Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: More power for police, more immunity for prosecutors

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Analysis

    In opinions so spare that the Supreme Court did not labor long to produce them, the Justices on Monday unanimously expanded the control that police can exercise at the scene ofroadside traffic stops, and, again without dissent,pushed up thechain-of-command in prosecutors’ offices total immunity to liabilityfor decisionsmade in preparing criminal cases for trial. The first ruling was an enlargement of “stop and frisk” authority, the second was a reinterpretation of when prosecutors’ supervisors do administrative tasks.

    The Court has returned often to the constitutional environment that prevails along the nation’s streets and highways when police officers see a traffic violation in progress, and decide to pull over the offending vehicle. In a series of rulings, dating back nearly four decades, it has slowly built up a complex array of Fourth Amendment concepts, most of which have added to the officers’ authority “to control the scene,” as the Court put it again on Monday in further expanding that power.

    That expansion has been based, in large part, on the Court’s concern that there is a considerable risk that any traffic stop could quickly escalate into “a violent encounter,” because more crime may actually be afoot than merely a violation of traffic laws, and driver or passengers may want to prevent its detection. That was the rationale the Court used again in deciding Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122).

    With fewer than four full pages of analysis in a nine-page opinion,the Court decidedthat police may order a passenger out of a stopped vehicle, and then conduct a “pat-down search” (a frisk) if they have reason to believe that the rider may be armed and dangerous. (In this particular, it was assumed that the officer involved had such a reason, but that could be tested when the case returns to Arizona state courts.)

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ran over the Court’s past precedents dating back to Terry v. Ohio in 1968, and concluded that the “combined thrust” of the past rulings was that officers who conduct routine traffic stops may perform a frisk of a driver and any passenger if they had “reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous.” The opinion then went on to concluded that the principle would now be made clearcut Fourth Amendment law.

    If the traffic stop is not unduly prolonged by search activity following the initial stop, the opinion said, it has not been concluded for Fourth Amendment purposes until the police have completed exercising control of the scene — including a frisk when they believe someone in the vehicle may be armed and dangerous.

  2. #2
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    When the courts fail us, where do we turn for freedom and justice? I hate to say it, but the day is coming, faster than I ever hoped it would.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    When the courts fail us, where do we turn for freedom and justice? I hate to say it, but the day is coming, faster than I ever hoped it would.
    Lets read the cases first and see what really happened.

    I say this because the summary given for the traffic stop situation sounds like something that's been going on for a while now, that is to say, its not new, and not an expansion.

    If you really want to lose sleep, start researching the Federal Reserve, and not just the white-bread, sugar-coating stuff the Fed itself puts out.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Here's the opinion:

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/07-1122.pdf

    Also some of the details left out of the original analysis in the OP, but seem kind of important to me:

    The case involved a gang patrol by officers who were checking out a suspect neighborhood in Tucson. When a car passed, one officer ran a check on the license plate, and discovedred that the insurance on that vehicle had been suspended. So, while there was no suspicion of any other crime, the officers stopped the vehicle. Officer Maria Trevizo engaged the back-seat passenger,Lemon Montreat Johnson,in conversation, and began talking with him after noticing he was wearing what she considered to be something of a gang emblem, a blue bandanna.

    She learned he was from the town of Eloy, the site of prominent gang activity, and that he had done time on a burglary conviction. She ordered him out of the car, and frisked him, finding a gun located near his waste. She then handcuffed him. He was charged with illegal gun posesssion (among other offenses), and was convicted on that charge. An Arizona appeals court threw out the conviction, finding that Officer Trevizo had no right to pat-down passenger Johnson,since she had no reason to believe he had committed any crime.

    Sounds like the guy should have just kept his mouth shut, although I do wonder if just wearing "something of a gang emblem" might be enough to pass reasonable suspicion of presenting a danger.

    TFred


  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Here's the opinion:

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/07-1122.pdf

    Also some of the details left out of the original analysis in the OP, but seem kind of important to me:

    The case involved a gang patrol by officers who were checking out a suspect neighborhood in Tucson. When a car passed, one officer ran a check on the license plate, and discovedred that the insurance on that vehicle had been suspended. So, while there was no suspicion of any other crime, the officers stopped the vehicle. Officer Maria Trevizo engaged the back-seat passenger,Lemon Montreat Johnson,in conversation, and began talking with him after noticing he was wearing what she considered to be something of a gang emblem, a blue bandanna.

