This researchpost is a compilation of a number of responses I have given over the years, extended with a lot of new content and references. Until Voat adds some way to nest content, appendices are in the comments. Enjoy.
I don't understand the logic of voaters who apparently want a lawless society, but very likely would not want to personally be victims of unlawful force or violence.
You've (likely unknowingly) baked a false dichotomy into your question. More specifically, your question presupposes either a police force, or nothing to ensure law at all.
First, what you probably think of as the 'police' actually comprises a number of distinct groups with differing origins, that each have slowly scope-creeped until they blended with each other. For example, cities have 'police' proper, counties have sheriffs, states have troopers, feds have marshals, the Secret Service came from the Treasury, the IRS/ATF/DEA/BLM all have their own militarized 'police forces', etc. All of these have blended together where nobody can tell them apart anymore (scope creep from earlier).
Sheriffs are elected, and have always been so, and, as a result, they are naturally accountable to the county that elects them. Sheriffs in larger counties would have deputies to assist them. This is they way it's always been. This is the only law enforcement that has existed from the beginning. This is the only law enforcement that is (or was, in the past) directly accountable to the people who pay for them. This is the only police needed for a lawful society, and that is harmonious with society. None of the other 'police forces' are harmonious with society, and in some (possibly all - still researching) cases, they are actually unconstitutional.
Unlike any other 'police force', a Sheriff's relation to his county had natural checks and balances. For example, since the force was naturally small, the sheriff would actually have to go door-to-door and roust able-bodied men to assist the sheriff in large operations. Large operations against civilians like gun grabs, forced evacuation (a la Katrina), WACO, or the Bundy ranch couldn't have existed as it would need the support of the people - the people are largely self policing.
It extends further - originally, the police's authority to arrest came from the citizen's constitutional authority to arrest (modern propaganda reverses this). The citizen had full authority - a citizen could arrest a man, walk him down to the sheriffs office, and charge him with a crime. This is before 'the state' had their own lawyers (called district attorneys/prosecutors), and usurped a monopoly on justice (the 'how' is too long of a story for here). This is also where a lot of the corruption first snuck in.
The disarming of the people is nearly complete. Although not specifically forbidden, the mechanisms that allow a citizen to criminally charge another (bypassing the state entirely) are vestigal at this point (but not nonexistant - there are a few tests in the wild at the moment). Most of 'the state' cannot be charged anymore with anything (in any case, they won't charge themselves). Citizens' arrest rules vary widely and, even though on paper they are more lenient than for arrests made by law enforcement (regarding probable cause, anyway), police forces can never be held civilly or criminally liable for a wrongful arrest, excessive use of force, or for tort damages arising from the same. This is how they can make wrongful arrests without penalty, use excessive force without penalty, and, in extreme cases, kill the wrong people with no recourse at all (there are a ton of these - just search 'police shoot wrong house'/'police kill wrong man'/etc - nobody is ever accountable).
Dogsoldiertoo ago
Good summary. This has been a burr under my saddle for many years. I'm a 67 year old combat vet and I formerly worked for the sheriff's dept in my county as a deputy for several years. You are correct that a sheriff, because he is elected, is given the "power of arrest" by consent of the citizens. Constitutionally the sheriff position is the most powerful position in every county. A sheriff can, and many have, ordered federal law enforcement out of his county under threat of jail. This has included the FBI, ATF, USMS and the IRS. The only authority over a sheriff, besides the voters, is the governor and even he has hoops to jump through before he can fire a sheriff.
I'm fine with all of that, my beef comes with municpal police. Only incorporated cities have police departments. Unincorporated towns fall under the the sheriff's dept. So basically police work for a corporation. The police chief is politically appointed, not elected by the voters. Therefore the voters/citizens have no control over the police department.
My question has always been - Where do police get their power of arrest? It certainly isn't from the people. I have asked this question many times of people who should know, or you would think they should know. I've asked mayors, lawyers and even one police chief. I've gotten about as many different answers as the number of people I've asked. An American History professor I once asked just kind of smiled and said, "That's a question asked by many." Not much of an answer.
alele-opathic ago
I've never though to ask this before, but the question is enthralling. I have a 'hunch' on what I believe the answer will be, but I need to dig a bit deeper - I'll be back within the week with a summary of what I could dig up.
Dogsoldiertoo ago
Good deal! I'll be watching.
alele-opathic ago
A note on the state’s Monopoly on Violence:
The state has a Monopoly on Violence.
(((They've))) constructed it this way on purpose. If you have the ability to use violence against the state, their first priority will be to remove that ability. If they can't, their second priority will be to brutalize and demoralize you from ever using violence against the state.
We in the US fall into the second category, and our brutalization is called (((Shock and Awe))). Our officers[are trained on brutal violence literally from consultants from Israel (tons of possible cites for this, e.g. this one), the only other country that uses (((Shock and Awe))) against it's citizens.
This idea of asymmetric violence, where the government may use it on it’s citizens, but not reversed, dates back to 1919 and was invented by the Polish/Russian Jew (((Max Weber))). This is an important date for researching this topic, as it marks the date that (((they))) first began focusing on consolidating our right to violence in the state. Please see my other info comment for more on how their primary power (the power of arrest) is actually a corrupted version of the power of arrest that every American has.
alele-opathic ago
A note on 'Citizen's arrest':
There is no such thing as a Citizen's arrest. When police arrest you, they are exercising their powers as Citizens (not as police, as is commonly assumed) to place you under arrest. The very words "Citizen's arrest" convey an image 180 degrees opposed to the truth (see this note for more on the 180 degree rule).
The police/related forces are privileged in other areas though; arrests made by Citizens wearing police uniforms while on duty net them qualified immunity, which yields complete immunity from any results of their actions for any reason. A citizen, under the same circumstances, would be personally liable for e.g. false imprisonment/kidnapping if the arrest was later judged to be wrongful, wrongful death if the arrestee dies in his custody, etc.
That said, the same rules apply to both citizens and police (because the police are just using your powers of arrest, from earlier): Felonies require only probable cause, while misdemeanor offenses add an additional 'presence test', which means, in short, that you must have witnessed the Misdemeneanor as it occurred. Here is a list of citizen's arrest laws by state.
There is an ongoing war on the very concept of citizen's arrest, as it threatens the state's Monopoly on Violence. Please see my other info comment for more.
Check out this kike Paul Bergman on Citizens arrests: