even spell incarceration. Sure there are genius criminal minds, but contrary to Hollywood hype, they’re not as common as you would think. A smarter society is usually a more peaceful one, whereas most criminals are idiots.
  4. Improve the economy: Some criminals are psychopaths, but some criminals are just desperate. Psychopaths will commit crimes as long as they are free, but with a strong economy, you at least reduce the crimes of desperation.

Ultimately we need to adopt a “No victim, no crime” policy then restore our country’s greatness such that people don’t feel the need to do bad things to survive. but the answer is almost never more laws and more police.

Justice System, Libertarianism, The United States Constitution

Legislation Reform Act: Keep It Simple

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

Recently, the media reported that House Resolution 3309 was debated in the House that would prevent employers from asking prospective or current employees for their social network passwords as a condition of employment. Or did it?

When I heard the bill was voted down (later amended and passed) along party lines, I was furious with House Republicans. One of the few roles of government is protecting Americans from entities that would infringe upon our rights, and this certainly qualifies.

No one would be OK if an employer said, “I need keys to your house so we can have a forensics team go through it before we hire you.” So why are they allowed to see online private information?

While I enjoy networking, I have my account hidden from the public eye. I love sharing views and making new friends, but I choose whom to share that with. Prospective employers are not included.

If I wanted a technical job at the left-leaning NBC network, for instance, I certainly wouldn’t want them knowing I’m a libertarian who is big on gun rights, limited government, and entitlement reform. Since I wouldn’t be in front of the camera, my opinion shouldn’t matter. But I know their views are quite the opposite and would sooner kill a bunny rabbit than hire a conservative.maxresdefault[2]

I have written previously about the importance of skepticism. Don’t presume to know everything just because your favorite news agency told you “all about it.” Do your research from as many outlets available to you and inform yourself.

Practicing what I preach, I found the amendment and read it. Please read here.

(2015 Update: The next session of Congress passed HR 537, which did prevent this practice here.)

Now after reading that, do you see anything in there that prevents someone from asking for your private information? I don’t either. It was an amendment which merely allowed for a law to be passed preventing the practice as opposed to actually preventing it directly. The fact that there was no reason such a law would be prohibited in the first place, made the amendment redundant and moot. Such redundancy leads me to believe that the only purpose by Democrats was solely to slow up a Republican bill the Democrats didn’t care for. Worse yet, it was for a bill to reform the FCC, which has little to do with most private business practices anyway.

Why did Republicans vote it down? Because it didn’t accomplish what the legislators that wrote it proposed it would. So my apologies to those Republicans I cussed out under my breath when I first read the story. Carry on good sirs.

House of Representatives
House of Representatives

So why did it exist and what was its purpose then? I can’t know with complete certainty what Democrats were thinking. But this appears to be an attempt to make Republicans look bad by writing legislation that presents their opponents with a catch-22.

They propose a law and declare it serves a certain purpose, but when opponents actually read it and see that it doesn’t, they vote no accordingly. This then allows Democrats to say, “Those evil Republicans don’t care about you, and this is proof!”

Both parties propose catch-22 legislation which they know won’t pass for political purposes. It’s a deplorable waste of our money and certainly not the work of people who “serve” their constituents. Sadly, there are countless examples, all of which should be offensive to every American since we’re paying for this nonsense.

Let me propose a hyperbolic theoretical question to illustrate my point. Imagine Congress proposed a bill that would legalize cures for 90% of all deadly diseases, but it required the execution of homeless people. Would you approve it?

If you say no, these opponents would say you voted down a bill that cures 90% of all deadly diseases. If you OK it, they would say you’re killing homeless people. Either way, you are made to look bad, which was the only goal of your opponents in the first place.social_media_strategy111[1]

This is the problem with bills that have unrelated multiple components. If Democrats had really wanted the privacy violating practice to stop, it would have been a stand-alone bill that simply read:

“No employer shall ask or require a prospective or current employee to allow that employer access to private online content, including but not limited to social networking sites as a condition of future employment.”

Such a bill would likely have easily passed. I know that single-sentence plain English legislation is rare, but it worked pretty well in our Constitution where each provision was largely straightforward and simple. My apologies to compliance lawyers who would need to repurpose their lives as a result, but maybe we should get back to that model.

