Touching Photo: Ferguson Protest (I love this!)

[Gracie]

Ya know..when I read about that guy that ate that mexicans face in florida while high on whatever it was he was high on..I immediately thought of the black (oops, I said it again) dude in the storage bin way back when.
Just like ol Jesse Jackson said himself.....when walking down a street at night, a sigh of relief happens when the steps you hear behind you are from white folks walking.

 

[Mertex]

Anyone ever ask any black cops what their take on all of this Ferguson shit is? My guess is that they'd side with Wilson and the law. I know that doesn't jibe with left wing mob mentality media propaganda.

Link?

You want a link to a guess? What would that prove?

Just wanted to make sure that it was understood that you were pulling that guess out of your behind, and I guess I was right.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have no control over whether he was caught or not, emily. Preventing crime is all fine and dandy but criminals don't give a shit about what they do. The only ones trying to prevent crime are NON criminals.

Hi Gracie
What about requiring all citizens to sign agreements to uphold laws and respect due process. And agreeing to either pay restitution and costs of any crime committed,or receive treatment or therapy in advance if one has behavior or mental disorders. Or forfeit citizenship and trade places With an immigrant until restitition is worked off for premeditated crimes like rape or armed robbery and assault with weapons.

Would that deter crimes and boostvlaw enforcement if all citizens agreed and quit charging vcosts of crime to law abiding taxpayers to foot the bill.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Anyone ever ask any black cops what their take on all of this Ferguson shit is? My guess is that they'd side with Wilson and the law. I know that doesn't jibe with left wing mob mentality media propaganda.

Link?

You want a link to a guess? What would that prove?

Just wanted to make sure that it was understood that you were pulling that guess out of your behind, and I guess I was right.

Since you have nothing analytical to add you must be a democrat.
Back to the question; anyone ask any black cops what their take on this Ferguson shit is?

 

[Mertex]

Anyone ever ask any black cops what their take on all of this Ferguson shit is? My guess is that they'd side with Wilson and the law. I know that doesn't jibe with left wing mob mentality media propaganda.

Link?

You want a link to a guess? What would that prove?

Just wanted to make sure that it was understood that you were pulling that guess out of your behind, and I guess I was right.

Since you have nothing analytical to add you must be a democrat.
Back to the question; anyone ask any black cops what their take on this Ferguson shit is?

Since you continue to ask feckless questions, you must be an extreme right-wing tea wad.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Anyone ever ask any black cops what their take on all of this Ferguson shit is? My guess is that they'd side with Wilson and the law. I know that doesn't jibe with left wing mob mentality media propaganda.

Link?

You want a link to a guess? What would that prove?

Just wanted to make sure that it was understood that you were pulling that guess out of your behind, and I guess I was right.

Since you have nothing analytical to add you must be a democrat.
Back to the question; anyone ask any black cops what their take on this Ferguson shit is?

Since you continue to ask feckless questions, you must be an extreme right-wing tea wad.

More proof that you are an analysis-challenged lefty. Objectivity that doesn't jibe with your lefty conditioning defaults to right wing extremism for you.
The question is totally legit. Since the story has been framed as white cop/black youth, what is the take of the average black cop?

 

[Roadrunner]

He didn't get caught. He just found a new nest, I presume.

I don't get WHY it is so hard to understand that if a criminal threatens someone with possible death (depends on the frame of mind of the criminal and nobody knows whats in his head, do they), they are stopped with lethal force BEFORE they kill YOU, that its a bad thing. It just flat out amazes me.

Next time a cop stops you, slap him. Then wrestle for his gun. Call him a ***** too, while you're at it. See what happens.

Be sure to dare him to shoot you too.

That is what smart college bound people do.

 

[emilynghiem]

Link?

You want a link to a guess? What would that prove?

Just wanted to make sure that it was understood that you were pulling that guess out of your behind, and I guess I was right.

Since you have nothing analytical to add you must be a democrat.
Back to the question; anyone ask any black cops what their take on this Ferguson shit is?

Since you continue to ask feckless questions, you must be an extreme right-wing tea wad.

More proof that you are an analysis-challenged lefty. Objectivity that doesn't jibe with your lefty conditioning defaults to right wing extremism for you.
The question is totally legit. Since the story has been framed as white cop/black youth, what is the take of the average black cop?

I am guessing mutual sympathy and wanting to prevent recurrences.

