Police in East Texas encouraged not to enforce the laws that they believe are unconstitutional.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Jason Rogers
@Rogers4Texas
Apparently in Texas, some sheriff's are starting to enforce the law based upon their own personal interpretation of the Constitution.

This sounds dangerous to me.

Law enforcement association leader gives message in East Texas: Enforce constitution
Law enforcement in East Texas is encouraged not to enforce the laws that they believe are unconstitutional. That’s the basic message about 80 attendees of a Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers...
ktre.com
3:21 PM · Jul 11, 2021

https://www.ktre.com/2021/07/10/law-enforcement-association-leader-gives-message-east-texas-enforce-constitution/

CROCKETT, Texas (KTRE) - Law enforcement in East Texas is encouraged not to enforce the laws that they believe are unconstitutional. That’s the basic message about 80 attendees of a Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association received in Crockett on Friday.

The organization’s leader is Richard Mack, a man who preaches anti-federal government beliefs, contending the U.S, Constitution gives local law enforcement agencies the power to decide what laws should be enforced. Among the laws that could be ignored are gun restrictions and even seat belt laws.

East Texans may want to check to see if their sheriff considers themselves a ‘constitutional sheriff’. If so, you may not be held accountable for breaking certain laws. The ‘Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association’ (CSPOA) is in Houston County seeking new followers.

Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and founder of Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, at times, delivers his message like a hellfire and brimstone preacher. Houston County Sheriff Randy Hargrove heard the preaching earlier this year. The self-proclaimed constitutional sheriff came away a believer.

*snip*

[Hoyt]

1. Like stopping people for "a broken taillights."

[-misanthroptimist]

2. Um, aren't seatbelt laws state-level laws?

Doesn't matter. I am sick of these Confederate-minded Orcs. They are anti-social, whiny, self-pitying children.

[onetexan]

4. Orcs are a good analogy for them.

[Liberal In Texas]

3. So they want to make themselves the judiciary now?

They need to lose their law enforcement jobs if they actually practice this behavior.

[NullTuples]

9. Have you missed the part where all the Black men get shot?

[Liberal In Texas]

14. What has that to do with this?

Very unclear response. Maybe you mean cops set themselves up as judge and jury or something when "all the Black men get shot." Which I would agree with.

But this interpreting the Constitution and not enforcing laws they don't like is a different kind of outrage.

[Volaris]

21. Actually, the technicality is that in most states,

The county Sherrif and all his deputies work FOR THE COURT, and (again), in jurisdictions doing this correctly, are not ALLOWED to execute local, executive-branch law enforcement.

It's why local POLICE depts exist.
These fools arent supposed to be enforcing any actual laws to begin with, Constitutional or Otherwise. Their singular purpose is to carry out the orders of the Courts.

Now, I know this isn't exactly how it gets done in the Real World, with limited personnel and resources. But locally, my county had to set up it's own county POLICE force a few years back, because the sherrif was doing executive branch stuff, and the state bean counters had enough of that non-Constitutional bullshit.

[Thomas Hurt]

5. This is a part of the sovereign movement.

[stillcool]

6. I think they already do that...

[keithbvadu2]

7. Family and friends get 'easier' Constitutional interpretations.

Family and friends get 'easier' Constitutional interpretations.

[Baked Potato]

8. Mack is a fascist and an Oath Keeper.

They are really scared of Democrats turning Texas blue.

[NullTuples]

10. The CSPOA has affiliations with Oath Keepers and Proud Boys

But they aren't just in Texas. We've got them all over California, too. Easiest way to ID them for the time being is to check the news sites and see if your local Sheriff or other law enforcement refused to enforce COVID restrictions. It was a big issue with them.

[Baked Potato]

13. Thanks for the info... that angers me about California--

California is Mrs. Potato’s and my beloved home State although we aren’t there now.

[NullTuples]

15. They are *everywhere* and it kinda scares me.

So many people - especially white liberals - still think of Law Enforcement as people who are there to protect them, but it's highly conditional and situational.

[David__77]

17. Each department must be purged.

And the training academies must be closely controlled. There are political qualifications to being a cop. Progressives should not cede this ground- there must be an alternative.

[NullTuples]

18. And who is going to make all that happen?

As it stands now in many states, it would require a state level referendum restructuring law enforcement.

[Caliman73]

25. California is a mixed bag.

Overall, we are blue, but there are some pockets of deep deep red. Go into the interior of the state and you can mistake it for a red state. The places where most of the votes and voters are however, are blue.

[Kaleva]

20. Sheriffs answer to the voters in their county.

[NullTuples]

28. Yes, in many counties. But...

Unlike representatives, you don't know their affiliation until after they're in office.

And once in office, they'll perform outrageous acts of racism, sexism. ableism and other "good old fashioned American values" - then turn around and say, "As a Sheriff, I'm completely non-partisan".

And most people believe them because like judges, that's the way it's supposed to be, and people don't want to admit to themselves that it isn't that way, because that would mean our society is broken.

[Kaleva]

11. As elected officials, they are doing what their voters want them to do.

Some more info:

" KXAN investigators have been looking into what Texas law says about removing an elected sheriff from their position.