Since Congress can’t seem to play nice, I propose the Legislation Reform Act:

No proposed legislation may contain multiple provisions that do not directly pertain to each other in a way that dictates one could not exist without the other. Any non-related provision must be proposed, written, and voted on as a separate and individual piece of legislation.

This simple proposal would end any attempts at attaching bad legislation to good legislation just for political gain. Earmarks and other such nonsense would fall victim to it as well.

It would ensure that all proposals are simple and effective in their design and that each piece be voted on based on its individual merits as opposed to the collective merit of countless unrelated parts as is currently done.

Justice System, Libertarianism

The Justice System Needs An Overhaul

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

Imagine our justice system is an old sports car. It was sleek, fast, full of bells and whistles, and a blast to drive—a triumph in modern design for its time. However, like an old sports car, it has been abused, laden with aftermarket junk, the maintenance neglected, rusting away in the yard, and most of the electronics are reminiscent of the infamous Lucas Electronics (jokingly referred to as the Prince of Darkness because the lights rarely worked) whose switches are said to have three positions—off, dim, and flicker.lucas[1]

This description reminds me of our justice system. Over the years, it has gone from a system seeking justice to a system of winners and losers with little regard for justice.

We have people like Gloria Allred, who just want money and recognition instead of justice. We have prosecutors who get so enthusiastic about a high-profile case that they ignore exculpatory evidence just to improve their conviction rate. There are justices who don’t seem to understand that the legislative branch is separate from their own, and we have litigants who look to get rich at the expense of the innocent.

A free market allows lawyers to compete, but the system has done little to penalize those who abuse it. I want to see our LEGAL system be a JUSTICE system again.  So, I’m proposing a “Common Sense Legal Reform Act” which includes, but is not limited to the following:

Scales of Justice
Scales of Justice

Some states have “Loser Pays” legislation; this should be nationwide. Loser pays prevents civil cases where people are unjustly enriching themselves.

For instance, when I was in the insurance industry, we often paid claims that were properly denied because the cost of defending our position in court was more than the cost of the claim, and it did not make fiscal sense to fight it. If these leeches are lawyers, or have one in the family, it often doesn’t cost them anything other than the filing fee, and they end up getting something they do not deserve.

“Loser Pays” legislation would help immensely in reducing such frivolous lawsuits as it would both deter individual from suing unjustly since they would pay if they lost the case as well as encourage victims to fight them regardless of the cost. Many businesses have failed, jobs lost, and bankruptcies incepted because of such unjust litigation. If you are curious, read more about it here.

Manhattan Institute on Loser Pays

Proper management technique entails recognizing the difference between an innocent mistake and a purposeful wrongdoing when disciplining employees. If I had an employee make an innocent mistake, a little coaching was often all that was needed. On the other hand, if someone knew it was wrong and did it anyway, it was potentially a firable offense.

The legal system is composed of legislators, lawyers, judges, police, and a myriad of other trained professionals. Most people don’t take an oath to uphold the law when they start a new career; but these folks sure do, and they should not only know better than to violate those laws, but should be penalized more severely if they break them.

Chief Justice Roberts Being Sworn In
Chief Justice Roberts Being Sworn In

“We the people” trust them to be supremely honorable in their duties, and if that trust is broken, the belief of a government serving its people is lost in a cesspool of distrust. Children used to want to become cops; now they hate them. Why?

While most are invaluable servants of the community, there are a few rogue officers who commit serious felonies. The less than severe penalties they often receive for such corruption infuriate those of us who trusted them. While I may know most are good and honorable, it often only takes one bad apple to ruin the tree for those who are not so fair and optimistic.

Lawyers and judges should be disbarred, police should be removed from serving, and legislators should be impeached for what, in a normal workplace, would be “fireable” offenses. They must hold themselves to the highest of standards and police themselves even more vigorously than they police us. If a doctor purposefully does wrong, they lose their license to practice.  But when Charles Rangel does wrong, he gets nothing more than a glorified tongue lashing and it’s deplorable.