I Dont know anyone, white black cop civilian, who wouldnt prefer this be prevented in the first place.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You want a link to a guess? What would that prove?

Just wanted to make sure that it was understood that you were pulling that guess out of your behind, and I guess I was right.

Since you have nothing analytical to add you must be a democrat.
Back to the question; anyone ask any black cops what their take on this Ferguson shit is?

Since you continue to ask feckless questions, you must be an extreme right-wing tea wad.

More proof that you are an analysis-challenged lefty. Objectivity that doesn't jibe with your lefty conditioning defaults to right wing extremism for you.
The question is totally legit. Since the story has been framed as white cop/black youth, what is the take of the average black cop?

I am guessing mutual sympathy and wanting to prevent recurrences.

I Dont know anyone, white black cop civilian, who wouldnt prefer this be prevented in the first place.

I don't disagree with that. I'm curious about the take of black cops on the actual incident and not the emotion.

 

[Flopper]

I have no control over whether he was caught or not, emily. Preventing crime is all fine and dandy but criminals don't give a shit about what they do. The only ones trying to prevent crime are NON criminals.

Hi Gracie
What about requiring all citizens to sign agreements to uphold laws and respect due process. And agreeing to either pay restitution and costs of any crime committed,or receive treatment or therapy in advance if one has behavior or mental disorders. Or forfeit citizenship and trade places With an immigrant until restitition is worked off for premeditated crimes like rape or armed robbery and assault with weapons.

Would that deter crimes and boostvlaw enforcement if all citizens agreed and quit charging vcosts of crime to law abiding taxpayers to foot the bill.

And exactly how do you legally require that all citizens sign agreements to uphold laws and respect due process?

 

[JFK_USA]

Great picture. If we all could reach out to people and realize that they are people (the biggest problem with racists) and all have their fears and needs to be heard. If we just made that simple gesture of "hello" and "how at you doing" and learning that not everyone is always good or always bad just because of their skin color, job, religion or political party, things might become gray but it will help better understand our own world and bring us closer to world peace.

But hey that's just crazy talk right?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Flopper: Thank you for asking.

And exactly how do you legally require that all citizens sign agreements to uphold laws and respect due process?

Each community or district can choose to opt in and write their own local ordinance so it is completely democratic and by consensus/consent of the governed residence.

Some campuses already have "in house" policies on signed consent forms before engaging in sexual relations. If the residents agree to that, they have the right to enforce it by whatever they all agreed worked to prevent rape or abuses. People who don't agree don't have to go to school there, if that is their policy.

I could see whole cities adopting some ordinance and letting districts opt in.
So there is agreement between their local police and the community residents what the procedures are. I think this is especially important in areas with trafficking, prostitution, drugs, etc. People have to agree what the policies are, so these can be enforced consistently and keep people out who think they have the right to practice things others do not want in their neighborhoods.

I would even encourage tax breaks for districts that drop their crime rates, by having all residents agree to pay their own costs if they commit any crimes, so this money goes into schools instead of prisons. People could get very creative with restitution requirements, and there are already RICO laws in place where property abused to traffic drugs or people can be claimed as restitution for the victims. This law isn't enforced unless people know it.

Here are the minimal laws I would recommend people agree to follow and to report violations:
ethics-commission.net
* The Bill of Rights plus Fourteenth Amendment (under Free exercise of religion, people can cite any other religious or political beliefs they want to defend under the Constitution)
* The Code of Ethics for Govt Service
* The local police mission statement, here I cited the HPD which says wonderful things about "resolving problems through enforcing laws not imposing judgment or punishment"
"actively involving citizens in all aspects of policing" "Democratic principles embodied in our Constitution" and "preserve peace, reduce fear, create a safe environment" and improving "quality of life"

Here is the model campus plan i would propose to build around all school communities to train residents to manage and become self-governing: http www.houstonprogressive.org

here is the applied version of this campus plan to end trafficking by converting factories into schools, prisons into criminal treatment and health centers for prevention, correction, and restitution while still detaining them securely, and developing the border to be manageable communities, including prisons guarded by military presence on the border: Earned Amnesty

So anyone can take this campus model and apply it to existing facilities or programs in their community.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't disagree with that. I'm curious about the take of black cops on the actual incident and not the emotion.

Hi RoshawnMarkwees: I agree the only way to know is to ask. Maybe we will hear from all sides, just like we have not yet heard the conservative Latino who are not necessarily for amnesty while the media only focuses on ways to divide the sides.

