Quote321:22 Prosecutions.
(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)
A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."
(http://wiki.freetalklive.com/images/9/9c/WUT.JPG)
Whenever I open my own business, I do not intend to ask gov't for permission. But I have lived in Keene almost a year, so I would not qualify as an Itinerant vender/business. Unless I am reading your post right.
As I understand it, anyone with over $500 in inventory (not necessarily on hand-you could take orders) selling from a temporary location qualifies.
Taking orders for laptops off the back of your truck? Mandatory arrest.
Okay, Ian... seriously, what do you mean by "mandatory" arrest?
My understanding is that technically, any lawbreaking is mandatorily subject to sanctions by the police (unless there is a law that makes no provisions for enforcement). If not an arrest, at least a fine -- and if the fine is refused, even that becomes a mandatory arrest.
The two main reasons (that I am aware of) for the police not taking action against certain instances of lawbreaking, are 1) it does not fall under their jurisdiction, or 2) they are not being monitored to make sure they are "doing their jobs". There are also blue laws which are not enforced due to lack of popular support, and situations such as lack of jail space or work overload, which compel police to assign priority to certain "offenses".
Anytime a police officer is not being monitored, and there is no real risk of being "found out" afterward, responding to lawbreaking of any kind is entirely at his discretion.
According to someone inside the system:
Cops have discretion on almost all arrests except for a few.
QuoteUnderage drinking and driving police DO have discretion. It is underage TRANSPORTATION of alcohol that police do NOT have discretion.
169-C:21-a Violation of Protective Order; Penalty.
(Child protective orders issued by DCYF)
173-B:9 Violation of Protective Order; Penalty.
(Restraining orders)
321:22 Prosecutions.
(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)
458:16 Temporary Relief and Permanent Restraining Orders.
(Divorce decree orders... essentially a perminante restraining order as a stipulation of a divorce)
633:3-a Stalking.
(Violation of a stalking order)
163-B:6 Enforcement.
(Police are DIRECTED to enforce the litter control laws of the state)
The corollary being that police are NOT required to enforce the rest of the laws, as a part of their normal job? :o ???
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:27 AM NHFT
The corollary being that police are NOT required to enforce the rest of the laws, as a part of their job description? :o
I trust my source.
Police do not have any obligation to arrest in the supermajority of cases. Some exceptions noted above.
In that case, I wonder if the intended implication is simply that in the supermajority of cases they are legally allowed to let the "offender" off with a lesser sanction, such as a fine or court appearance?
The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.
My read on it is the police are allowed discression, but when the law mandates an arrest, the officer would be in actual violation of the law if he did not. For example, if a trooper (god forbid) let me go for not registering my car, that is okay. But if I was doing an illegal puppet show, if he let me go, he would actually be doing something illegal himself.
I am not aware that police discretion is protected by law.
I could certainly be wrong.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.
"Not arresting" is not necessarily the same thing as "turning a blind eye".
Officers can issue a summons in lieu of arresting, for most offenses.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 23, 2008, 05:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.
"Not arresting" is not necessarily the same thing as "turning a blind eye".
Officers can issue a summons in lieu of arresting, for most offenses.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
In that case, I wonder if the intended implication is simply that in the supermajority of cases they are legally allowed to let the "offender" off with a lesser sanction, such as a fine or court appearance?
:P
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.
How many times a day does a cop drive by someone going 5mph over and not do anything? They have selective enforcement, and that is why they can see 3 speeders going the same speed, and only pull over one.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 24, 2008, 12:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 23, 2008, 05:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.
"Not arresting" is not necessarily the same thing as "turning a blind eye".
Officers can issue a summons in lieu of arresting, for most offenses.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
In that case, I wonder if the intended implication is simply that in the supermajority of cases they are legally allowed to let the "offender" off with a lesser sanction, such as a fine or court appearance?
:P
Summons in lieu of arrest doesn't imply a lesser penalty. Whether arrested and arraigned, or just issued a summons, the court appearance is the same (assuming the charge is the same).
Quote from: KBCraig on April 24, 2008, 11:28 PM NHFT
Summons in lieu of arrest doesn't imply a lesser penalty. Whether arrested and arraigned, or just issued a summons, the court appearance is the same (assuming the charge is the same).
True. Sometimes I don't say exactly what I mean, despite my best efforts ;D
Indeed, a court summons does not imply a lesser penalty. What I really meant to say was that there are usually alternatives to an on-the-spot arrest.
What Ian was saying
made it sound as if law enforcement was not required to enforce the law, unless there is a law that specifically instructs them to do so. (That is not necessarily what he meant, though; I just wanted to get a better understanding of what he was driving at.)
My point was simply that just because an on-the-spot arrest is not mandated by law, does not mean that the law promotes, or even
allows for, selective enforcement.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 25, 2008, 09:18 AM NHFT
Ian was saying made it sound as if law enforcement was not required to enforce the law, unless there is a law that specifically instructs them to do so.
That is my understanding, yes.
Quote from: Coconut on April 24, 2008, 02:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.
How many times a day does a cop drive by someone going 5mph over and not do anything? They have selective enforcement, and that is why they can see 3 speeders going the same speed, and only pull over one.
I do not at deny the fact that selective enforcement takes place routinely. The reason this happens, is not because the law sanctions it (I could be wrong about that), but AFAIK it is because law
enforcement is the bottleneck: If police do not take action when they observe the law being broken, how can the sanctioning process be initiated? If their superiors do not take corrective action when their lackeys turn a blind eye, who will? Of course, the police are to some extent accountable to the public, otherwise they lose their legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
Hence, in cases where it is clear that an officer is "not doing his job", he is naturally accountable to his superiors. For example, when an officer calls in the ID info of someone with an outstanding warrant, yet does not take the person into custody, he would presumably have to answer for that. Likewise, if an officer responds to a citizen complaint, yet he does not charge anyone with a crime, he'd better be prepared to explain. That may not be the case with isolated instances; but I'm sure that if a specific officer develops a provable track record of turning a blind eye, he would be told to shape up or ship out. This not because his superiors follow the letter of the law, but because he is eroding the legitimacy of law enforcement.
This is really no different from what takes place in nearly every workplace: There are specific rules in place, even clearly posted and emphatically worded; yet workers routinely ignore those rules whenever they feel like it. The main exception to this is instances where they are being potentially monitored by their superiors, hence can be held accountable.
An officer sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun can ignore four out of five speeders, and no one will know the difference. But, if he ignores someone doing 85 in a 55 zone, someone is likely to complain to the department: "Your officer is not doing his job". And if he ignores all the speeders, he will have to explain to his superiors why he didn't write any tickets this month.
The bottom line is,
why concern ourselves with what actions call for a mandatory arrest? I am not interested in goading the police into making an arrest. That is being conninving, and is not what I am about. I just want to be left alone to live my life as I see fit, as long as I do not bring
actual harm to others.
If the police ignore our activities, that is a win. At the same time, we also need to be fully prepared to capitalize on any arrests that are made. When we are fully prepared, we actually gain ground faster when they arrest us for just minding our own business; but it also comes at a greater personal cost to us.
Our poker game at KFF got ignored by the police. That is a win for us. Now that the precedent has been set, they will likely continue to ignore penny poker at Freedom Fest, if nothing else just to save face. That is a definite win. Now, I participated in that game
not because I wanted to goad them into arresting me; I did it because I like to play poker every chance I get (which is actually pretty rare). I was doing exactly what I would have been doing if there were no laws at all.
I
think the whole reason Ian is exploring the "mandatory arrest" thing, is because he is looking to kick it up a notch, and take our civ dis to the next level. No problem there, I just think he is barking up the wrong tree by seeking out mandatory arrests. There are two reasons for that: 1) Mandatory arrests are a moot point -- police will turn a blind eye to lawbreaking if it seems in their best interest to do so, and take action against it (leading ultimately to an arrest for non-cooperation) whenever it seems in their best interest -- it really does not matter what is written in the statutes, and 2) I do not see the point in
aiming for an arrest, as long as we continue to make slow and steady progress without arrests.
If the point is to step things up a bit, here is my suggestion: Instead of playing poker with pennies, which will almost certainly continue to be ignored, and does nothing by way of gaining further ground, why not use dollars instead? If public poker
were legal, that is exactly what I would do. If they ignore us when we play for dollars, we will have gained some major ground at no loss to us. If they instead arrest us, we will turn it into an even bigger win, by making a public spectacle of their hostile attitude toward voluntary and peaceful interactions.
OTOH, if they ignore dollar poker, we can make it a unique and popular tradition at KFF.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 25, 2008, 10:31 AM NHFT
I do not see the point in aiming for an arrest, as long as we continue to make slow and steady progress without arrests.
Agreed. I don't want anyone to get arrested. The point would be that if they don't arrest the itinerant vendor (and it is my intention that they do not arrest anyone), then that is more evidence that they don't follow their own rules.
QuoteIf the point is to step things up a bit, here is my suggestion: Instead of playing poker with pennies, which will almost certainly continue to be ignored, and does nothing by way of gaining further ground, why not use dollars instead? If public poker were legal, that is exactly what I would do. If they ignore us when we play for dollars, we will have gained some major ground at no loss to us. If they instead arrest us, we will turn it into an even bigger win, by making a public spectacle of their hostile attitude toward voluntary and peaceful interactions.
OTOH, if they ignore dollar poker, we can make it a unique and popular tradition at KFF.
I totally agree with stepping up the gambling.
Why do you need more evidence that they don't follow their own rules?
BTW, you can be the antichrist for a while now, Ian.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 26, 2008, 08:31 AM NHFT
Why do you need more evidence that they don't follow their own rules?
I don't. It seemed certain people were interested in provoking arrests for their CD, so I posted an idea where they are supposed to be guaranteed an arrest. I was not interested in performing the itinerant vendor CD, just passing on information.
For the record, I prefer Menno's approach of living free and not throwing it in their face.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 26, 2008, 08:31 AM NHFT
BTW, you can be the antichrist for a while now, Ian.
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:3SGG9LU6GHb3mM:http://waxy.org/random/images/weblog/gay_satan.jpg)
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 26, 2008, 12:51 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 26, 2008, 08:31 AM NHFT
BTW, you can be the antichrist for a while now, Ian.