It’s not an easy task to achieve. State statute spells out the following reasons for removal:

incompetency
official misconduct
intoxication

To start the process, someone must file a petition in district court. The petition must then be approved by a district judge before it goes to trial."

https://www.kxan.com/investigations/what-is-the-process-for-removing-a-texas-sheriff-from-their-elected-position/

[NullTuples]

16. Here in California they have some minimal requirements & then

Once elected, are accountable to no one until the next election.
And leading up to elections there's no way to discern their politics.

[Sneederbunk]

12. Texass!

[ZonkerHarris]

19. an excuse for white supremacists who are LEO

[DFW]

22. Worse:

An enticement for white supremacists to BECOME law enforcement officers. I think these people read „a Clockwork Orange,“ and thought it was an instruction manual.

[LiberatedUSA]

23. It is my personal belief...

...that all this (Republican sheriffs deciding not to enforce some laws, such as gun laws they don’t like) can be directly traced to Sanctuary Cities and their refusal to help the feds enforce immigration law.

The GOP took our idea and ran with it in their own way. The same thing with red states saying they won’t recognize a future ban on assault weapons. They took our idea of ignoring federal drug laws by making weed legal in our states and ran with it for their own purposes.

So unless we can develop a law that says who can ignore which laws and who can’t ignore which laws, then when we do it, the other side will twist it for their purposes.

[stillcool]

24. Republicans are all about state's rights...

as long as it's a red state, and the 'rights' are for people they deem acceptable. The states that are out-lawing voting, abortion, teaching history, etc.., are not doing so because my state has legalized marijuana. They do not want to accept any federal laws, or any federal government. Nothing new. But, neither is the "Dems did it too" excuse.

[LiberatedUSA]

26. I think the extreme attacks on voting and abortion...

...is more because they know they have a friendly Supreme Court and are on the verge of two different paths. One is a future with fair elections, which they will lose more often than not, especially if we can expand the US to 52 states, while the other is no longer a democratic process with fair elections; but rigged. These next few years will determine where we go.

However, like it or not they have copied our views on federal immigration non enforcement and the federal ban on marijuana when it comes to guns.

While there is obviously a big difference between the two, it is the principle they are looking at. If one side gets to ignore a federal ban they don’t like at the state level, then the other side will do it with their pet issues. Many red states have now passed legislation saying they will ignore a future federal assault weapon ban and keep those guns legal in their state.

We just need them to understand when it is right to ignore federal law and/or just not enforce it and when it is wrong. We obviously understand, but they do not.

[NullTuples]

29. Except, sanctuary cities are not ignoring their sworn duty when it's convenient

"There’s no official legal definition for sanctuary city and what it means varies significantly from place to place. Generally speaking, local law enforcement in sanctuary cities or counties don’t ask or report the immigration status of people they come into contact with.A sanctuary jurisdiction typically refuses requests from federal immigration authorities to detain undocumented immigrants apprehended for low-level offenses. A sanctuary city would also refuse to have its local law enforcement "deputized" as federal immigration agents."

Sanctuary cities are acting within the law. Constitutional Sheriffs and other officers are explicitly ignoring their oath and duty to enforce the laws of their jurisdiction. Instead, they designate themselves as the ultimate arbiters of law in America (their own description, btw).

[LiberatedUSA]

31. Which is exactly what red states will do with...

...a federal gun ban. Refuse to help the feds, which makes enforcement next to impossible. Local sheriffs won’t enforce the gun laws and the local small town GOP voters won’t vote one in that will.

You did fail to address that they will use our legalizing marijuana at the state level, ignoring the federal ban, as an excuse for them to legalize assault weapons in their states, ignoring a ban. A true case of monkey see, monkey do.

Whether we like it or not, no reasons will deter them mimicking our tricks for their purposes. Local red state elected sheriffs won’t lock up or take semi-auto guns from the same people they hunt, shoot and drink with. So like when we make sure federal enforcement of immigration is a pain in the ass by not helping the feds out, they will return the favor in the same way in the event of a future gun ban (fat chance with the current Supreme Court).

Good luck taking Billy Bob’s now illegal and unregistered AR-15, when his local Sheriff Cletus Von Cowtipper owns the same gun (now illegally and also unregistered) in his collection and knows the whole Billy Bob clan as well as their friends, because they all live in the same 2,000 population red state red town in the middle of nowhere where the vast majority are gun owners of all the kinds of guns we want to ban and will keep voting for Cletus Von Cowtipper for ignoring the new federal ban. Then add in their confidence, since their red state and state police will go along with it.

Now you are probably thinking, “well, we will have to take their funding until they comply (in the event of an improbable ban)”. Nope. Trump tried that with our Sanctuaries and was slapped down in federal court for not being able to punish a state financially for refusing to enforce a federal law.

[NullTuples]

33. Your arguments all boil down to, "if Dems do X,

...Republicans will feel they have the right to do Y"

They do it anyway. They don't care what Dems do. They blatantly lie, and do what they want. That's why your argument holds no water with me. It doesn't matter if Dems play by the rules or not; Republicans already simply ignore them or change them to fit their need of the moment.

[Uncle Joe]

27. It sounds like they're de facto practicing law without an attorney's license.

Thanks for the thread Nevilledog.

[NullTuples]

30. They are cop, lawyer, judge, jury and all too often, executioner.

[Texasgal]

32. East Texas is a scary place.

1998 James Byrd Jr.

That's all I have to say.