But if the Black cops you ask weren't on the scene, what is there besides emotion they are answering with?
Are you going to compare the emotion or opinion of a Black cop who wasn't there with anyone else who was not there?
That's still playing on people's emotional reaction and not what happened directly if they weren't there.

========================================
If you are interested, I think a more telling case is how Joslyn Johnson responded to how her husband Rodney Johnson
was shot to death by a criminal deportee with a record who got life in prison instead of an automatic death penalty most people expected. Both Johnson's being Black officers with HPD at the time of the shooting.

Because she is still employed with HPD, she is not allowed to speak out publicly but only the PR and official Chief or spokepeople with Police are authorized to represent police.

All the police who wanted this criminal dead had to "suck in their gut" and couldn't protest this, even if they wanted to.
I believe Johnson was gracious about it because she is Christian and called to obedience. She doesn't speak about it publicly, but that is my guess. She has vocally rallied for safer laws requiring two officers on patrol at all times.
I assume whatever she says in public has to be approved by the police departments, and she sticks to the rules.

I have more respect for that woman, and regret that she cannot share publicly because I believe that would benefit many.

So it goes both ways. If the courts come out with a ruling that appears to THREATEN the sanctity of law enforcement,
the police still have to follow rules and not speak out on behalf of police who are enraged and aggrieved, as they were for Rodney Johnson.

I've seen the police patrolmen's union speak before City Council over civil matters. There are plenty of issues where the Constitution tells police one thing, and then the City as their employer make mandate some policy otherwise.

They try their best to "stand in solidarity" and that is also what the officer Bret Barnum cited in that article, that he supported solidarity with fellow police, even if he wasn't specifically for whatever Wilson did in that case.

After the Johnson case, which was one of the more extreme, I believe most officers who choose to stay employed take that route and try to fix the problems another way.

 

[Flopper]

Dear Flopper: Thank you for asking.

And exactly how do you legally require that all citizens sign agreements to uphold laws and respect due process?

Each community or district can choose to opt in and write their own local ordinance so it is completely democratic and by consensus/consent of the governed residence.

Some campuses already have "in house" policies on signed consent forms before engaging in sexual relations. If the residents agree to that, they have the right to enforce it by whatever they all agreed worked to prevent rape or abuses. People who don't agree don't have to go to school there, if that is their policy.

I could see whole cities adopting some ordinance and letting districts opt in.
So there is agreement between their local police and the community residents what the procedures are. I think this is especially important in areas with trafficking, prostitution, drugs, etc. People have to agree what the policies are, so these can be enforced consistently and keep people out who think they have the right to practice things others do not want in their neighborhoods.

I would even encourage tax breaks for districts that drop their crime rates, by having all residents agree to pay their own costs if they commit any crimes, so this money goes into schools instead of prisons. People could get very creative with restitution requirements, and there are already RICO laws in place where property abused to traffic drugs or people can be claimed as restitution for the victims. This law isn't enforced unless people know it.

Here are the minimal laws I would recommend people agree to follow and to report violations:
ethics-commission.net
* The Bill of Rights plus Fourteenth Amendment (under Free exercise of religion, people can cite any other religious or political beliefs they want to defend under the Constitution)
* The Code of Ethics for Govt Service
* The local police mission statement, here I cited the HPD which says wonderful things about "resolving problems through enforcing laws not imposing judgment or punishment"
"actively involving citizens in all aspects of policing" "Democratic principles embodied in our Constitution" and "preserve peace, reduce fear, create a safe environment" and improving "quality of life"

Here is the model campus plan i would propose to build around all school communities to train residents to manage and become self-governing: http www.houstonprogressive.org

here is the applied version of this campus plan to end trafficking by converting factories into schools, prisons into criminal treatment and health centers for prevention, correction, and restitution while still detaining them securely, and developing the border to be manageable communities, including prisons guarded by military presence on the border: Earned Amnesty

So anyone can take this campus model and apply it to existing facilities or programs in their community.

This sounds more like a pledge of abstinence. I can see how it would work as part a of an apartment lease or employment code of conduct. If you don't sign the agreement or break the agreement, then you lose the apartment or job but as a local ordnance, I don't think it would work. What legal penalty would there be if you didn't sign the agreement? It would also seem pretty hard to convict a person of violation of an agreement as general as to "uphold laws and respect due process". I think something like this might work if done through employers, landlords, and schools. However, I doubt it would have much effect on the really bad guys.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I don't disagree with that. I'm curious about the take of black cops on the actual incident and not the emotion.