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:3SGG9LU6GHb3mM:http://waxy.org/random/images/weblog/gay_satan.jpg)
:o Ian really is the Antichrist... he has the photo to prove it!
Quote from: srqrebel on April 25, 2008, 10:31 AM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on April 24, 2008, 02:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.
How many times a day does a cop drive by someone going 5mph over and not do anything? They have selective enforcement, and that is why they can see 3 speeders going the same speed, and only pull over one.
...
An officer sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun can ignore four out of five speeders, and no one will know the difference. But, if he ignores someone doing 85 in a 55 zone, someone is likely to complain to the department: "Your officer is not doing his job". And if he ignores all the speeders, he will have to explain to his superiors why he didn't write any tickets this month.
Situations like this are in most cases just an issue of manpower: They
can't cite every single person going 75 mi/h on the freeway, because that's most everyone. This is also why the State loves things like traffic light cameras nowadays: With things like those, they
can literally catch every single violator.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 25, 2008, 10:31 AM NHFT
If the police ignore our activities, that is a win. At the same time, we also need to be fully prepared to capitalize on any arrests that are made. When we are fully prepared, we actually gain ground faster when they arrest us for just minding our own business; but it also comes at a greater personal cost to us.
But don't let the fact that they're ignoring you think they will continue doing so, especially if anyone tries to push it up to the next level,
e.g., gambling larger amounts in public, or violating another slightly more serious law. I worry that stuff like this is just designed to make us overconfident, and slip up in the future, breaking a more serious law, or one that's easier for them to prosecute, has a stiffer sentence, or somesuch.
No need to worry. It's a waste of your time. All is well and only getting better.
VENDORS arrested if *OVER* 500$ sales *and* transient >> Get fingerprints
as to this "statute"... the vendor has to *have* sold more than 500$ *and* be temporary/transient...
in police jargon, the concept is called "bookable offense" which includes photograph and fingerprints. you end up in the "book" of arrests..
if they are CERTAIN who you are and believe you will come to court, *and* have a place to contact/arrest you if you don't--then a SUMMONS is just fine...
karenijohnson
p.s. please help wearechange.org folks if anyone can...
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.
A first on you? Really? Name one instance you know of where a police officer was punished for not enforcing a law.
If police were required to enforce every law, then what would be the purpose of a statute mandating enforcement of a particular law?
Quote from: mackler on April 27, 2008, 11:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM NHFT
The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.
A first on you? Really? Name one instance you know of where a police officer was punished for not enforcing a law.
If police were required to enforce every law, then what would be the purpose of a statute mandating enforcement of a particular law?
I am not aware of police officers being
prosecuted for not enforcing the law, though they could certainly lose their job. It seems prosecutors and the courts are disposed to letting cops off easy, no matter what.
My understanding is that it is the job of the police to enforce the law. I am not aware of any law relieving them of that job requirement.
As far as a statute "mandating enforcement" of a particular law, can you name one? I am aware that there are statutes that specify the
manner of enforcement, but none that say anything to the effect of "the police must enforce this law".
It is a built-in presumption of any statute that it will be enforced... whether or not that is how it plays out in reality.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
My understanding is that it is the job of the police to enforce the law. I am not aware of any law relieving them of that job requirement.
Yes, police are allowed to use discretion in a broad range of circumstances. Surely you're familiar with instances of police issuing a warning when they could have chosen to write a ticket instead. I'm more than a little surprised this conversation is still going on.
http://www.google.com/search?q=police+discretion
Quote from: Roycerson on April 28, 2008, 07:49 AM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
My understanding is that it is the job of the police to enforce the law. I am not aware of any law relieving them of that job requirement.
Yes, police are allowed to use discretion in a broad range of circumstances. Surely you're familiar with instances of police issuing a warning when they could have chosen to write a ticket instead. I'm more than a little surprised this conversation is still going on.
http://www.google.com/search?q=police+discretion
Police can issue traffic warnings because the statutes specifically provide for written warnings as a lesser enforcement option. Written warnings do not constitute turning a blind eye to lawbreaking.
I am aware of statutes restricting enforcement, and/or providing a range of enforcement options. That only reinforces my observation that the standard expectation of any statute is that the police will enforce it.
Seriously, are there
any statutes that specify "mandatory enforcement"? I did a quick search online, and turned up nothing to that effect.
This conversation
is getting rather tedious... but I tend to take a challenge as an opportunity to uncover the facts, and refine my knowledge base. As I see it, either my observations prove correct, or I stand to learn from those who challenge me. That is why I keep on responding :) 8)
Quote from: srqrebelSeriously, are there any statutes that specify "mandatory enforcement"?
Police discretion by definition does not conform to the letter of the law, that's the whole point. I think what we might be dealing with here is not a matter of a mandatory enforcement statute but rather PD policy, hence the value of Ian's source.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 23, 2008, 11:29 AM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 23, 2008, 11:27 AM NHFT
The corollary being that police are NOT required to enforce the rest of the laws, as a part of their job description? :o
I trust my source. Police do not have any obligation to arrest in the supermajority of cases. Some exceptions noted above.
No, it's the statutes. Here's another one from my source:
Quote
found another shall arrest law.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/353/353-3-c.htm
There is no rhyme or reason as to which law the legislature chooses to do this in.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 28, 2008, 11:12 AM NHFT
No, it's the statutes. Here's another one from my source:
Quote
found another shall arrest law.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/353/353-3-c.htm
There is no rhyme or reason as to which law the legislature chooses to do this in.
