do you trust the local law enforcement agencies to uphold the law...

[WCGreen]

And do you trust the FBI is capable of handling right wing violence.

I know there is that group of oath keepers, but I don't think they are as prevalent as they make themselves out to be.

I have faith in this country's ultimate reliance on The Rule of Law and believe the professionals can handle anything the right wing throws out.

I believe that we, as a free society, have the same old problem; fearing fear and then over reacting.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I have family in law enforcement, and I think they can handle it.

Most if not all agencies are run with a certain mind set that allows them to land on their feet in a crisis, if said crisis comes up without warning.

I do trust the FBI.

The Oath Keepers look menacing, but who really knows? They could well fold like a bunch of broccoli in a fire fight.

I agree about fear, and how we react to it. We have a lot of resources, and they will get put into play as needed.

We need to remember that...

[napi21]

2. Yes I trust the local LE and the FBI, but I also know that

they are limited in #. If too many crazies join together, they can overwhelm LE. Then what?

[WCGreen]

5. I think there were just as many rigth wing crazies back when McVie

drove the truck...

It just wasn't exposed as it is today.

That is better and worse in so many ways but also balanced.

All these wingers will make it easy since they are more interested in calling attention to themselves...

[Lyric]

12. Then we step in and help out.

That's what citizens do when their liberties and nation are threatened.

[Zenlitened]

32. Yep.

:thumbsup:

[alstephenson]

3. I'm in Arizona (Maricopa County) and no...

I don't trust Sheriff Joe.

[blondeatlast]

6. Great minds--see below. nt

[WCGreen]

9. In the 99.99% of the rest of the country, I feel pretty safe about it all...

My condolences for living under the sway of that dufous. He makes Barney Fife look good in comparison. He's just a 1930's country sheriff allowed to continue his bigoted ways.

[blondeatlast]

4. I live in Maricopa County, Arizona; are you kidding? They eat this up like

ice cream.

Hell, our sherriff is probably squealing with delight at the prospect of it happening here.

That would be this man: Sheriff Joe Arpaio, fat, reactionary, racist, teabagger extraordinaire:

[pitohui]

7. we have cops on death row

i don't trust local LEOs to handle diddly, they're all in it for drug kickback money esp. in the suburbs

[WCGreen]

10. They are in Jail aren't they....

Greed transcends ideology most of the time.

[proteus_lives]

17. Bigoted statement.

All?

What other groups would you broad-brush? Lawyers, doctors, nurses, farmers, IT people?

[virgogal]

25. Unbelievable !

[midnight]

34. I did not think about the drug kick back. That does not make me happy.

[Lyric]

8. Yes, for one reason: the minute those teabaggers take up arms against their nation

they become traitors. Soldiers and cops might sympathize with legal, legitimate protestors...but traitors? No way. There might be a SCANT handful of soldiers and cops who feel an affinity with the "oath keeper" types, but if they dared to actually encourage others to break their oaths and betray their nation, they'd become outcasts and probably end up fired/dishonorably discharged, or even prosecuted/court-martialed if the offense was serious enough.

We have right-winger cops and soldiers for sure, but the vast, VAST majority of them are NOT going to fall in line with self-indulgent, whiny traitors who want to overthrow the democratic system whenever something happens that they don't like. This is a democratic republic, not a Tea-ocracy. Those idiots on the wingnut fringe need to put on their Big Girl panties and deal with the fact that in a democracy, sometimes YOUR SIDE LOSES.

[etherealtruth]

11. I believe, overall, they really try to do the right thing

Oh, there are incompetents and @ss-holes (just as there are in every profession) ... but, overall they will try their best to uphold the law.

[NNN0LHI]

13. My police chief is due to be sentenced to the federal pen any day now

So I can't really count on him.

Don

[DoBotherMe]

22. LOL!

Was I supposed to laugh? Cuz that was irony. Dana ; )

[Caliman73]

14. Depends...

I think that the Secret Service, FBI, and other assorted agencies have more than enough ability to handle the idiots planning to rally in VA and outlying areas. I don't see any seizure of the Capitol or anything remotely like that. The only concern I have is that the idiot rally goers would provoke a confrontation and crackdown to rally like minded idiots into open confrontation. The government has to play it cool, let the idiots squawk, then go about the business of government.

