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

[Ana the Ist]

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

A gun without a badge carries no authority.

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

Agreed.

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.

Right, if he's acting in an illegal nature that is potentially dangerous.

"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.

I'm sure it was....I just don't agree with your opinion of mob rule or corruption.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

That's fine.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

That's like saying his job has no ethical obligations.

I can't think of any job with no ethical obligations....perhaps moreso for a public servant. There is an ethically correct way to do his job.

 

[Go Braves]

A state senator threatening to kill state troopers. Crazy.

Oregon Republican senator threatens state troopers, warns them to ‘come heavily armed’

Tensions were already smoldering in the Oregon Senate Wednesday, when Sen. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, poured gasoline on the situation, suggesting he would shoot and potentially kill any state trooper sent to haul him unwillingly back to the Capitol.

“Send bachelors and come heavily armed. I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It’s just that simple.”

Oregon Republican senator threatens state troopers, warns them to ‘come heavily armed’

This is Brian Boquist:

Senator of Fortune

Though that's from a few years back. He's got a gray beard now.

 

[Radagast]

That's like saying his job has no ethical obligations.

No, I'm saying that the ethical obligations are judged by (1) the senator's own conscience and (2) the voters.

If the Governor or President can sack senators, you might as well not have senators at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I'm saying that the ethical obligations are judged by (1) the senator's own conscience and (2) the voters.

That would imply that ethics are entirely subjective and defined by the various and arguably conflicting opinions of different people...at different times...and not by the job he does.

That's not ethics by any understanding of it I know.

If the Governor or President can sack senators, you might as well not have senators at all.

Well that seems like a mischaracterization of what I said. I'm talking about someone refusing to do a job.

 

[Sparagmos]

Really? Can someone be arrested if no crime is involved?

From what the police have said, they seem pretty clear that they have no authority to arrest any senators.



It would seem to, but it's certainly not spelled out in the constitution.

If the officer compels you to do something and you refuse, then they can arrest you. Like being brought in for questioning. You have to go with them.

 

[Radagast]

That would imply that ethics are entirely subjective

Not really.

I'm talking about someone refusing to do a job.

So am I and I'm saying that the people who ultimately decide are the people who appointed him to the job -- i.e. the voters.

 

[Radagast]

If the officer compels you to do something and you refuse, then they can arrest you.

Only if it's a "lawful order."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not really.

Of course it is.

So am I and I'm saying that the people who ultimately decide are the people who appointed him to the job -- i.e. the voters.

And what I'm saying is that isn't a code of ethics....it's not even a code. It's an excuse to get away with whatever you can get away with.

Let's say the senator repeatedly breaks the law and doesn't get caught....therefore the voters don't remove him. According to the "ethics" you just described, that's acceptable, because the voters didn't remove him.

Obviously that's not a code of ethics.

Edit- Maybe it would help to put it another way....

Imagine we're talking about a customer service job....would "anything is acceptable as long as you don't get fired" be a code of ethics? If you were in some other public service job....would any behavior be acceptable as long as you don't get fired/removed?

The short answer is no....that's ridiculous. The bare minimum ethical code for any job would have to include showing up to do your job...and this guy isn't even doing that.

 

[Radagast]

Maybe it would help to put it another way....

Maybe.

Imagine we're talking about a customer service job....would "anything is acceptable as long as you don't get fired" be a code of ethics?

There's a miscommunication here, and I'm not sure what. But let me try again:

• the senator and the employee have a personal code of ethics, which may be good or bad
• the senator and the employee are held to an external code of ethics, which may be good or bad, by the person(s) who gave them the job (which is the voters in the case of the senator, and the boss in the case of the employee)
• the person(s) who gave them the job can fire them for breaching the code of ethics (or not, as the case may be)

But it's an important point that senators don't work for the Governor or President, and the Governor or President cannot fire them.

 

[DanishLutheran]

This thread is about an elected official threatening to kill state troopers. What do you think about that?

How, exactly, is it any different from how your "founding fathers" actually dealt with other troopers over a comparatively minor issue?

And admit it: If this had been a democrat saying something along the same lines regarding a republican power grab of the same nature, you'd have been defending him/her/chopperself as "brave", "courageous", etc.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Nope, DL, I don't think most Dems would be defending him if he were Dem.

 

[DanishLutheran]

Nope, DL, I don't think most Dems would be defending him if he were Dem.

I would like to believe you're right. However, I stopped believing in the tooth fairy as well, at least two and a half decades ago.

 

[variant]

But, as I understand it, the Oregon Constitution doesn't spell out what "compel" means.

Oregon has used State Troopers this way before, but it seems unlikely to me that the original intent was to use deadly force on absent senators. If a senator responded to deadly force in kind, it might well constitute legal self-defence.

To compel is to force someone to do something. It doesn't need to be defined here.

Sending law enforcement to compel someone to appear someplace is going to be legal.

Responding to a law enforcement officer trying to compel your presence somewhere with deadly force is going to be illegal.

Only the senator has threatened deadly force here.

 

[Hank77]

If the officer compels you to do something and you refuse, then they can arrest you. Like being brought in for questioning. You have to go with them.

They can't arrest you for not agreeing to let them search your vehicle.

 

[Hank77]

Like being brought in for questioning. You have to go with them.

No you don't. They have to arrest you first. To arrest you they have to have evidence, probable cause, that you have committed a crime. Not submitting to questioning is not a crime.

 

[Sparagmos]

Only if it's a "lawful order."

Yes, and it is a lawful order.

 

[Sparagmos]

They can't arrest you for not agreeing to let them search your vehicle.

That is because you have a right to refuse a search.

 

[Sparagmos]

No you don't. They have to arrest you first. To arrest you they have to have evidence, probable cause, that you have committed a crime. Not submitting to questioning is not a crime.

I thought that the police could compel people to be brought in for questioning. If that is not true, I simp,y used the wrong example.