Indeed -- in this case, as in many others, the law leaves only one enforcement option: Arrest.
Even in this case, police can exercise discretion by refusing to enforce. As in any other case, however, if their superiors find out that they are not "doing their job", they can face sanctions up to and including termination.
My question is, are there laws that specifically state that the statute is to be unilaterally enforced? If not, it would appear that police discretion is exactly as I have been describing it: Far from being SOP authorized by law, it is merely a sort of "default operating procedure" that arises out of the fact that they can get away with it -- as long as there is no backlash from their superiors, or members of the public.
Discretion is the default except in certain cases, as I have outlined. That is how I understand it.
The exceptions are, according to my source, completely arbitrary.
Though, I imagine you are correct in your suggestion that the police "superiors" may use discretion as to if they will get the officer in trouble or not.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
I am not aware of police officers being prosecuted for not enforcing the law, though they could certainly lose their job.
Can you point to a single instance where this has happened? Have you ever heard of such an occurrence or are you just imagining it as a possibility?
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
My understanding is that it is the job of the police to enforce the law.
The question is not whether it is the job of police to enforce the law. The question is whether police are
required to enforce
every law. So far you've provided no evidence that that there is such a requirement, though you freely assume as much.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
I am not aware of any law relieving them of that job requirement.
Again, you've provided no evidence that such a requirement exists. Can you point to a single law, statute, regulation, published policy, police department employee handbook, or any other authoritative source that requires police to enforce every law? I think not, else you would have by now.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
As far as a statute "mandating enforcement" of a particular law, can you name one?
Yes. It's called RSA 321:22 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/321/321-22.htm). I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
It is a built-in presumption of any statute that it will be enforced.
That may be
your built-in presumption. But just because sqlrebel builds in a presumption, doesn't make it the law.
Quote from: mackler on April 28, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
I am not aware of police officers being prosecuted for not enforcing the law, though they could certainly lose their job.
Can you point to a single instance where this has happened? Have you ever heard of such an occurrence or are you just imagining it as a possibility?
I do not know of any specific instances -- it's just a hunch on my part.
Same goes for my own place of employment -- I sort of
assume that if I do not do my job, I could be fired.
...but the fact is, I have never actually tested that hypothesis. I could certainly be wrong ::)
Quote from: mackler on April 28, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
The question is not whether it is the job of police to enforce the law. The question is whether police are required to enforce every law. So far you've provided no evidence that that there is such a requirement, though you freely assume as much.
Why? Says who? I was not aware that was the question, and I most certainly did
not assume that a specific RSA or even employee handbook spells out any requirements.
I am also not aware of any law or written employee instructions at my own place of employment that say that I must perform certain duties in order to remain employed there. Does that make it irrational for me to operate on the assumption that there will be repercussions if I do not perform my assigned duties?
The fact that there are no posted rules at work designating specific duties as mandatory, indicates to me that all of my assigned duties are considered mandatory without exception. Since law enforcement is a job, I see no reason why the same would not apply there...
unless law enforcement officers are not expected to enforce laws as a part of their job.
Nevertheless, I did my research, and in NH police officers are at least mandated to enforce all highway laws:
Quote
106-B:12 Authority and Duties of Police Employees. – Police employees shall be ex-officiis constables throughout the state, shall patrol the highways, enforce the highway traffic laws and regulations, enforce the motor vehicle laws relative thereto and enforce regulations relative to the transportation of hazardous materials, pursuant to RSA 106-A:18 and RSA 106-B:15...
I suppose without the specific provisions of this particular RSA, cops could just sit around all day eating doughnuts, without having to worry about losing their jobs. ::)
Quote from: mackler on April 28, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
It is a built-in presumption of any statute that it will be enforced.
That may be your built-in presumption. But just because sqlrebel builds in a presumption, doesn't make it the law.
...and nowhere in my posts (until this one)
have I indicated that enforcement is mandated by law. My argument has always been that such a law would not even be needed, for it to be understood that the duty of law enforcement is
enforcement of all laws within their jurisdiction -- and for officers to be accountable to their superiors for "doing their job".
I have never denied that a breakdown of the law enforcement process occurs routinely: It is called police discretion, and
can be engaged in by both officers and their superiors.
Mandatory or not -- if the police do not enforce the law, and their superiors do not discipline them for not enforcing the law, then who will hold the police accountable? Conversely, if the police are not mandated by law to enforce the law, yet their superiors want them to enforce the law, what would stop a superior from firing an officer who does not perform his assignments?
I remember when I got a black eye from my ex boyfriend and went to the police station , (yeah, I know, leave the cops out of it but I was young and didn't know any better), anyways they told me in order for them to arrest him they would have had to see him punch me. Like somebody is going to wait around for a cop and then punch someone. ::)
This is off topic but I don't know if anybody remembers when the Philly cops went on strike in '86, do you? Well I went to the police station in Center City to try to have them help me get my daughter back when my mom kicked me out and kept her and tons of cops were picketing. Inside the headquarters they told me I'd have to get custody of my own child so I went outside and just broke down, crying, about 8 cops came over to me to console me and I'll never forget how nice they were to me. So there are the good along with the bad as with almost anything in life. :)
I worked at Dunkin Donuts too so I know a little bit about cops if anybody has any questions, as long as they're not real technical questions. :D
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 22, 2008, 01:14 AM NHFT
Quote321:22 Prosecutions.
