Sheriff James A. Alderden, Larimer County, Colorado.Folks,
Okay, THIS is one of the reactions to "Choose this day whom you will serve.": An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement
Read the whole thing through before you react.
Mike
III
here.
Feds Versus Sheriff
First, let me state that the above title is somewhat of a misnomer. We are lucky in Larimer County and throughout Colorado that local law enforcement agencies, including the Sheriff's Office, are not in an adversarial relationship with our federal law enforcement agencies: FBI, DEA, ATF and others. We work cooperatively for the good of our community. The scenes often portrayed in movies show inept federal agents bullying the local CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) into submission and taking over an incident. In my thirty-seven year career, I have never seen that happen. Quite the opposite. The norm is for federal law enforcement officers to turn to local officials for assistance.
However, ignoring the facts, many constituents continue to fret about the "feds" coming in and forcing compliance with some federal mandates that maybe, perhaps, could, possibly, perchance someday happen. I am frequently questioned about what my position would be if that were to occur. My fellow Sheriffs have had the same questions posed to them.
I understand the concerns but feel they have been blown out of proportion. The federal government has brought much of this distrust on themselves. An FBI/OHS training course on Domestic Terrorism made the stupid statement that probable indicators of terrorists were bumper stickers that were anti-abortion, pro-religious, and anti United Nations. I don't have the bumper stickers, but by that definition, I'm a potential domestic terrorist. This is beyond stupid. I don't know what ivory tower genius put this out, but I don't know any federal law enforcement personnel who bought into this. Maybe OHS contracted with Ward Churchill to do their training syllabus!
S.773 proposed giving the White House power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet during a cyber-security emergency. It also required federal certification and licensing of "cyber-security professionals" for certain private sector systems and networks. If enacted, the White House was to periodically "map" private networks that are deemed critical and require those companies to share all requested information with the feds. "Cyber" was defined as Internet, telecommunications, computers and computer networks. I agree, this is scary.
At the state level, Massachusetts granted authority to the Health Department to declare a health emergency and require entry into premises, close, force evacuation, force decontamination, destroy material, and restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons.
In light of the swine flu epidemic (by the way, I must have missed it) there was talk of forced quarantines and forced vaccinations.
Then there is the always present concern about the confiscation of everyone's firearms. In my opinion, there aren't enough federal agents or military personnel to compel compliance with any such directive. Many of my constituents feel that the above described actions would be unconstitutional. I agree. They fear that federal agents will ignore their oath of office and engage in unconstitutional activities. I don't share that feeling and I don't think they would be any more likely to obey an illegal order than the brave men and women serving in our armed forces would. We have all taken an oath to support the Constitution. It would take a military force in order to muster enough personnel to enforce the edicts that the populace fears. I don't see our military personnel blindly following any such directive.
I am the first to agree that the President of the United States and the United States Congress have exceeded the authority granted to them in the Bill of Rights in terms of the Federal Reserve, the banking system, regulation of financial markets, and bailouts of favored companies. I too have deep concerns over where our country appears to be headed, but it will take an electorate more interested in the good of the country than in their entitlements to turn that tide. These issues are far beyond what any Sheriff is going to be able to address. However on the other issues, the Sheriff is the "Shire-gerafe," the guardian of the shire; the protector of the people. Sheriffs throughout Colorado take that responsibility very seriously.
I have met with a great many constituents and expressed my stance on these issues. My fellow Sheriffs as a group, be they Democrats or Republicans, feel as I do. I had the honor of hosting our County Sheriffs of Colorado Conference last fall and I addressed these issues and proposed a resolution to the membership. One-hundred percent of the members present (over 30 Sheriffs) supported the resolution but for some technical reasons we were not able to vote on the measure. The decision was made that instead of putting this out as a position of the association, individual Sheriffs should sign on.
After an email I received this morning I think it is more important than ever for Sheriffs to reaffirm their oath and position. Consider the following excerpts from a blog, "Choose this day whom you will serve.": An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement
Respect for duly constituted authority is, as every cop knows, at an all-time low. There are two eneral reasons for this, one systemic and the other so personal that if you look yourselves honestly in the mirror you can see it.
When the law-abiding rightfully no longer trust the law enforcers and begin to view them as a class of criminals merely acting under color of law, anarchy is not far away.
My friend and fellow gun rights blogger ... has a description for feral cops. He calls them the “Only Ones.” His daily blog is filled to overflowing with example of rogue cops, their partners who never rein them in and the prosecutors and judges who find reasons to go easy on even the most heinous of criminals with badges.