Hi RoshawnMarkwees: I agree the only way to know is to ask. Maybe we will hear from all sides, just like we have not yet heard the conservative Latino who are not necessarily for amnesty while the media only focuses on ways to divide the sides.

But if the Black cops you ask weren't on the scene, what is there besides emotion they are answering with?
Are you going to compare the emotion or opinion of a Black cop who wasn't there with anyone else who was not there?
That's still playing on people's emotional reaction and not what happened directly if they weren't there.

========================================
If you are interested, I think a more telling case is how Joslyn Johnson responded to how her husband Rodney Johnson
was shot to death by a criminal deportee with a record who got life in prison instead of an automatic death penalty most people expected. Both Johnson's being Black officers with HPD at the time of the shooting.

Because she is still employed with HPD, she is not allowed to speak out publicly but only the PR and official Chief or spokepeople with Police are authorized to represent police.

All the police who wanted this criminal dead had to "suck in their gut" and couldn't protest this, even if they wanted to.
I believe Johnson was gracious about it because she is Christian and called to obedience. She doesn't speak about it publicly, but that is my guess. She has vocally rallied for safer laws requiring two officers on patrol at all times.
I assume whatever she says in public has to be approved by the police departments, and she sticks to the rules.

I have more respect for that woman, and regret that she cannot share publicly because I believe that would benefit many.

So it goes both ways. If the courts come out with a ruling that appears to THREATEN the sanctity of law enforcement,
the police still have to follow rules and not speak out on behalf of police who are enraged and aggrieved, as they were for Rodney Johnson.

I've seen the police patrolmen's union speak before City Council over civil matters. There are plenty of issues where the Constitution tells police one thing, and then the City as their employer make mandate some policy otherwise.

They try their best to "stand in solidarity" and that is also what the officer Bret Barnum cited in that article, that he supported solidarity with fellow police, even if he wasn't specifically for whatever Wilson did in that case.

After the Johnson case, which was one of the more extreme, I believe most officers who choose to stay employed take that route and try to fix the problems another way.

I was thinking in terms of black cops applying their perspective as cops to what evidence is available for public consumption. I would respect their take as a result of their experience. My guess is that it wouldn't jibe with what the race-hustling opportunist whores and democrat politicians want to hear.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Flopper: Thank you for asking.

And exactly how do you legally require that all citizens sign agreements to uphold laws and respect due process?

Each community or district can choose to opt in and write their own local ordinance so it is completely democratic and by consensus/consent of the governed residence.

Some campuses already have "in house" policies on signed consent forms before engaging in sexual relations. If the residents agree to that, they have the right to enforce it by whatever they all agreed worked to prevent rape or abuses. People who don't agree don't have to go to school there, if that is their policy.

I could see whole cities adopting some ordinance and letting districts opt in.
So there is agreement between their local police and the community residents what the procedures are. I think this is especially important in areas with trafficking, prostitution, drugs, etc. People have to agree what the policies are, so these can be enforced consistently and keep people out who think they have the right to practice things others do not want in their neighborhoods.

I would even encourage tax breaks for districts that drop their crime rates, by having all residents agree to pay their own costs if they commit any crimes, so this money goes into schools instead of prisons. People could get very creative with restitution requirements, and there are already RICO laws in place where property abused to traffic drugs or people can be claimed as restitution for the victims. This law isn't enforced unless people know it.

Here are the minimal laws I would recommend people agree to follow and to report violations:
ethics-commission.net
* The Bill of Rights plus Fourteenth Amendment (under Free exercise of religion, people can cite any other religious or political beliefs they want to defend under the Constitution)
* The Code of Ethics for Govt Service
* The local police mission statement, here I cited the HPD which says wonderful things about "resolving problems through enforcing laws not imposing judgment or punishment"
"actively involving citizens in all aspects of policing" "Democratic principles embodied in our Constitution" and "preserve peace, reduce fear, create a safe environment" and improving "quality of life"

Here is the model campus plan i would propose to build around all school communities to train residents to manage and become self-governing: http www.houstonprogressive.org

here is the applied version of this campus plan to end trafficking by converting factories into schools, prisons into criminal treatment and health centers for prevention, correction, and restitution while still detaining them securely, and developing the border to be manageable communities, including prisons guarded by military presence on the border: Earned Amnesty

So anyone can take this campus model and apply it to existing facilities or programs in their community.