(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)
A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."
Hmm, I wonder if that means people selling large amounts of goods (over $500) on ebay are breaking the law?
I'll have to make sure to only keep $499 worth of baseball cards listed at any time under my account.
Quote from: lildog on April 29, 2008, 03:34 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 22, 2008, 01:14 AM NHFT
Quote321:22 Prosecutions.
(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)
A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."
Hmm, I wonder if that means people selling large amounts of goods (over $500) on ebay are breaking the law?
I'll have to make sure to only keep $499 worth of baseball cards listed at any time under my account.
Could be worse. I heard of a state that was trying to force its residents to have auctioneer's licenses to sell on ebay.
Quote from: lildog on April 29, 2008, 03:34 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 22, 2008, 01:14 AM NHFT
Quote321:22 Prosecutions.
(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)
A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."
Hmm, I wonder if that means people selling large amounts of goods (over $500) on ebay are breaking the law?
I'll have to make sure to only keep $499 worth of baseball cards listed at any time under my account.
Or $499.99! ;D
Quote from: The Right Reverend Doctor Pope Sir Ryan on April 29, 2008, 03:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on April 29, 2008, 03:34 PM NHFT
Quote from: FTL_Ian on April 22, 2008, 01:14 AM NHFT
Quote321:22 Prosecutions.
(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)
A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."
Hmm, I wonder if that means people selling large amounts of goods (over $500) on ebay are breaking the law?
I'll have to make sure to only keep $499 worth of baseball cards listed at any time under my account.
Could be worse. I heard of a state that was trying to force its residents to have auctioneer's licenses to sell on ebay.
Naturally. The auctioneers' cartel/"professional association" is probably pissed they're being out-competed by eBayers.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on April 28, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
I am not aware of police officers being prosecuted for not enforcing the law, though they could certainly lose their job.
Can you point to a single instance where this has happened? Have you ever heard of such an occurrence or are you just imagining it as a possibility?
I do not know of any specific instances -- it's just a hunch on my part.
Okay, Well your hunch is wrong. ::)
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
Same goes for my own place of employment -- I sort of assume that if I do not do my job, I could be fired.
And if the police do not do their job, they can be fired. What you're missing is that enforcing every law is not their job.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
...but the fact is, I have never actually tested that hypothesis. I could certainly be wrong ::)
You certainly know more about your workplace than I do, but less about the obligations of police officers. ::)
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on April 28, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
The question is not whether it is the job of police to enforce the law. The question is whether police are required to enforce every law. So far you've provided no evidence that that there is such a requirement, though you freely assume as much.
Why? Says who? I was not aware that was the question, and I most certainly did not assume that a specific RSA or even employee handbook spells out any requirements.
If the requirement isn't spelled out, then it isn't a requirement, is it?
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
I am also not aware of any law or written employee instructions at my own place of employment that say that I must perform certain duties in order to remain employed there. Does that make it irrational for me to operate on the assumption that there will be repercussions if I do not perform my assigned duties?
It's irrational for you to apply the rules of your place of employment to those of the police department unless your place of employment is the police department. ::)
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
The fact that there are no posted rules at work designating specific duties as mandatory, indicates to me that all of my assigned duties are considered mandatory without exception.
A duty is mandatory, else it wouldn't be a duty. To say duties are mandatory is a tautology. The fact is that enforcing
every law
every time is not a duty of police officers
because it is not mandatory.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFTSince law enforcement is a job, I see no reason why the same would not apply there... unless law enforcement officers are not expected to enforce laws as a part of their job.
Cleary you have difficulty grasping the distinction between a requirement "to enforce laws" and a requirement "to enforce every law every time." As well you seem to confuse the concepts of an "expectation" and a "duty." You may "expect" the police to show up when you dial 911, but that doesn't mean they have a duty to do so.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
Nevertheless, I did my research, and in NH police officers are at least mandated to enforce all highway laws:
Quote
106-B:12 Authority and Duties of Police Employees. – Police employees shall be ex-officiis constables throughout the state, shall patrol the highways, enforce the highway traffic laws and regulations, enforce the motor vehicle laws relative thereto and enforce regulations relative to the transportation of hazardous materials, pursuant to RSA 106-A:18 and RSA 106-B:15...
You misread that. The word "all" appears nowhere in the statute you quoted, yet you used it in your paraphrase. I don't know why you are having such a hard time seeing the difference in meaning between a requirement to enforce laws and a requirement to enforce "all" laws all the time. ::)
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
I suppose without the specific provisions of this particular RSA, cops could just sit around all day eating doughnuts, without having to worry about losing their jobs. ::)
I'm not a betting man, but if I had the chance to bet the farm you can't come up with a single instance of a cop being fired for doing just what you suggest, I expect I'd end up with two farms.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on April 28, 2008, 11:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on April 28, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
It is a built-in presumption of any statute that it will be enforced.