Everyone knows what happens to honest cops who “rat out” their uniformed criminal associates. They are hounded, despised, disciplined and shunned -- and that’s on a good day.
There is another image that many of you can see in the mirror if you choose to take an honest look -- that of tax collector and nanny state bully boy.
But worse than all that is the militarization of the police -- in equipment, tactics and, worst of all, attitude -- and the federalization of all law enforcement over the past forty years, but especially in the last ten.
... local law enforcement is looked upon by federal agents as force multipliers and willing stooges -- “local yokels” in their parlance. And as a mark of how successful their campaign has been, many local law enforcement officers agree and happily lick the boots that kick them.
Katrina showed us many things. It showed that in a disaster many cops will look to their families and not the public duty, leaving their fellow law enforcement officers with an even greater burden. It showed us that cops can be opportunistic criminals as well, partaking in looting with as much energy as professional criminals.
When a policeman pulls over a driver whose computer record shows not only the driver’s license of the vehicle’s owner, but the fact that they have a concealed carry permit, it is too often SOP for the cop to approach the vehicle, gun drawn, order the man or woman from the car, put them on their knees and cuff them before anything else transpires. These are not the acts of public servants but rather of an occupying army.
It is important to remember, Mr. and Ms. Law Enforcement Officer, that you need us, the law-abiding armed citizenry, one hell of a lot more than we need you.
Wow. This post if from Alabama, but there are people in our community who have the same misguided opinions. To them it probably won't matter, but the following is the resolution presented to CSOC modified to be specific to the Larimer County Sheriff:
Reaffirmation of our Oath Related to the Office of Sheriff in the State of Colorado
Colorado Sheriffs take an oath to uphold, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado. Constituents have expressed concerns to the Sheriffs of Colorado regarding perceived Federal usurpation of State authority in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Citizens have inquired whether the Sheriffs would protect their individual freedoms as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Concerns of overreaching Federal authority include but are not limited to health emergencies; ensuing forced vaccinations, entry and seizure of residences by health officials; declared cyber emergencies, affecting seizure of private companies, internet, telecommunications, computers and networks; and ultimately the confiscation of firearms.
Colorado Sheriffs generally enjoy a close and valued relationship with Federal law enforcement agencies. Since the events of September 11, 2001, communication between federal agencies and local law enforcement has vastly improved. Colorado Sheriffs are not party to any plans related to the concerns expressed by our citizenry as identified above or aware of any specific Federal plans that would impact Colorado. However, Sheriffs recognize potential changes in power and structures appearing as an unwelcomed encroaching arm of Federal government. The Sheriffs of Colorado are elected to protect the people's freedoms, preserving local control; enforce the law; serve the citizens; protect the rights of individuals; and foremost uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Colorado. The United States Supreme Court determined in Mack/Printz v US that the "Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program….." and further "that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction" (The Oyez Project, Printz v United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1478).
Therefore, be it resolved that the Larimer County Sheriff, an elected office, will uphold the Constitution of the United States and Colorado, thwarting Federal overreach of government and protecting citizens from same;
That regarding cyber emergencies or communications through the internet or airwaves, the Larimer County Sheriff will uphold and protect Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution - the right of the people to free speech, press, and to assemble peaceably;
That regarding firearms confiscation, the Larimer Sheriff will uphold and protect Amendment 2 of the United States Constitution - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms and that it shall not be infringed;
That regarding the seizure or destruction of residences, the Larimer Sheriff will uphold and protect Amendment 4 of the United States Constitution - the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized;
That regarding forced vaccinations or quarantines, the Larimer County Sheriff will uphold and protect Amendment 10 of the United States of the Constitution - the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people;
That the Larimer County Sheriff will protect its citizens against unlawful and unconstitutional actions by any authority.
James A. Alderden
Larimer County Sheriff
17 comments:
from many drops of water, comes a great flood.
The sheriffs response seems reasonable at first look, but he could have made better choices in what he quoted from your letter, IMO.
And where was that picture taken? at a H.S. football game?
well, if larimer county doesn't have the problems that it seems the entire eastern seaboard has, then more power to them. that is wonderful news.
but, i don't see how that puts the sheriff in a position to comment on it by way of referring to his personal experiences alone. i would ask him to speak to more sheriffs around the country, first.
Sheriff says, "I don't share that feeling and I don't think they would be any more likely to obey an illegal order than the brave men and women serving in our armed forces would. We have all taken an oath to support the Constitution. It would take a military force in order to muster enough personnel to enforce the edicts that the populace fears. I don't see our military personnel blindly following any such directive."
