8 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 31.2 ms ] thread
Especially in California with the massive brain trust available in Silicon Valley, I’m surprised some enterprising law enforcement officials never thought to form a posse to go after computer criminals. Heck, “Possees for The Safety of the Children” to track down kiddie porn pushers could have been a hell of a vehicle for publicity.
Posses were partially meant to prevent the formation of Vigilance Committees, the members of which are known as vigilantes.
> Sort of like jury duty, but with guns.

Jurors often report how serving on a jury changes their views on criminal justice.

I suspect that a similar mandatory, limited-time requirement to serve in law enforcement would do the same. And it might not be the worst thing to happen to the country.

Legitimate question: is there anything wrong with having a law like this in the books in case an (elected?) Sheriff needs to activate it in some emergency? I could see it theoretically becoming necessary in a small town in the event of a legitimate disaster.

(I didn't even know what a posse was until I read this)

It sounded like a mini-draft to me, so I'd say it's probably as legal as a draft is.
It's not about whether it's legal per se... the article is written with a sense of "Can you believe this insane law was still on the books until recently?" It really doesn't seem particularly insane, or even bad, to me.
But they can be forced to join a Union. No one should be forced to do anything against their will.
Sorry, for the people that downvoted me, I changed my mind. You're right, people should be forced to join clubs against their will.