Now as another responder said, I do not always trust local law enforcement although over all I respect the difficult job they have. If I lived in Maricopa, I would definitely not trust Crazy Joe. Darryl Gates was another law enforcement figure I did not trust worth a damn. I see far to many minority folk being rousted to think that local LE is objective. I remember seeing much Neo Nazi graffiti growing up in Los Angeles, but always seeing Brown and Black skinned individuals being hassled while bald headed White boys were let slide.

The Oath Keepers are just part of the continuum of racist teabaggers who although they disagreed with Bush's activities, they let him slide cause they "trusted" him. They do not trust President Obama cause, I don't know, He's Black probably.

[Craftsman]

15. Not no, but heck no!!!!

[951-Riverside]

16. After the white house gate crashers I don't even trust the secret service

That incident had to very nerve-racking on the Obamas.

[proteus_lives]

19. Well, a shoe got thrown at Duyba.,

No protection is absolute.

[951-Riverside]

27. Well, that was in Iraq. n/t

[arcadian]

18. No I don't

I called the Park service today about the armed rally at Fort Hunt in April. They didn't sem concerned, yet they break out the dogs and the stormtroopers for peace activists.

[proteus_lives]

20. They can and will. A lot of DUers have been freaking out over nothing.

Overreaction is more dangerous in my opinion.

[pipoman]

21. I trust them to do what they are charged to do

and that doesn't include protecting anyone except those who are in their custody.. It is the job of law enforcement to investigate crime after it is committed, not to keep crimes from being committed, unless a crime is committed while planning another crime.

Basically, SCOTUS has said that each person is responsible for their own personal safety.

Bottom line, I trust law enforcement to draw a line around a body after a person is killed, but not to assure or insure it is the body of an offender and not my body, that is my job.

[kestrel91316]

23. I don't trust the FBI. They are all RWers IMHO. HUGE Utah Mormon contingent.

[virgogal]

24. Yes I do !

[Ignis]

26. The problem is when the populations overlap.

[Kievan Rus]

28. I trust the cops/FBI in major cities (like NYC), but am afraid of the ones in wingnut country

[LWolf]

29. What, exactly, am I supposed to be scared of? nt

[NAO]

33. Spain 1936, Chile 1973, Honduras 2009 - MIlitary decided gov't was unconstitutional

There are many cases in recent history where the military - or a portion thereof - has got the notion that the democratically elected government is "too leftist" and therefore "unconstitutional". They do not consult constitutional lawyers or hold open discussions about whether or not a particular democratically elected administration is constitutional or not. They simply turn the massive resources of the military against their own people, and install the type of government they like.

Here are three high profile examples of where exactly this scenario has happened:

Spanish Civil War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

1973 Chilean coup d'état
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis

In all three cases, members of the uniformed military just "decided" that the democratically elected government was "violating the constitution". Right now, with all the right-wing rhetoric ratcheted up to a shrill scream, and phrases like "death of the Republic" (Limbaugh), "end of our freedom"(Hannity), "unconstitutional power grab" (Beck) being bandied about, and all the talk about how this Health Care bill represents an "overstepping of power" and the introduction of "socialism" into America, I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about the possibility of something along these lines.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. You do realize that unlike other countries

the US is particular about keeping contact between it's armed forces and the civilians it serves?

Not that this could not happen (see the Air Force and infiltration for example)... but there are major differences...

[LWolf]

45. I am, of course, aware of this.

If that is supposed to suggest that I fear our own military taking over, I'll pass.

[progressoid]

30. Sure, mostly.

[NAO]

31. I am concerned about this; particularly by the Oath Keepers

I can see the Oath Keepers, or other "Patriot" groups using violence in the sincere belief that they are "upholding the constitution". I do not doubt their sincerity, their bravery, or their idealism. But I do question how they will interpret things.

The "Oath Keepers" are particularly troubling. They have decided a priori what orders to disobey. That decision has no context - it does not take into account the details of the situation.

Oath Keepers promises: "I will not disarm American Citizens"; "I will not send American Citizens into detainment camps". Ok, but not all situations where they could be given those orders are the same.

1. So, if someone is robbing a bank with a gun, will you defend his second amendment rights and refuse to disarm him?

2. Or if there is an October 1917 style Bolshevik Communist revolution led by American Citizens wielding legally owned firearms, you won't disarm them? Of, after they are disarmed, you won't help put them into detainment?

