• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Michael Brown unarmed shooting in Ferguson, MO

Status
Not open for further replies.

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
As far as I know Posse Comitatus had been repealed. On December 31, 2011, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

From Wiki, because I am lazy. PC has not been repealed by what I see. IMO Bush was wrong, and so was Obama, but the sheep do not have the brains to look to see what their government is doing.

In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[7]

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... 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... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[8]

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.[9] It was originally written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness.

In 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law. Section 1021(b)(2) extended the definition of a "covered person", i.e., someone possibly subject to detention under this law, to include:

A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.[10]

Section 1021(e) purports to limit the scope of said authority with the text, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."[11]
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
The republicans have a opportunity to defeat Hillary by showing the people who voted for Obama what they got over the deal. Having the black vote switch sides would mean her defeat in a landslide. But I doubt the republicans will capitalize on the opportunity, and that the black vote will switch direction.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Federally-subsidized militarization of police ought to reasonably be considered a violation of the posse comitatus act. Military tactics as used by law enforcement routinely violate the first, second, and fourth amendments.

BTW, I don't expect one judge to fix everything; you were the one championing the success of the state after one measly ruling.

That's actually an interesting angle I havent seen before. Good point.

And my intent wasn't to champion any success, was just to merely show the system does work on occasion. How much is up for debate. But even one case like disproves the naysayers that tote the "tyrants in black robes" or that the judicial branch is rigged and just does what corrupt police want, etc.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
That's actually an interesting angle I havent seen before. Good point.

And my intent wasn't to champion any success, was just to merely show the system does work on occasion. How much is up for debate. But even one case like disproves the naysayers that tote the "tyrants in black robes" or that the judicial branch is rigged and just does what corrupt police want, etc.

Have you ever met a judge? :lol:
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
--Edited/deleted by Moderator--

Real classy! Are you this intelligent on the job?:uhoh:

I wasn't going to respond to this attempt at a personal insult. But nothing is lower on a forum to insult or insinuate about a non posting family member. Your behavior is disgusting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Real classy! Are you this intelligent on the job?:uhoh:

I wasn't going to respond to this attempt at a personal insult. But nothing is lower on a forum to insult or insinuate about a non posting family member. Your behavior is disgusting.
I still love you. :p
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
That's actually an interesting angle I havent seen before. Good point.

And my intent wasn't to champion any success, was just to merely show the system does work on occasion. How much is up for debate. But even one case like disproves the naysayers that tote the "tyrants in black robes" or that the judicial branch is rigged and just does what corrupt police want, etc.

One case disproves the existence of black robed tyranny and corrupt police?
 

Renegadez

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Lees Summit
I believe this

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.[9] It was originally written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness.

in combination with the NDAA means the president can now deploy our military troops to the streets of America. rendering Posse Comitatus useless.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Not remotely. Actually reinforces the idea that there are SOME, by showing an appropriate ruling compared to a bad ruling. But in the same token it destroys the idea that ALL are tyrants.

This ruling may have never happened if not for the media coverage. In my opinion this should be the norm, and everything should default to good, moral, and correct. It's just so RARE nowadays that we are impressed by one measly correct judgement.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
This ruling may have never happened if not for the media coverage. In my opinion this should be the norm, and everything should default to good, moral, and correct. It's just so RARE nowadays that we are impressed by one measly correct judgement.
I'd have to disagree its rare. There's been quite a few gun cases that have come out.

Are we not currently waiting on a good ruling in DC?

Did an amendment in a state just get passed that gave it constitutional carry (legislative not judicial but still a win).

Pretty certain the female in NJ also got a good ruling on her gun charges.

The list goes on.....

Ground has been made and it will continue to be gained.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
This ruling may have never happened if not for the media coverage. In my opinion this should be the norm, and everything should default to good, moral, and correct. It's just so RARE nowadays that we are impressed by one measly correct judgement.

The ruling is just a band aid after the fact with no real cure. You cannot have a cure unless there are repercussions more than just words for a illegal act.

The police dept already ignored DOJ on two spankings, they will ignore this ruling, and nothing more than a verbal spanking will be done.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Primus, I know you have a lot of faith that the system will fix itself but I am a bit more cynical.

The ruling is just a band aid after the fact with no real cure. You cannot have a cure unless there are repercussions more than just words for a illegal act.

The police dept already ignored DOJ on two spankings, they will ignore this ruling, and nothing more than a verbal spanking will be done.

I tend to agree. The people who were violated were deprived of the opportunity to peaceably assemble and protest. They can't get that time back, and the Police were playing an imaginary made up unlawful role that those people now cannot forget. They are trying to redefine their role in people's lives. They are no longer peace officers.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The arresting cops committed criminal acts.
Until December 31, 2016--Felonious restraint.

RSMo 565.120. 1. A person commits the crime of felonious restraint if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully and without consent so as to interfere substantially with his liberty and exposes him to a substantial risk of serious physical injury.

2. Felonious restraint is a class C felony.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

Effective 1-01-79

*This section was amended by S.B. 491, 2014, effective 1-01-17. Due to the delayed effective date, both versions of this section are printed here.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Not remotely. Actually reinforces the idea that there are SOME, by showing an appropriate ruling compared to a bad ruling. But in the same token it destroys the idea that ALL are tyrants.

As if anyone has taken the absolutist stance that ALL cops/judges/politicians are completely, totally, 100% corrupt.

The system is corrupt, as are many of its agents. Those who try to do the right thing, are faced with the Regina Tasca and Adam Basford treatment.

But hey, this one time, everything worked out yall. Stop criticizing an unjust monopoly of unaccountable force!!! /s
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I don't really see how that helps Wilson.

I don't either, and remember we had media reports of the broken eye socket which were false. Now if there was Wilson's blood on Brown it may have helped Wilson.

Wilson handcuffed a dead and bleeding Brown, handled his gun, and probably returned to his vehicle. Ohhh that is right they did not secure his vehicle and he drove off in it.
 
Last edited:

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Even if there was high velocity splatter in the cruiser I don't see how that would be any kind of game changer.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
If Brown had actually beat Wilson the blood they would be looking for would be Wilson's on Brown.

They tried this BS in the Zimmerman trial, and it did not wash. But there probably will be no trial this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top