I guess he missed the Katrina confiscations? Not likely. Looks like another elected politician mouthing the words he needs to at the moment, while planning to cover his own ass under any circumstance.
I hope I am wrong. Time will tell.
In the event of the second coming of Hitler, this man will stop short of joining the most-elite shock troops. In the real-world current events of SWAT team dynamic entries run amok, asset forfeiture, looming national bankruptcy, and the strangling by regulation of every productive enterprise, this man will support the status quo.
Will he, today, arrest anyone involved with guns who follows only the law of "shall not be infringed"? Will he, today, arrest people who move large sums of cash and coin around without filling out money laundering and tax withholding forms? Will he, today, arrest techies who assemble their own Internet segments from WiFi hardware and sell service on it, without keeping activity logs or knowing their customers? Will he, tomorrow, arrest doctors who sell their services for cash at free market prices?
Maybe you should ask him again if he understood the question.
No "war on drugs" in Colorado? Hmmmm... Oh, and don't try to open carry anywhere around Denver.
This resolution sounds good in theory, but a closer examination of the facts shows that the rights of ordinary people ARE being violated each and every day by the "law enforcement" folks in Colorado and everywhere else.
Depends a lot on the definition of " the law." Or "constitutional."
Andrew here.
The sheriff's reaction to Mr.Vanderboegh's letter:
"Wow. This post if [sic] from Alabama, but there are people in our community who have the same misguided opinions..."
Wow. Does he bury his head in the sand?
Fellow III percenters:
A while back I made the decision to stop sitting on the sidelines and join the campaign to rid ourselves and this great nation of the jackbooted thugs, the anonymous bureaucrats, the mandates from unelected federal “officials”.
A little background on who Walter is and why you should at least listen to what I’m saying might be helpful: In 196, I was drafted into the US Army, went through basic and AIT and was sent to Germany to guard special “stuff”. Well, there was a war going on and I was determined to get into the fight, so I volunteered to go to Vietnam. My wish was granted and Ii found myself in Vietnam (RVN) in November of that year. I fought with the 1st Cavalry Division in the central highlands and on the coastal plain in the province where Ho Chi Minh was born. Along with other troopers, I fought the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army (NVA). Once, while in the middle of a firefight I was amazed to see a peasant farmer working his rice paddy right between us and the NVA. Being a 20 year old know-nothing E-4, at the time, I just thought how stupid this guy was. Didn’t he know that he could be killed?
A long while afterward, my thoughts returned to that place and time. I began thinking about the vignette, rolling the tape over and over in my mind. Over time, maturing and growing more thoughtful, I began to see why this farmer had been doing what he did. Survival; the need to feed himself and his family overrode his need for safety. He couldn’t stop farming or he and his family would die. That was a pretty grim choice he had to make.
More to follow
So, trust me when I tell you that the cops (of whatever stripe) are neither all good nor all bad. To consider them either will lead to a Pollyanna like view or to alienation and mistrust.
I argue for a realistic view of law enforcement. Pick out the bad ones and support the good ones. Think about the possibility that we will need them on our side when the shit hits the fan.
Those who live on the east coast states or in cities like Chicago or New Orleans see far more corruption than those who live on the west coast or in the Midwest. The cop culture reflects the community in that what they do or don’t do is tolerated to at least some degree by the public. When cops stop a driver and demand the driver’s legally possessed firearm, the problem might be with that particular cop, or it might be because the upper echelons of the law enforcement organization have told him to do this. In either case, remember that the public is the law enforcement organization’s boss. We get to tell them what we expect of them. We can fire them through the ballot box. But we won’t win in an on-scene confrontation because the cops are going to back each other at that level. So, take the abuse, gather witnesses, record the incident, and demand that whatever went wrong gets corrected. Get in the sheriff’s face and let him know that his organization is being watched. Videotape abuse and take the tape to the county leadership…they too work for you.
The idea that when an officer reports the misconduct of another he or she will be “black-balled” simply is not true in most law enforcement organizations. Most of the time, other officers are relieved that the miscreant was caught. If an officer reports the misconduct of another, it is the moral obligation of the leadership to protect that officer and to ruthlessly root out those who engage in any retribution. Sitting behind the computer waiting for the war to start is not the answer.
Get out there and demand your law enforcement agency live up to the Rule of Law, for that is all we have except chaos, war and starvation.
Some years later, after I got out of the Army, I joined the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department. I had tried to join the fire department but the waiting period was three years, so I took the job as a cop.
Twenty one years later, I retired to pursue my dreams. I served as a National Park Ranger, law enforcement instructor, consultant to the US Institute of Peace, state police officer, Olympic Games security manager and finally, as a Chief Deputy Sheriff in the county where the Ruby Ridge incident took place.
Over the course of more than 30 years in the field of law enforcement, I saw the good the bad and the ugly. I saw the human pathos, the human nobility and every sort of death one can imagine.
In my capacity as the Chief Deputy Sheriff, I ran the Sheriff’s Office. I saw the strengths and weaknesses in the organization, the personnel issues, the relationships with other government entities, including the FBI, ATF, DEA, DHS, and more. My boss, the Sheriff, was the officer who investigated the Ruby Ridge calamity. He and I walked the scene while he described the incident in exquisite detail. During the course of his investigation, he found every shell casing, and every bullet except one that was fired. He learned the truth about what happened. His investigation and testimony before congress resulted in the “resignation” (read firing) of FBI Director William Sessions and FBI Director Louis Freeh for their professional failures in the aftermath of the incident.
So, what does this all have to do with us here and now? It deals with the perception of many that the police are the enemy of freedom. It deals with the failures of law enforcement to uphold the rule of law and the spirit of the law. It enables me to have a well of knowledge about how things really are. I’ve seen it from the inside; as I said before, the good, the bad and the ugly of law enforcement. I won’t lie to you about this. I’ll tell you the unvarnished truth: There are good cops and bad cops at every level of every organization.
I agree with almost all of what Sheriff Alderden says. There are good law enforcement officers. There are bad law enforcement officers. There are some who are very bad and some who are not so bad. There are smart ones and many not so smart ones. They are, after all, recruited from the human race.
Should we tolerate bad cops? Of course not, but hating them doesn’t make them go away. Working with the leaders of the law enforcement community is the approach to take. Talking to the sheriff or chief and telling them what you, the community member thinks sheds light on them. The police need to be reminded that they are a part of the whole of the American fabric, not an occupying army. That they are militarized in some places is of necessity. Consider that my old LAPD shot it out with two heavily armed bank robbers in the North Hollywood shootout. The cops were armed with 9mm Beretta pistols and the bad guys with AK’s firing full auto. Ask yourself: If you were a cop would you like your opponent to be better armed than you? I think the answer is obvious. Why do you and I gather military type arms and equipment? Because we too don’t want to be outgunned by some jack-boot.
Yes, it is unconstitutional. Yes, it is the law. I don't make the laws, my job is to enforce them.
That has been the answer since yesterday, last week, last month, last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago ... 100 years ago.
I wonder what part of "keep and BEAR arms shall be INFRINGED" the Sheriff does not understand?
Or what part of the 4th he does not understand when putting up a "whatever" roadblock up for our ... safety?
I am pretty sure that when the framers finished writing our constitution and enumerated our "Rights" and others retained by the people ... they just didn't mean to protect us from the federal government ... but universally from all would be tyrants whether fed, state, or local.
Brutus: Well of course your premise is correct...but: This land is not the same as it was in 1789. The process of "refining" the basic law of the land has continued pretty much ever since the Constitution was ratified. And what and who got us to where we are? Of course it was us and our forebears. We, you and I are both trapped in the now. So, bitch if you must, but don't just bitch. Get engaged. Get in the politician"s face. It cost me $1200 to go to DC for the 9/12 march and I think it was worth it because the folks reminded the 'rats and bureaucrats that WE THE PEOPLE still have power. It's time we use it. It's time to put the fear of GOD ALMIGHTY in them, the Godless bastards.
Sitting at the computer pontificating won't do it. Waiting locked and loaded for them to come to you won't cut it.
Getting in their face will.
Walter, unfortunately I don't have that kind of money. I pretty much survive on a week to week basis ... barely. But to even ASSUME that I have not at anytime in the past and present NOT gotten in their face is something you know nothing about.
For all I know, you never went to D.C. on 9/12 and are just blowing hot air on your computer ... I can't prove it ... so I will not ASSUME and I'll take your word for it.
Whatever in my previous comment provoked you to make an assumption as you did is beyond me.
By the way, your assumption of me does not negate the fact that there are the "law givers" and the "law enforcers". If that caused any "sticky points" for you, then address it.