That may be your built-in presumption. But just because sqlrebel builds in a presumption, doesn't make it the law.
...and nowhere in my posts (until this one) have I indicated that enforcement is mandated by law. My argument has always been that such a law would not even be needed, for it to be understood that the duty of law enforcement is enforcement of all laws within their jurisdiction -- and for officers to be accountable to their superiors for "doing their job".
You are very confused. ::) A duty is a legal relationship. No law, no duty, and vice versa.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
I have never denied that a breakdown of the law enforcement process occurs routinely: It is called police discretion, and can be engaged in by both officers and their superiors. Mandatory or not -- if the police do not enforce the law, and their superiors do not discipline them for not enforcing the law, then who will hold the police accountable? Conversely, if the police are not mandated by law to enforce the law, yet their superiors want them to enforce the law, what would stop a superior from firing an officer who does not perform his assignments?
Good questions. What are your answers?
Perhaps we can gain another perspective on whether or not Police are required to enforce every law or they are "allowed" to enforce using their own discretion... I'd say while continuing to search for statutes etc, why not talk to some cops about their policy? It would be interesing to hear some of their answers or nonanswers. I'm pretty sure whether it's stated department policy or not, some cops will continue to exercise discretion and that can be a good thing. For instance we probably all know of instances when cops surely know somebody is breaking the law and look the other way, or let them off etc. Maybe there really are good cops? Nah...they probably just got lucky last night with a men in uniform loving lady (or man), but anyway that kind of discretionary enforcement is a tolerable thing huh?
A cop looking the other way is a double edged sword, we all can appreciate the "good cop" who let's us off because enforcement of a particular law is ridiculous, for instance doing 56 mph in a 55 mph zone.
So some misc. "crimes" are from the cops perspective probably not worth putting their donut down to enforce. l
However, what about selective enforcement of the same "crime"? For instance YOU get a DWI and a huge fine, but because another person may be in good with the local cops they get a chauferred ride home. Therein lies the problem of "discretionary" enforcement. Who's to say how it will be applied? Awhile back some of my fastest rides on a motorcycle were with a group of people, some of whom were law enforcement, (they were intoxicated too!) so we we knew we'd be okay speeding. Heck we were partying with cops!! Talk about hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do, hey let's get some more beer! Yahoo. Weird feeling though.
A bit off topic but does anybody know about "citizens arrests" etc. I've heard the term for years but didn't know if a regular citizen could apply it to...
a) citizens breaking the law
b) cops breaking the law
c) is just bullshit, put away your phony badge cop wanna be
I also read something recently and can't remember (NH legislative session?) where but the impersonating a cop thing was going to be more intensely scrutinized and I think broadened to include more instances...so that might be something to look into for those who are considering doing cop watch stuff, those uh activities might fall under some cop impersonating thing ...Wish I could remember where I read it, so take it as rumor only until I can dig it up.
I can't speak for the police in NH, but I grew up around police officers and detectives here in NJ and the way it works here is that, yes, they are supposed to enforce all the laws, all the time. The reality of course is that this is an impossibility. If they were to do so they would then be spending all day in court testifying and would never be available to enforce the laws. Thus, they selectively enforce the laws to provide the most benefit to the community.
In practical application here that means that as long as traffic is flowing and you are driving with the traffic you are unlikely to get pulled over, even if everyone is doing 15 mph over the limit. If the cops find you urinating along side the road, most of them are just going to tell you not to and ask you to move along. Even when we were younger and having parties, if the neighbors complained about the noise most of the cops would just tell us to quiet down and make sure they didn't have to come back out again. Some of the stricter ones would confiscate the alcohol, but none of us ever got in any real trouble even though they knew we were all underage. I have a wallet full of "get out of trouble" cards from the local and state police, but have never had to use them. The police here tend to be very laid back as long as you aren't endangering someone or stealing something, or give them a hard time of course. Are there some that are a pain in the ass? Of course, just as in any business, but for most of the ones I have known it is just a job like any other. Like most employees they seem to do the least work they have to to keep their jobs. I can tell you from local experience it is hard to fire them for non-performance. There were a pair in the next town over who got caught having sex in the patrol car while on duty. The department promptly fired them and the courts reinstated them with back pay as I recall. Go figure :)
As far as citizen's arrests go, here in NJ it is lawful for a private citizen to arrest anyone, police officer or not, without a warrant, if you know that a crime has in fact been committed and have reasonable cause to believe that the individual committed the crime. The criminal must then be taken without unnecessary delay before a judge or other appropriate official, where a complaint will be filed and a warrant issued based on that complaint. The danger of course is that if you are wrong then you may face a charge of unlawful imprisonment. Again I am not sure how that is structured in NH, but I assume it must be the same or no shopkeep could detain someone for shoplifting, etc.
George
Okay, I will make one more attempt at explaining my position to mackler.
The only thing I have been arguing all along, is that the law, any law, by reason of its very existence, presupposes enforcement by those whose job it is to enforce law. Laws do not need to state, "It is mandatory for law enforcement to enforce this law", because it is a built-in assumption.
It would be just as absurd as posting a second sign underneath a traffic sign, stating that it is mandatory for motorists to obey the sign. It is presupposed, by the dint of the fact the sign exists in the first place, and the fact that the original sign is clearly directed at motorists.