This sounds more like a pledge of abstinence. I can see how it would work as part a of an apartment lease or employment code of conduct. If you don't sign the agreement or break the agreement, then you lose the apartment or job but as a local ordnance, I don't think it would work. What legal penalty would there be if you didn't sign the agreement? It would also seem pretty hard to convict a person of violation of an agreement as general as to "uphold laws and respect due process". I think something like this might work if done through employers, landlords, and schools. However, I doubt it would have much effect on the really bad guys.

Hi Flopper. All the residents would agree to sign that agreement to live in that District that adopts it.

And anyone who doesn't agree can't live there. So all the Districts who adopt this will screen out people who refuse to sign agreements to abide by laws and to pay for costs they incur, and this will eventually lead to organizing all such people under programs that can handle and manage those populations such as a campus community or district set up for that. Like turning entire prisons into community programs where people can get the help they need to stabilize within a safe environment designed to work with those type of issues, whether mental or criminal illness, or restitution owed for past abuses. NOT letting such people loose into cities to try to figure it out on their own, which is what is happening now.

So everyone is screened in advance, if that is part of the agreement. This would reduce crime and weed out people who are criminally ill or have behavior issues that require supervision or treatment as part of the agreement.

This is similar to applying to schools and making sure every member is approved by a program and agrees to the rules.
So everyone will be matched up to employers, schools and community districts built around them where they share equal responsibility for managing the district to be free of crime and abuses, and to seek restitution and corrections if they occur.

[I would recommend a legal sponsor for anyone who is not able to pay for damages or crimes they may cause, similar to how parents are the legal guardians for minors not yet legally responsible.Everyone should have a sponsor or accept responsibility themselves to be a citizen with privileges. if you want due process and defense in court, you ahve to agree to respect due process, work with authorities, and not obstruct justice or you could have your citizenship revoked if that is what people agreed to as the law. Or the financial agreement can be done through insurance, as it is with cars, as some govt officials have insurance to cover costs if something goes wrong. if people in a district AGREE to this, then it can be set up within the bounds of laws, although laws on decriminalization of drugs would require state or federal changes as well.]

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't disagree with that. I'm curious about the take of black cops on the actual incident and not the emotion.

Hi RoshawnMarkwees: I agree the only way to know is to ask. Maybe we will hear from all sides, just like we have not yet heard the conservative Latino who are not necessarily for amnesty while the media only focuses on ways to divide the sides.

But if the Black cops you ask weren't on the scene, what is there besides emotion they are answering with?
Are you going to compare the emotion or opinion of a Black cop who wasn't there with anyone else who was not there?
That's still playing on people's emotional reaction and not what happened directly if they weren't there.

========================================
If you are interested, I think a more telling case is how Joslyn Johnson responded to how her husband Rodney Johnson
was shot to death by a criminal deportee with a record who got life in prison instead of an automatic death penalty most people expected. Both Johnson's being Black officers with HPD at the time of the shooting.

Because she is still employed with HPD, she is not allowed to speak out publicly but only the PR and official Chief or spokepeople with Police are authorized to represent police.

All the police who wanted this criminal dead had to "suck in their gut" and couldn't protest this, even if they wanted to.
I believe Johnson was gracious about it because she is Christian and called to obedience. She doesn't speak about it publicly, but that is my guess. She has vocally rallied for safer laws requiring two officers on patrol at all times.
I assume whatever she says in public has to be approved by the police departments, and she sticks to the rules.

I have more respect for that woman, and regret that she cannot share publicly because I believe that would benefit many.

So it goes both ways. If the courts come out with a ruling that appears to THREATEN the sanctity of law enforcement,
the police still have to follow rules and not speak out on behalf of police who are enraged and aggrieved, as they were for Rodney Johnson.

I've seen the police patrolmen's union speak before City Council over civil matters. There are plenty of issues where the Constitution tells police one thing, and then the City as their employer make mandate some policy otherwise.

They try their best to "stand in solidarity" and that is also what the officer Bret Barnum cited in that article, that he supported solidarity with fellow police, even if he wasn't specifically for whatever Wilson did in that case.

After the Johnson case, which was one of the more extreme, I believe most officers who choose to stay employed take that route and try to fix the problems another way.