3. Or - more likely in our current situation - if there is violence against elected officials, by individuals or right-wing militia groups, based on their belief that the Obama administration has "violated the constitution", you will just let that happen? Will you do your job - protect the peace and order - and suppress such activities? Or will you support them?

I suspect they would say in 1 and 2 they would enforce the law, and follow orders to disarm and detain American citizens. However, I'm not so sure about case 3.

They say they are non-partisan. Case 2 and case 3 are, except for ideology, identical situations (armed citizens taking the law into their own hands and using violence to try to influence or overthrow the elected government). The only difference between 2 and 3 is a partisan difference. Neither case can be said to be "truly American". It is unlawful for citizens to use violence to enforce ideology of ANY stripe: leftist, rightest, or even centrist.

Or consider another scenario:

4. A massive outbreak of a highly contagious deadly disease of biblical proportions. The only way to save tens of millions of lives is to quarantine the infected. Will their a priori decision not to partake of detainment of American citizens keep them from protecting public safety?

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. My local cops? YES they have done a great job

over the course of the last few years.

The FBI has also done yeoman's work in infiltrating the RIGHT WING over the years.

Yes, done research on this...

Now if the violence reaches a certain point, there is not much the cops can do to stop it... quite frankly.

[NAO]

38. If the cops can't stop it, what are the options?

If there were large scale violence, and civilian law enforcement were not able to stop it, wouldn't we have to engage the military?

And these guys would have created the exact paranoid scenario they have vowed to oppose. They would literally be able to sit back and say, "we warned you, and we were prepared".

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Yes, if it reaches a certain point

you crossed the threshold into martial law...

Reaching that point is always fuzzy and hard to tell... but right now we are very much far from that point. And I am one who's seeing the pattern of cold to hot civil war.

That also depends on the country and the tolerance of the country for lawlessness as well as the local level of trust in government institutions. Given the US has a tad of a problem with that one, we may be closer to that theoretical point.

And to be honest, I'd hate to be the President, don't care what party, that has to give that order. After all any time you deploy a military force to do police work, things get nasty. No, not because it is martial law, but because soldiers are not cops.

Shall we say civil rights violations go through the roof...

[L0oniX]

37. NO I don't. Just like I don't expect the feds to go after the war criminals or bankster thieves.

What you need to keep in mind is that police officers are "reactive" not "pro active". They don't keep things from happening, they clean up the mess after it's happened. Security guards on the other hand are "pro active".

[Raineyb]

39. No. I don't even trust them to follow the law. n/t

[jtrockville]

41. The "rule of law" became a distant memory when we decided to

"look forward".

[HopeHoops]

42. My township police department - absolutely. They're an excellent team of professionals.

In general (not always) I've felt that the local police were dedicated and could be trusted. The biggest problem with local forces is when they have too high a percentage of rookies or low-experience officers. They just tend to overreact. State troopers are probably the most professional officers you will ever encounter, but even they are plagued with racists, although I believe they are the exception even in racist states.

[slackmaster]

43. I trust them to do the best job they can with limited resources

At the end of the day only you are really responsible for your own safety.

[Ikonoklast]

44. No. They will pick sides.

And the authoritarians always go one way.

[Echo In Light]

46. Hell no. Authoritarian systems & people will side w/those attacking the left/liberals

[tom_paine]

47. I believe that, after 40 years of Bushification of LE, Intel & military it grows more questionable

This is a tough one to reply to. We are in a time of transition, when old America is dying and What We Are Becoming (Bushification/Corporate Neofeudal-ification) is growing.

I think right now it's a crapshoot whether or not the lawless Bushie faction of the FBI would handle a given thing. However, Bushification is much more prevalent at the higher levels of these institutions and thus can guide the investigation to a foregone conclusion.

Look at the creepy Nazi-like quality of the Anthrax Investigation, which was pinned on a corpse and has more holes in it than a swiss cheese.

I would say that, as Bushification proceeds onward, barely even slowed by Obama's "election", my trust continues to drop and I have NO trust in LE where Bushie Interests are directly threatened.

Like John Yoo or the Landrieu Buggers. Remember, a Loyal Bushie is still Director of the FBI.