And lets make something very clear here. Every law, code, statute, public policy, E.O., treaty and etc. that legislatures create ... no matter what you and I may think, no matter how unconstitutional ... is enforced, by law enforcement officers, with the threat of violence and state sponsored homicide.
Well guess what Walter ... no one is forcing a law enforcement officer to enforce unconstitutional laws or laws that are just against all reason, logic, and common sense at behest of the law makers. No one is forcing law enforcement officers to incite a confrontation with a patriot who believes in the constitution and refuses to be subjected to unconstitutional laws and diktats ...
Want to find a law enforcement officer who claims he/she believes in the constitution. See if they walk the talk. I am not interested in hearing how one law enforcement officer or another believes in the constitution ... BUT ... Yes, it is unconstitutional. Yes, it is the law. I don't make the laws, my job is to enforce them.
And to be perfectly honest with you Walter, I am suspect of any "retired" cop collecting a pension who suddenly finds the constitution when IT IS SAFE TO DO SO.
His words somehow, now seem hollow after the break, and sound like they are coming straight from "The Bullseye" ...
As much as I appreciate the Sheriff's words, and assuming (in a Pollyannish way) that he and his deputies are sincere, what is to stop the federal leviathon from just swooping in, lopping off their heads and replacing them with pro-mordor jackboots?
Well, I certainly understand the mixed reaction here. However, from what I understand, Alderden has a reputation among conservatives here in Colorado of being a stand-up sort of guy. I'm therefore inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, although I'd like to see a bit more of the "Sheriff Joe Arpaio" spirit exhibited by him. Arpaio seems to have no trouble telling the Federals to go straight to hell when circumstances warrant it.
I'm just happy to see that Mike's "Open Letter" will now be on LEO radar screens here in Colorado, if it wasn't before. (Ain't that right, CIAC?) Happy as well to see Alderden make the point that the Feds don't have the wherewithal to enforce tyrannical or unconstitutional dictates. It all pretty much works on a bluff.
Snaggle-Tooth Jones, the Colorado Confederatarian
My email to Sheriff Alderden:
Sheriff Alderden, I think I may have been among the first to laud you and tell you of my appreciation for your lawful and constitutional stance as regards the abominable situation at CSU in respect to the CCW on campus.
I think you may very well be one of the good guys, but I've got to tell you, you missed it in your response to VanderBoegh's open letter. You didn't just miss it, but you missed it big time. I am inclined, something I am not wont to do ordinarily with law enforcement personnel, to grant that you do not have a full understanding of the situation nor our concerns about it.
Because of your principled stance on the CSU situation, I believe that your response is based on the reality of your personal experiences, as you said. Unfortunately, I also believe your personal experiences must have had some insulating effect on your perceptions as pertains to the general state of law enforcement/ public relations in this nation. In other words, I don't mean this to be insulting, I fear you are somewhat naive.
I wish to put this message in proper perspective, before I continue. So, I direct your attention to all the plaudits you have received from all over the nation just for being true to your oath of office. Something you subsequently characterized as "no big deal, just doing what I was supposed to " (badly paraphrased by me, but accurate to meaning). It must have struck you at some point that all the signs of appreciation and support for "merely doing your job", seemed extraordinary.
Well, it was extraordinary! VERY EXTRAORDINARY! Why? Simple. Because we, the citizens, have become resigned to law enforcement who do not do their jobs according to the law and the constitution. That is why we thought it such a big deal. We haven't seen much of it in the last three decades.
I could write on this topic from now until you and I die of old age, but I won't. I would however, just point out three instances where law enforcement not only didn't do their jobs, but committed crimes, including cold-blooded murder. These will not be comprehensive, but they are typical.
Waco, post Katrina New Orleans, and Ruby Ridge, Id. There can be no reasonable denial that law enforcement personnel committed crimes with the sanction of their agencies. In some of these instances, they were borrowed cops from other places, in some they were federal cops. They all killed people who didn't need killed, they all abused people who hadn't done anything to deserve it. (talking here about the criminal cops, not necessarily all of them) But here's the rub. Not one sheriff, who is the most powerful law enforcement officer in any county or parish, arrested even one of these criminals.
Now, the general public knows this. We have come to expect it. We have determined to stop it. Peaceably, using the law if we can, otherwise, if the law is not available to correct the lawlessness we see in law enforcement.
I do hope you will take a longer wider look at the issues raised in the open letter. I believe if you learn a little more of the history of the reasons for the disaffection and distrust of the average person for law enforcement you could be a valuable asset to help correct the problems before the point of intolerance is passed and blood is shed.
Post a Comment