I was thinking in terms of black cops applying their perspective as cops to what evidence is available for public consumption. I would respect their take as a result of their experience. My guess is that it wouldn't jibe with what the race-hustling opportunist whores and democrat politicians want to hear.

Now that's a good idea, to have diverse consultants meet and manage the information and media/PR so it doesn't get spun out of control. Good thinking!

I think it would help to have the community leaders and members come to agreement on this.
Though sometimes mediation works best when it is kept private.

But as soon as they could issue public joint statements, and have a process for working things out,
I think they should share that so more people follow that good example. I like your idea and could see them
working with all people and resources necessary to rebuild a sense of community and not let negativity interfere.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I don't disagree with that. I'm curious about the take of black cops on the actual incident and not the emotion.

Hi RoshawnMarkwees: I agree the only way to know is to ask. Maybe we will hear from all sides, just like we have not yet heard the conservative Latino who are not necessarily for amnesty while the media only focuses on ways to divide the sides.

But if the Black cops you ask weren't on the scene, what is there besides emotion they are answering with?
Are you going to compare the emotion or opinion of a Black cop who wasn't there with anyone else who was not there?
That's still playing on people's emotional reaction and not what happened directly if they weren't there.

========================================
If you are interested, I think a more telling case is how Joslyn Johnson responded to how her husband Rodney Johnson
was shot to death by a criminal deportee with a record who got life in prison instead of an automatic death penalty most people expected. Both Johnson's being Black officers with HPD at the time of the shooting.

Because she is still employed with HPD, she is not allowed to speak out publicly but only the PR and official Chief or spokepeople with Police are authorized to represent police.

All the police who wanted this criminal dead had to "suck in their gut" and couldn't protest this, even if they wanted to.
I believe Johnson was gracious about it because she is Christian and called to obedience. She doesn't speak about it publicly, but that is my guess. She has vocally rallied for safer laws requiring two officers on patrol at all times.
I assume whatever she says in public has to be approved by the police departments, and she sticks to the rules.

I have more respect for that woman, and regret that she cannot share publicly because I believe that would benefit many.

So it goes both ways. If the courts come out with a ruling that appears to THREATEN the sanctity of law enforcement,
the police still have to follow rules and not speak out on behalf of police who are enraged and aggrieved, as they were for Rodney Johnson.

I've seen the police patrolmen's union speak before City Council over civil matters. There are plenty of issues where the Constitution tells police one thing, and then the City as their employer make mandate some policy otherwise.

They try their best to "stand in solidarity" and that is also what the officer Bret Barnum cited in that article, that he supported solidarity with fellow police, even if he wasn't specifically for whatever Wilson did in that case.

After the Johnson case, which was one of the more extreme, I believe most officers who choose to stay employed take that route and try to fix the problems another way.

I was thinking in terms of black cops applying their perspective as cops to what evidence is available for public consumption. I would respect their take as a result of their experience. My guess is that it wouldn't jibe with what the race-hustling opportunist whores and democrat politicians want to hear.

Now that's a good idea, to have diverse consultants meet and manage the information and media/PR so it doesn't get spun out of control. Good thinking!

I think it would help to have the community leaders and members come to agreement on this.
Though sometimes mediation works best when it is kept private.

But as soon as they could issue public joint statements, and have a process for working things out,
I think they should share that so more people follow that good example. I like your idea and could see them
working with all people and resources necessary to rebuild a sense of community and not let negativity interfere.

I just submitted that suggestion to the National Black Police Association.

 

[Flopper]

Dear Flopper: Thank you for asking.

And exactly how do you legally require that all citizens sign agreements to uphold laws and respect due process?

Each community or district can choose to opt in and write their own local ordinance so it is completely democratic and by consensus/consent of the governed residence.

Some campuses already have "in house" policies on signed consent forms before engaging in sexual relations. If the residents agree to that, they have the right to enforce it by whatever they all agreed worked to prevent rape or abuses. People who don't agree don't have to go to school there, if that is their policy.

I could see whole cities adopting some ordinance and letting districts opt in.
So there is agreement between their local police and the community residents what the procedures are. I think this is especially important in areas with trafficking, prostitution, drugs, etc. People have to agree what the policies are, so these can be enforced consistently and keep people out who think they have the right to practice things others do not want in their neighborhoods.

