Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Tyranny in Texas?

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Tyranny in Texas?

    Terry Holcomb (edit for those that don't know - open carry preacher, associated with Texas Carry and Come And Take It) arrested - can you figure out what for?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNNulhb8kw

    Sorry I missed a video - HOLY ******* **** did I miss a video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vuNb3lDiQ
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 10-14-2014 at 11:07 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    What the @#$%?!?!?!?

    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    We have children sitting at judges' benches in texas.
    Advocate freedom please

  4. #4
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    This is insane. I am literally palming my face.

    Cop: "I'd like a word with you in private."

    Holcomb: "Am I being detained?"

    Cop: "You're about to be, yeah. Yeah." (inaudible)

    Holcomb: "For what crime?"

    Cop: "I didn't say you committed a crime did I? I need a word with you."

    Holcomb: "I'm not going to say anything."

    Cop: "Turn around and put your hands behind your back."

    When is someone going to nut up and refuse to do so? When is someone going to invoke Plummer vs. State? The entire encounter is on video.

    Am I missing something here?
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    This is insane. I am literally palming my face.

    Cop: "I'd like a word with you in private."

    Holcomb: "Am I being detained?"

    Cop: "You're about to be, yeah. Yeah." (inaudible)

    Holcomb: "For what crime?"

    Cop: "I didn't say you committed a crime did I? I need a word with you."

    Holcomb: "I'm not going to say anything."

    Cop: "Turn around and put your hands behind your back."

    When is someone going to nut up and refuse to do so? When is someone going to invoke Plummer vs. State? The entire encounter is on video.

    Am I missing something here?
    Seriously, "can you resist an UNLAWFUL order just a little"????????????????

    When Should You Shoot a Cop
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cElTyqJkMEw

    That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

    In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

    People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

    Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”–the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that “the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist–that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally”–i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.

    If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.

    Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop “just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.

    Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.

    There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”

    Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? “You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ‘plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a “right”–what does the term “right” even mean–if you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.



    To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

    Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called “law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow “government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

    Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called “government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

    The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

  6. #6
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    I have not read your entire post yet, but let me be clear that I am not advocating killing cops on a whim if you feel threatened.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post

    That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

    In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

    People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

    Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”–the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that “the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist–that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally”–i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.

    If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.

    Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop “just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.

    Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.

    There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”

    Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? “You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ‘plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a “right”–what does the term “right” even mean–if you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.



    To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

    Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called “law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow “government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

    Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called “government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

    The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.
    +1 good post
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Terry Holcomb (edit for those that don't know - open carry preacher, associated with Texas Carry and Come And Take It) arrested - can you figure out what for?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNNulhb8kw

    Sorry I missed a video - HOLY ******* **** did I miss a video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vuNb3lDiQ
    Failure to respect the (petulant) judge's "authoritah"?
    Failure to adhere to the judge's opinions?
    Contempt of cop?

    Seems we've long ago had not only Opinion Enforcement Officers, but Opinion Enforcement Officials. The options are numbered, and some are no longer valid, leaving fewer and fewer peaceable "democratic" solutions.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Seriously, "can you resist an UNLAWFUL order just a little"????????????????

    SNIP...

    Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

    The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.
    +1 Well said.

    I constantly remind people of the "in the line of duty" fallacy, something which does not endear me with a few members in the extended family who I'm ashamed to admit share a sizable percentage of their genome with me.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  10. #10
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339
    So what was it that they didn't want him to speak on that was the beginning of all this? Was he going to speak on open carry, or something else?
    Open means open...

  11. #11
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    So what was it that they didn't want him to speak on that was the beginning of all this? Was he going to speak on open carry, or something else?
    I would also like to know some context here, but I think that what I saw is all I need to see to warrant the mentioning of Plummer vs. State.

    This is also why a recording device, audio AND video, is very important if you are an activist that pushes the limit.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  12. #12
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    So what was it that they didn't want him to speak on that was the beginning of all this? Was he going to speak on open carry, or something else?
    I don't know, but I think the issue is that the judge was refusing to let any member of the public speak period, about anything. I don't think it was about open carry specifically, more just general corruption. I too can't believe he actually sat up there and repeatedly said "whatever" to a member of the public, or at all... He should be removed from office by the public, immediately, by whatever means he'll go.
    Advocate freedom please

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member independence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    339
    Open means open...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    yes indeedy. Thanks. Watching the videos ATM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    I have not read your entire post yet, but let me be clear that I am not advocating killing cops on a whim if you feel threatened.
    THEY kill on a whim if the FEEL threatened.