The same applies to law enforcement: It is a built-in expectation of any law that it will be enforced by law enforcement, by dint of the fact that the law exists in the first place, and the fact that the primary job of law enforcement is to enforce laws. If there is a notable exception, it would be that a particular law does NOT require consistent enforcement -- rather than that it DOES require consistent enforcement.
But just as motorists routinely disregard certain traffic signs, because they can, law enforcement officers routinely ignore certain instances of lawbreaking, because they can. Just because motorists routinely get away with disobeying certain traffic signs, does not indicate that those signs are not "required" to be obeyed; and just because law enforcement officers routinely get away with ignoring certain instances of lawbreaking, does not indicate that those laws do not "require" enforcement.
That is, unless you are speaking from a purely utilitarian perspective... in which case we agree.
P.S.- I would add that in the case of the motorists, they are actually at the mercy of law enforcement when they are observed to disregard a traffic sign. Law enforcement officers are merely at the mercy of their superiors, and in perhaps rare cases, at the mercy of outraged citizens, when they are observed to disregard lawbreaking. It is generally far easier for law enforcement to get away with disregarding certain instances of lawbreaking, than it is for motorists to get away with disregarding traffic signs -- because law enforcement represents "the end of the line". Yet that does not in any way change the basic requirements, or expectations, on either group. It is just a difference in how much they are capable of getting away with.
Quote from: mackler on April 30, 2008, 12:29 AM NHFT
Good questions. What are your answers?
Nobody, and
nothing, respectively.
What are your answers?
Quote from: srqrebel on April 30, 2008, 10:17 AM NHFT
Okay, I will make one more attempt at explaining my position to mackler.
The only thing I have been arguing all along, is that the law, any law, by reason of its very existence, presupposes enforcement by those assigned the job of law enforcement. Laws do not need to state, "It is mandatory for law enforcement to enforce this law", because it is a built-in assumption.
It would be just as absurd as posting a second sign underneath a traffic sign, stating that it is mandatory for motorists to obey the sign. It is presupposed, by the dint of the fact the sign exists in the first place, and the fact that the original sign is clearly directed at motorists.
The same applies to law enforcement: It is a built-in expectation of any law that it will be enforced by law enforcement, by dint of the fact that the law exists in the first place, and the fact that the primary job of law enforcement is to enforce laws. If there is a notable exception, it would be that a particular law does NOT require consistent enforcement -- rather than that it DOES require consistent enforcement.
But just as motorists routinely disregard certain traffic signs, because they can, law enforcement officers routinely ignore certain instances of lawbreaking, because they can. Just because motorists routinely get away with disobeying certain traffic signs, does not indicate that those signs are not "required" to be obeyed; and just because law enforcement officers routinely get away with ignoring certain instances of lawbreaking, does not indicate that those laws do not "require" enforcement.
That is, unless you are speaking from a purely utilitarian perspective... in which case we agree.
Some NH statutes are written to define the 'legal authority' to prosecute... especially on common property matters.
So this may be what everyone is reading.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on April 29, 2008, 03:56 PM NHFTNaturally. The auctioneers' cartel/"professional association" is probably pissed they're being out-competed by eBayers.
Nah, I wouldn't worry about that. Baseball cards are heavy so you end up paying more for shipping then the cards are worth at times. I much prefer live auctions for cards. Not to mention when your buying online you can't pre-inspect the cards before bidding and condition has a lot to do with the value when it comes to baseball cards.
I think both markets are equally safe and can exist together quite nicely.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 29, 2008, 01:02 PM NHFT
Nevertheless, I did my research, and in NH police officers are at least mandated to enforce all highway laws:
Quote
106-B:12 Authority and Duties of Police Employees. – Police employees shall be ex-officiis constables throughout the state, shall patrol the highways, enforce the highway traffic laws and regulations, enforce the motor vehicle laws relative thereto and enforce regulations relative to the transportation of hazardous materials, pursuant to RSA 106-A:18 and RSA 106-B:15...
Chapter 106-B is the State Police only. Not local police. Local law enforcement has no such mandate.
What many of you might not know is that the State Police do not have authority to investigate crimes (other than explosive law violations, things having to do with registration/inspection of vehicles, or when ordered by the Governor) that occur in jurisdictions of more than 3,000 people. They do have authority to act when they witness an offense though.
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 30, 2008, 07:55 AM NHFT
A bit off topic but does anybody know about "citizens arrests" etc. I've heard the term for years but didn't know if a regular citizen could apply it to...
a) citizens breaking the law
b) cops breaking the law
c) is just bullshit, put away your phony badge cop wanna be
In New Hampshire civilians (non-law enforcement) do indeed have arrest authority. It is codified at RSA 627:5 (IV). It reads as follows:
IV. A private person acting on his own is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to arrest or prevent the escape from custody of such other whom he reasonably believes to have committed a felony and who in fact has committed that felony: but he is justified in using deadly force for such purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force. In addition to this authority to use force to arrest someone for a felony - all citizens of this state have the authority to initiate the prosecution of an offense that is a class B misdemeanor or lower. This is based in part on RSA 592-A:7 (I):
I. Criminal proceedings before a district court shall be begun by complaint, signed and under oath, addressed to such court, briefly setting forth, by name or description, the party accused and the offense charged, provided that a complaint filed by a police officer, as defined in RSA 188-F:23, I, for a violation-level offense shall not require a signature or an oath. Any complaint filed electronically shall include notice that making a false statement on the complaint may result in criminal prosecution.