I would even encourage tax breaks for districts that drop their crime rates, by having all residents agree to pay their own costs if they commit any crimes, so this money goes into schools instead of prisons. People could get very creative with restitution requirements, and there are already RICO laws in place where property abused to traffic drugs or people can be claimed as restitution for the victims. This law isn't enforced unless people know it.

Here are the minimal laws I would recommend people agree to follow and to report violations:
ethics-commission.net
* The Bill of Rights plus Fourteenth Amendment (under Free exercise of religion, people can cite any other religious or political beliefs they want to defend under the Constitution)
* The Code of Ethics for Govt Service
* The local police mission statement, here I cited the HPD which says wonderful things about "resolving problems through enforcing laws not imposing judgment or punishment"
"actively involving citizens in all aspects of policing" "Democratic principles embodied in our Constitution" and "preserve peace, reduce fear, create a safe environment" and improving "quality of life"

Here is the model campus plan i would propose to build around all school communities to train residents to manage and become self-governing: http www.houstonprogressive.org

here is the applied version of this campus plan to end trafficking by converting factories into schools, prisons into criminal treatment and health centers for prevention, correction, and restitution while still detaining them securely, and developing the border to be manageable communities, including prisons guarded by military presence on the border: Earned Amnesty

So anyone can take this campus model and apply it to existing facilities or programs in their community.

This sounds more like a pledge of abstinence. I can see how it would work as part a of an apartment lease or employment code of conduct. If you don't sign the agreement or break the agreement, then you lose the apartment or job but as a local ordnance, I don't think it would work. What legal penalty would there be if you didn't sign the agreement? It would also seem pretty hard to convict a person of violation of an agreement as general as to "uphold laws and respect due process". I think something like this might work if done through employers, landlords, and schools. However, I doubt it would have much effect on the really bad guys.

Hi Flopper. All the residents would agree to sign that agreement to live in that District that adopts it.

And anyone who doesn't agree can't live there. So all the Districts who adopt this will screen out people who refuse to sign agreements to abide by laws and to pay for costs they incur, and this will eventually lead to organizing all such people under programs that can handle and manage those populations such as a campus community or district set up for that. Like turning entire prisons into community programs where people can get the help they need to stabilize within a safe environment designed to work with those type of issues, whether mental or criminal illness, or restitution owed for past abuses. NOT letting such people loose into cities to try to figure it out on their own, which is what is happening now.

So everyone is screened in advance, if that is part of the agreement. This would reduce crime and weed out people who are criminally ill or have behavior issues that require supervision or treatment as part of the agreement.

This is similar to applying to schools and making sure every member is approved by a program and agrees to the rules.
So everyone will be matched up to employers, schools and community districts built around them where they share equal responsibility for managing the district to be free of crime and abuses, and to seek restitution and corrections if they occur.

[I would recommend a legal sponsor for anyone who is not able to pay for damages or crimes they may cause, similar to how parents are the legal guardians for minors not yet legally responsible.Everyone should have a sponsor or accept responsibility themselves to be a citizen with privileges. if you want due process and defense in court, you ahve to agree to respect due process, work with authorities, and not obstruct justice or you could have your citizenship revoked if that is what people agreed to as the law. Or the financial agreement can be done through insurance, as it is with cars, as some govt officials have insurance to cover costs if something goes wrong. if people in a district AGREE to this, then it can be set up within the bounds of laws, although laws on decriminalization of drugs would require state or federal changes as well.]

Although I think it might be a good idea, I don't think it would make it through the courts. How they ban a person from living in a municipality when he's nothing wrong when they can't ban felons and sex offenders?

 

[Theowl32]

Yes, we are better people than what happened in Ferguson and those images prove it. Beneath our skins we share our common humanity. A little empathy and compassion go a long way.

99.9% of America did not riot over due process of law.

I didn't riot either but that doesn't mean that I am not appalled about the travesty of "justice" that was perpetrated by the Ferguson prosecutor. I am not alone either.

Well, write Obama and Holder and demand a show trial.

In the meantime, I respect the jury system, about the only part of the system I do trust.

Except that it wasn't a genuine jury trial. There was no judge, no opposing counsel, no presentation of an alternative explanation of the evidence, no cross examination.

So what you "trust" was the farcical "show trial"!

It was a grand jury, part of due process of law.

If you do not understand the purpose of the grand jury, and do not think a grand jury is a "genuine" jury, you should take Civics I, and STFU in the meantime.

The same people mind you that cry due process for those who carried out and planned 911.