    American citizens should adopt "Rule #1" from LEOs. Make it home safe at the end of the day by any means.

  17. #17
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    Interesting how they leave out of the article the egregious lack of professionalism and maturity of the court and officers.

    The comment about going outside and addressing the public in the hallway - WOW he is ignorant! I bet he still doesn't realize how largely he missed the point and misunderstands the issue, AND the constitution, which I'm guessing he's taken an oath to uphold. This is about petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, NOT just free speech to be able to speak in public! Ignorant, AND arrogant, this guy is! "Yeah, whatever" I'm sure would be his reply.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 10-15-2014 at 01:46 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  18. #18
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    THEY kill on a whim if the FEEL threatened.


    American citizens should adopt "Rule #1" from LEOs. Make it home safe at the end of the day by any means.
    This is hard to argue against. However, we all know the ruling class has more of a right to live than we peasants...
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    They did not allow for public comment? They do not have to.

    They asked him to leave the bldg.

    Appears as if they were going into executive session....(from the video)...they can kick people out for this purpose alone...and likely for any reason after the meeting was adjourned.

    Sorry guys, but the preacher is wrong here.

    From what was on the video.

    Sounds like that they had no item agenda for public comments ... and the guy wanted to talk. That's fine. But to add the public comments item to the agenda they likely would have had to vote to add it to the agenda and then have it. I see no issue with a citizen asking for such a vote but when they say no, that's it..the matter is closed.

    I just submitted a brief to a court on the right to speak at a public hearing (a little bit different than just a meeting, a public hearing is one which public input is meant to occur)...which this appears not to have been (it was just a meeting).

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by independence View Post
    Ah, this link shows that public comment item was not on the agenda....good post, explains much.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    I saw a claim that the regular session had been adjourned and a quorum was not present at the time, so there was no meeting to disrupt. I can't speak to the validity of that, but it's interesting if true.

    Also, for those not familiar with Texas government, the county judge is not a law judge. He's the elected county administrator, the chief executive. He has practically no judicial authority outside hearings for mental health commitments.

    The quorum court is the meeting of the county judge and the five county commissioners, who are elected justices of the peace.

    https://www.county.org/texas-county-...nty-Judge.aspx

  22. #22
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Not to split hairs but he did leave the room. He wasn't told, nor do I think he really could have legitimately been told, to leave the building. It would seem that state law doesn't require public comments be allowed, perhaps that's a mistake and perhaps even unconstitutional since petitioning government for a redress of grievances (which is exactly what he wanted to do) is a constitutionally protected right. Allowing you to stand on the steps with a sign doesn't cut it for honoring that right - those holding office must HEAR and listen to the grievances of the people. Those holding office are constitutionally obligated to listen, not just allow the people to speak.
    Advocate freedom please

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    58
    To add ANYTHING to the agenda takes time in TX. It has to be published and posted a certain number of days. This is to allow those who wish to be heard to attend. Otherwise you could take up an issue and ramrod it through on 10 minute notice, and the public that would want to speak on that issue would not know to attend, and the issue would pass without dissenting comment from the public. This has happened in the past and is also bad.
    If there is no listing for public comment, they cannot add it at that meeting. He must get it added to the agenda of the next meeting.

  24. #24
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by hovercat View Post
    To add ANYTHING to the agenda takes time in TX. It has to be published and posted a certain number of days. This is to allow those who wish to be heard to attend. Otherwise you could take up an issue and ramrod it through on 10 minute notice, and the public that would want to speak on that issue would not know to attend, and the issue would pass without dissenting comment from the public. This has happened in the past and is also bad.
    If there is no listing for public comment, they cannot add it at that meeting. He must get it added to the agenda of the next meeting.
    I heard a rumor that the agenda wasn't posted properly, which is a violation of the law unless I'm mistaken. I don't think he was necessarily asking that public comment be added on the spot, he was very simply standing up to a tyrant.
    Advocate freedom please

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4
    For all those interested, the elected judge in this situation did not win re-election. He was beaten by the Republican candidate, Lovett.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •