Oregon GOP Senator to State Police “Send bachelors and come heavily armed”

[JacobKStarkey]

As I understand it, he was talking about resisting deadly force in kind.

You understood it wrongly. No where was anyone threatening him with deadly force. His threats consisted of an element of terrorism. NOW the state troopers can go in with all the force necessary to pick him up for THAT.

 

[Radagast]

You understood it wrongly. No where was anyone threatening him with deadly force.

I understand that at least the implicit threat had been made.

 

[Radagast]

The law states that the Oregon State Police can be used to enforce the regulations of other branches.
ORS 181.050 - Duty to enforce laws and regulations of agencies - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes and both houses have a Rule stating that they can compel the attendance of members, so it appears yes.

But "regulations," as I understand it, refers to things in the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation (OAR), which does not include compulsion of senators.

Also the senate is, as I understand it, not a "branch or department of the state government."

It should be easier than this. If they have to send police after you to bring you in to do your job....you should simply be removed from office.

But removing senators from office for doing their job poorly is entirely up to the voters. The senators don't answer to the governor, just as the US Senate doesn't answer to the White House.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But removing senators from office for doing their job poorly is entirely up to the voters. The senators don't answer to the governor, just as the US Senate doesn't answer to the White House.

Then I would consider that a flaw in the system....not a valid tactic to be exploited.

Can you agree that if both sides pursued this tactic on every issue...it would be no different from having no legislators or representation at all?

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Convince Trump of that!

All LEO authority inherently employs implicitly the threat of force. You can't resist an officer because he carries a gun. You have your lawyer take it up later.

As I understand it, one can only resist an officer if one is innocent and believes he is in danger of maiming or being killed even thought he complies with the law.

We did not have that problem in the town where I grew up a long time ago. The general feeling was that officers knew if they did the gestapo thing that their families were risk. Different times different ways.

 

[Radagast]

Then I would consider that a flaw in the system....

No doubt. But I'n Australian; I prefer the Westminster system.

Can you agree that if both sides pursued this tactic on every issue...it would be no different from having no legislators or representation at all?

As I said, it seems to be a proud American tradition going back at least to Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Convince Trump of that!

All LEO authority inherently employs implicitly the threat of force. You can't resist an officer because he carries a gun. You have your lawyer take it up later.

I'm going to have to disagree. You can't resist an officer because he's given authority to enforce the law....represented by his badge. We can remove his gun from the equation and the principle remains the same.

As I understand it, one can only resist an officer if one is innocent and believes he is in danger of maiming or being killed even thought he complies with the law.

Believing in your own innocence does not give one the right to resist an officer.

We did not have that problem in the town I grew up in a long time ago. The general feeling was that officers knew if they did the gestapo thing that their families were risk. Different times different ways.

That isn't justice....it's mob rule.

 

[Radagast]

All LEO authority inherently employs implicitly the threat of force.

Indeed.

You can't resist an officer because he carries a gun.

If the officer is carrying out an illegal act you probably can. If bullets start flying, the officers need to be argue after the fact that they had probable cause, an arrest warrant, or some other reason to act.

"The governor told me to pick up this man" doesn't seem to me to be sufficient reason. And the state troopers seem quite aware of that, which is why they're taking a "softly, softly" approach.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No doubt. But I'n Australian; I prefer the Westminster system.



As I said, it seems to be a proud American tradition going back at least to Abraham Lincoln.

I don't know what either of these references are lol.

Just keep in mind that I'm not talking about what he can do....I've got no idea about the legality of his abstinence from his job. It's not a very interesting question to me....we'll find out whether or not he can do this soon enough.

I'm simply talking about his ethical duty to his constituents and the state in general.

 

[Radagast]

I don't know what either of these references are lol.

2nd one -- Abraham Lincoln once, for similar reasons, once fled the (locked) Illinois capital building by jumping out of a second-story window.

1st one -- under the Westminster system used in the UK or Australia, the Queen (or her representative) has certain powers that do not exist in the US. It's a system that works well for us.

I'm simply talking about his ethical duty to his constituents and the state in general.

I agree that he has ethical duties to the voters.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

The badge and the gun are the same in that they are artifacts of the office.

The great majority of states now make resistance to LEO orders a criminal offense. Look it up.

Even if you think the officer is wrong, you must submit. The only exception is if one can prove he had a legitimate reason to believe the officer would maim or kill him even if submitted lawfully.

"Mob Rule" is ingrained in American culture as is corruption in law enforcement. In our town, a problem was quickly resolved with one action by a group of citizens.

 

[Radagast]

The great majority of states now make resistance to LEO orders a criminal offense. Look it up.

Feel free to quote some actual legislation. I'd be very surprised if it didn't say lawful orders.

For example, if an armed LEO attempts to rape somebody, the victim can use deadly force to defend themselves.

 

[Radagast]

I see that Oregon ORS 133.310 allows LEO to arrest without warrant only in very specific circumstances, such as when "the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any of the following:
(a) A felony.
(b) A misdemeanor.
(c) An unclassified offense for which the maximum penalty allowed by law is equal to or greater than the maximum penalty allowed for a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) Any other crime committed in the officer’s presence."

I don't think anything in ORS 133.310 would allow them to arrest the senator.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Feel free to quote some actual legislation. I'd be very surprised if it didn't say lawful orders. For example, if an armed LEO attempts to rape somebody, the victim can use deadly force to defend themselves.

You are arguing my case for me. You must comply with all orders unless there is significant danger of maiming or being killed. I am not going to do your learning curve: look it up.

 

[Arcangl86]

But "regulations," as I understand it, refers to things in the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation (OAR), which does not include compulsion of senators.

Also the senate is, as I understand it, not a "branch or department of the state government."



But removing senators from office for doing their job poorly is entirely up to the voters. The senators don't answer to the governor, just as the US Senate doesn't answer to the White House.

Branch in American political and legal usage means one of the three branches of the government, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. And notice how it says any regulations of such branches. The regulations that govern the Oregon Senate and House are their respective Rules.

 

[Radagast]

You are arguing my case for me. You must comply with all orders unless there is significant danger of maiming or being killed.

I'm saying you're wrong. One has to comply with lawful orders. While there is some ambiguity on what that means, the courts have been clear that it does not mean "any order at all."

I am not going to do your learning curve: look it up.

In other words, there is no evidence for your position.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree that he has ethical duties to the voters.

Do you think he can reasonably fulfill those duties by not showing up for work?

 

[Radagast]

And notice how it says any regulations of such branches.

AFAIK, "Regulations" in this context means the rules in the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation (OAR), which have the force of law.

I don't think compulsion of senators is included within that.

 

[Radagast]

Do you think he can reasonably fulfill those duties by not showing up for work?

It doesn't matter what I think. He can carry out his job as senator in any way that he feels best, and the voters will decide.

Abraham Lincoln carried out his job by jumping out of a window to escape the capitol building; he was rewarded with the presidency.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

I'm saying you're wrong. One has to comply with lawful orders. While there is some ambiguity on what that means, the courts have been clear that it does not mean "any order at all."



In other words, there is no evidence for your position.