Any person can begin a prosecution, however, the respective county attorney or the Attorney General can stop the case from proceeding.
A private citizen here in NH absolutely has the authority to file and prosecute a "complaint" (a ticket) against anyone whom they have probable cause to believe has violated a law. This is limited by a NH Supreme Court decision that restricts the cases a private citizen can prosecute to violation and misdemeanor "B" level offenses. Ie: No jail time possible... only a fine. This would include many different violations to include speeding, parking, ect....
So says the Court ---> "However, we have held that "the common law of this State does not preclude the institution and prosecution of certain criminal complaints by private citizens." State (Haas Complainant) v. Rollins, 129 N.H. 684, 685, 533 A.2d 331 (1987). "
Quote from: lildog on April 30, 2008, 01:27 PM NHFT
I think both markets are equally safe and can exist together quite nicely.
Of course they can. That doesn't mean the incumbent businesses like someone new muscling in on their turf.
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 30, 2008, 07:55 AM NHFT
A bit off topic but does anybody know about "citizens arrests" etc. I've heard the term for years but didn't know if a regular citizen could apply it to...
a) citizens breaking the law
b) cops breaking the law
c) is just bullshit, put away your phony badge cop wanna be
Citizen's arrests are real. It's part of the common law, so you may not find a statute on the subject, and that means you'd have to check your local case law to find the particulars. But in general, as I understand, it can only be for a felony, and if the arrested person is not ultimately convicted, the arrester can be liable for unlawful imprisonment.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 30, 2008, 10:17 AM NHFT
Okay, I will make one more attempt at explaining my position to mackler.
The only thing I have been arguing all along, is that the law, any law, by reason of its very existence, presupposes enforcement by those whose job it is to enforce law.
Wrong. The only thing laws presuppose is that there exists a remedy for any violated rights. There's a law against trespassing, isn't there? Are you telling me the law presupposes that every time someone walks across your yard there will be a prosecution? If you honestly believe that then you're living in a fantasy that no judge, law professor, or other legal expert in the world would agree with. The only thing the law presupposes is that you have the
right to prosecute in any instance of trespassing on your property
if you so choose. But if you don't do anything when someone trespasses on your yard, nothing will happen.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 30, 2008, 10:17 AM NHFT
Laws do not need to state, "It is mandatory for law enforcement to enforce this law", because it is a built-in assumption.
You and your "built-in assumptions." You can keep repeating that all you want. It will make it about as true as if I decide there's a built-in assumption that police must wear pink tutus while on duty. Go ahead, Assume all you want. The law doesn't care about your imaginary "built-in" assumptions. The law is what it is, your assumptions notwithstanding.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 30, 2008, 10:17 AM NHFT
It would be just as absurd as posting a second sign underneath a traffic sign, stating that it is mandatory for motorists to obey the sign. It is presupposed, by the dint of the fact the sign exists in the first place, and the fact that the original sign is clearly directed at motorists.
Is it mandatory? I see people speeding all the time without being pulled over. Define mandatory. It certainly doesn't mean a guaranteed ticket.
Quote from: srqrebel on April 30, 2008, 10:17 AM NHFT
The same applies to law enforcement: It is a built-in expectation of any law that it will be enforced by law enforcement, by dint of the fact that the law exists in the first place, and the fact that the primary job of law enforcement is to enforce laws.
You just love building in these expectations. The thing is, sqlrebel, you're not a legislator, you're not a judge, so you don't have the power to build your expectations into the law. You can
expect all you want, you can
assume all you want. Fact is, your understanding about this is mistaken, and all your expectations and assumptions aren't going to change that. ::)
This is mildly annoying. I assume this would include food vendors. I've been looking into NH for a few months now, and one of my preferred "legal" options for making a living for myself included small scale vending of food. I had thought to export my talent with Mexican cuisine, too much competition here in Texas, but perhaps I should downgrade to hot dogs.
Must investigate this.
Oh, and, hi, people. ;D
Welcome. ;D
Quote from: Nathan.Halcyon on May 17, 2008, 08:35 AM NHFT
This is mildly annoying. I assume this would include food vendors. I've been looking into NH for a few months now, and one of my preferred "legal" options for making a living for myself included small scale vending of food. I had thought to export my talent with Mexican cuisine, too much competition here in Texas, but perhaps I should downgrade to hot dogs.
Must investigate this.
Oh, and, hi, people. ;D
PLEASE DO. There is very little decent Mexican food here and pretty much no Tex-Mex. I've been having withdrawls for months.
It's sounding more and more like a plan to me, and what little research I've done confirms what you say, Ryan. Sad, sad. There's only so much one can do with small scale vending, though. Going to be plenty of chorizo, the good kind, but I stop far short of consuming tripe. No menudo for you! Sope, fajita, tacos, tortas, and albondigas are obvious choices for "street" foods.
I just hope I can cope with the cold, hehe. I can't even stand in front of an open freezer for too long. ;D
Mmm....a taco truck :)