Liability is a term that is often abused and should be redefined to protect the innocent. If someone slips on the ice on my sidewalk because I didn’t shovel it, I’m liable? Give me a break! Let natural selection run its course. If someone is not intelligent enough to exercise caution while treading ice, then they deserve a bump on the head. I should be charging them for the education. Ice-slip-drink[1]

While good Samaritan laws currently exist in some states to protect doctors, it wasn’t long ago that if a doctor stopped to help someone dying on the side of the road, he could be sued if the person died because the doctor couldn’t scrub up, sterilize equipment, etc.

Liability should be restricted to an action where the defendant knew what they were doing was wrong and put people at risk with no mitigating circumstance to excuse it. The idea that I can be held liable because I didn’t anticipate someone getting hurt as a result of my inaction is ridiculous. People should be responsible for damage from their own ignorance, not me for not foreseeing the results of such idiocy.

I’m sick of warning labels on kids bikes that say, “Warning: experienced riders” or labels on paper respirators that say, “Warning: Does not provide oxygen”. FYI, both were featured on an episode of Stossel and are a result of our overly generous definition of liability.WWL2011_blue_bicycle-400[1]

America must get back to basics with the justice system, prevent “get rich quick” schemes, and worry more about the spirit of the law than the letter of it. Until we force Congress to ignore the campaign-generous trial lawyers and address the issue, innocent people will be financially raped by those who have done nothing to deserve such wealth. Where is the justice in that?

 

 

 

Justice System, Libertarianism

Why Justice Ginsburg Should Honorably Step Down

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

Earlier this month Justice Ginsburg was doing an interview in Egypt regarding their drafting of a new constitution when she said:

“I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012”.

There’s no context that I’m leaving out that changes the underlying meaning of her words. She did follow it up by outlining that there are more modern ones that focus on basic human rights (as if life, liberty, and property aren’t all encompassing) and that even though the U.S. is one of the youngest nations, we have one of the oldest Constitutions in use. These caveats, however, do not change her original statement’s context which indicates she doesn’t feel our Constitution is the best constitution or even a very good one worth emulating.

Message to Justice Ginsburg—it’s the oldest one in use because it works better than all the others! Are we not the most powerful nation in the world? That should be a sign that it has done pretty well by us.

It would have been a different story if she said something to the effect of “I think the U.S. Constitution is a great document and worth emulating, but there are certainly other modern ones that are good as well if ours doesn’t suit you.” That would have at least shown a healthy respect for our Constitution without trying to shove it down their throat. However, there were no compliments or even respect shown to our Constitution whatsoever.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices are required to make certain oaths upon taking office. I have outlined them below.  Consider the following as it relates to Ginsburg’s words:

The Constitutional Oath

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 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 the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.”

The Judicial Oath

“”I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

As a citizen, if someone disrespects the Constitution, ironically, that’s their constitutional right; I support that no matter how idiotic I think they are. But, when someone who has taken the aforementioned oaths does so while in office, then that raises an ethical issue as it relates to their job.

I don’t believe she should commit hara-kiri, or  even be impeached; her actions weren’t criminal. But as a matter of principle, she should be honest about her lack of respect for the Constitution and step down if she doesn’t feel a duty to uphold it as it is written.

The purpose of a Supreme Court Justice is to protect the minority from the majority based on the Constitution as it is written. But based on her statement, it is logical to have concern that she may base her decisions on what she believes the Constitution should be, not what it is. This is legislating from the bench, and it’s a serious threat to the system of checks and balances that ensure our government’s limitations of power over its people.

The legislative branch (Congress) enacts laws, the executive branch (President) is charged with enforcing laws, and the judicial branch (Supreme Court) determines the constitutionality of laws. The Congress is checked by the president via veto power and the Supreme Court via the striking down of laws they determine are unconstitutional. No branch is allowed to do the job of another.

In order for Justice Ginsburg to attain the position of U.S. Supreme court justice, she was first picked by the sitting president (Bill Clinton). Then once appointed, she was called to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she was asked questions about how she would adjudicate. The questions generally circle around whether she will honor the Constitution as written, or whether she would try to legislate from the bench—the latter being rather frowned upon.

The honorable thing for Justice Ginsburg to do would be to confess that, “I have decided I no longer have a passion for defending the U.S. Constitution nor ultimately believe in its principles. As a result, I feel it necessary to step down out of respect for the American people and the office of the U.S. Supreme Court so that someone with a more dutiful concern for the role may hold that seat in honor.”

I’m not holding my breath…