Talk:Posse comitatus

Translation

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, posse comitatus means "force of the county", according to Merriam-Webster "power or authority of the county". The deviant translations in Wikipedia are probably the result of trying to translate the term from antique ("golden") Latin, whereas it's acutally medieval Latin. Maikel 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus in no way means "county force" . Posse is the infinitive of Possum, an intransitive Classical Latin verb meaning "I can" or "I am able" (depending on the conjugation). Comitatus is not Classical Latin however, it is a Church or Medieval Latin noun, probably deriving from the Classical transitive verb committo, commiterre, meaning generally to enjoin or bring together; militarily it has a more precise meaning, to join or engage in battle.--116.240.248.120 (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comes means "count" or "earl" in Latin, so comitatus means "county" (genitive). I just made a quick search on the internet and all results said "force of the county". I am reverting this, please find sources if you want to change the translation. --Nabbia (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bolches yarboclos. Google Translate translate "posse comitātūs" as "be accompanied". Maybe some expert can clarify this point. 148.225.71.236 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

contradiction w/ Posse Comitatus (U.S. movement) entry

Where this article talks about a singular anti-Semitic movement, the Posse Comitatus (U.S. movement) article describes a much looser set of ideas about the distribution of power within the American legal system. Is it a monolithic conspiracy or a school of thought?

Modern usage

The article suggests that posse comitatus has fallen into disuse, and it probably has on the scale of dozens of non-officers assisting conventional law enforcement officers for hours or days at a time. However, my limited experience suggests incidents of one or two non-officers assisting law enforcement officers carry out an arrest over a time span of seconds or minutes are probably more common, especially if the non-officers are in an occupation that puts them in close proximity to law enforcement officers, such as firefighters and emergency medical technicians. Gerry Ashton 18:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I might also add that the existence of private detectives and other security forces, while somewhat mercenary in nature, would also constitute the widespread implementation of a modern incarnation of posse comitatus in that those in such professions with some frequency do work closely with law enforcement and exist as a non-governmental option for the prevention and investigation of wrongdoing. Metaphilosopher (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

fraudulent use

though I disagree with the group, it's definition falls within the broad definition given in the introduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.100.122 (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Law Enforcement Wikiproject

I gave this article a rating of start class for Wikiproject Law Enforcement. --DLPanther 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Expand section on United States

This article needs far more content about sheriff's posses, their current uses and misuses. Posse comitatus is the basis of the authority of a county sheriff to direct groups of citizen volunteers in search and rescue (SAR). This contributes to the fact that although in much of the world SAR is a law enforcement function, in the United States it is conducted principally by civilian volunteers, often under the direction of the county sheriff. There are many sheriff's posse groups in the US. Some are reserve officer groups; some are mounted (horse) parade groups; some are mounted search and rescue groups; some are saddle clubs, some are social clubs. In Connecticut, sheriff's posses are (were?) civilians specially deputized (and paid) to serve warrants and transport to court people who are in custody. The lucrative nature of this entitlement led to accusations of corruption. --Una Smith (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Suppress Public Disorder" Quote

This quotation was rightfully flagged for a reference. In the U.S. Public Law 109-364 there is a mention of inserting the words "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order" in (see Title X, Subtitle H, §1076) as additional language into a previous law (cannot determine which yet). The only mention or use of the word "suppress" comes via §(a)(1)(B) where it states that The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to: "suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2). ‘‘(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that— ‘‘(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; " For reference see public law hyperlink on U.S. Federal Website. [2]--Magnushawk (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC) My recommendation would be to change the quote to "restore public order" from the current entry "suppress public disorder". --Magnushawk (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted pretty much the entire disputed section for two reasons. 1) Discussing the legislative history of the Posse Comitatus Act, focusing entirely on a provision that was in effect for something less than two years, was inappropriate for a general article on common law posse comitatus. Post-repeal it served no purpose. 2) The tone was completely inappropriate. The comment about the act being signed in private, the "500-plus-billion" of the "massive" bill, all seemed to have an editorial slant. There was absolutely no source on the Second Amendment comment, which came out of left field. DCB4W (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the Posse still exist under Common Law?

Does anyone know if the Posse Comitatus still exists under the Common Law of England?

I have followed through the link to the Sheriffs Act of 1887, section 8 of which gives Sheriffs the power to call out the Posse and sets out penalties for non-compliance, but as far as I can see the existing Common Law relating to the Posse was not formally repealed. The Criminal Law Act of 1967 repealed the first sub-section of section 8, but not the second sub-section, which refers to 'the power of the county'. It thus seems that in some sense the Posse Comitatus still exists. But do its powers go beyond the limited one set out in sction 8(2) of the 1887 Act?

I am not a lawyer, but I am curious because at present (August 2011), with the threat of riots and looting throughout England, a flexible mechanism for civilian volunteers to assist the Police seems desirable, and I wondered if the institution of the Posse could be revived for this purpose.109.158.131.242 (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Added: I think I may have found the answer to my own question. Section 39(1) of the Act of 1887 provided that any repeals of previous statutes made by the Act did not affect any rights and duties of the sheriffs at Common Law. Assuming that a general power to call out the Posse existed at Common Law, it was unaffected by the 1887 Act and would remain unaffected if the 1887 Act itself were repealed. In any event, the part of s.39(1) which preserved the Common Law powers of the sheriff remains in force. So it does seem that the power to call out the posse still exists, though it does not seem to have been exercised since 1830 at the latest, so there might be an argument that it has lapsed by desuetude. Now I'll have to look up desuetude!109.157.230.56 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Example

I notice there is already an example from Georgia law, so I won't post this to the article, but only here for those who may want a little more. South Carolina law includes a duty to assist law enforcement. SC Code § 23-15-70 (2012) reads:

Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or other officer specially empowered may call out the bystanders or posse comitatus of the proper county to his assistance whenever he is resisted or has reasonable grounds to suspect and believe that such assistance will be necessary in the service or execution of process in any criminal case and any deputy sheriff may call out such posse comitatus to assist in enforcing the laws and in arresting violators or suspected violators thereof. Any person refusing to assist as one of the posse comitatus in the service or execution of such process, when required by the sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or other officer shall be liable to be indicted therefor and upon conviction shall be fined and imprisoned, at the discretion of the court any person who shall fail to respond and render assistance when summoned by a deputy sheriff to assist in enforcing the laws and in arresting violators or suspected violators thereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction shall be fined not less than thirty nor more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for thirty days.

155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 22:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

---

• Posse comitatus (common law) → Posse comitatus
• Posse comitatus → Posse comitatus (disambiguation)

– This looks like an obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to me. We've got two TV episodes without their own articles and a fringe group. I'm very surprised this hasn't happened before. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per BDD's reasoning. P Aculeius (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Good find. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Calidum T|C 09:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lattimer (Latimer) mentioned twice

The article has a link to the article on the Lattimer massacre in Luzern County, Pennsylvania. That's fine. But there is second reference under 3.1, Notable posses. Maybe the best answer is to retitle 3.1 to "Other notable posses" and remove the Luzern County mention (Latimer, sic) from that part of the article. I won't do this now, but leave this for others who are doing more extensive edits. Oaklandguy (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)