    She learned he was from the town of Eloy, the site of prominent gang activity, and that he had done time on a burglary conviction. She ordered him out of the car, and frisked him, finding a gun located near his waste. She then handcuffed him. He was charged with illegal gun posesssion (among other offenses), and was convicted on that charge. An Arizona appeals court threw out the conviction, finding that Officer Trevizo had no right to pat-down passenger Johnson,since she had no reason to believe he had committed any crime.

    Sounds like the guy should have just kept his mouth shut, although I do wonder if just wearing "something of a gang emblem" might be enough to pass reasonable suspicion of presenting a danger.

    TFred
    It's probably not polite to quote one's own post... but I just had to chuckle at this most unfortunate typo in the quoted article! :shock: This gives "concealed carry" a whole new meaning!

    TFred (trying to keep a little bit of a sense of humor)


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Good luck to all these kids who have gotten tattoos as a fad in the past decade or two. They'll all be tagged as "ganstas," which they'll think is cool until they're in court. Judges do not appreciate counter-culture accoutrements.

    Finding the gun in his "waste" was rather unintentionally funny.

    -ljp

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    SNIP...I do wonder if just wearing "something of a gang emblem" might be enough to pass reasonable suspicion of presenting a danger.
    You know how that, or any other "RAS" question, gets answered, right?

    In court. And not until. I think it was even Terry where the court said questions about what is and what isn't sufficient to furnish reasonable suspicion will have to be answeredon a case-by-case basis in acourt.

    Which means, after you have been arrested, and after the trial court improperly admitted evidence found during the unreasonable search, then you get appellate review. At your own expense, of course.

    Oh, for thehard-liner judges! Which judgewas it that it was said he wouldaccept an indictment for blowing your nose in public if it was against the law, but would quash the indictment if it failed to specify which hand you used?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    Today's court decision didn't set any real precedent. It merely restated the obvious that the Fourth Amendment only applies to Rich people who live in nice neighborhoods.



    The Second Amendment. For Every Wrong There is a Remedy.©

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Well, I'veread it now. Once.

    I can't say I blame the court for extending safety for police to the passengers.

    Where I disagree is that they seem to agree that thisparticular group of facts amounted to reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous.

    Its kinda tricky. The court wouldn't have affirmed if it had been a foot encounter. At least I hope they wouldn't have.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770

    Post imported post

    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    I keep seeing all these things that LEOs are allowed to do "for the safety of the officer". What about MY safety? All the statistics I've seen say that LEOs aren't any less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen (while a CCW holder is actually about 5 times less likely to). This isn't meant to be a bash on cops: they aren't any MORE likely to commit crimes, either.

    I'm just curious as to why everyone's so concerned with the officer's safety, but not the safety of the citizen they are dealing with, since statistically, either of them is just as likely to commit a crime as the other?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    while I think there are mone than just a "few" LEOs that feel that the law is whatever they want it to be, and that they can pretty much just do what they want,

    I also believe that in the interest of the good cops (big majority) we have to understand that they may be approaching a [stolen] car full of crack head gang bangers, most of whom have outstanding felony warrants and [stolen] guns under their hoodies, are high on whatever, and don't give a - - - - cause they don't feel like they have anything to lose that would rather "bust a cap" on a cop than get an oral warning about a light being burned out.

    They could die just trying to tell someone that they have a burned out tail light or that their tire looks like it's going flat. I'm serious, think about it. They could die over some mundane thing like that.

    I work for some real so and so's but it's not likely that I will suffer gun shot wounds in performing the normal course of my duties. The law has to be crafted to cover the dangerous situations as well as the situations when the cop pulls over one of us and we cooperate fully and pose no threat at all to the cop.


    We have to keep the cops under control but the laws have to be crafted to cover all situations. I don't know for sure what the final answer is but ..........

  13. #13
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Officer safety is BS, and a "handwave" tool to any complaints about inappropriate actions involving any police officer. An officer has no "right" to safety, neither do you. We all take actions that either increase or decrease our safety relative to the norm. A police officer has made the choice to put on a uniform that may or may not make them a target for certain individuals. But then again, they are getting paid to wear that uniform, and by extension, to accept the increased risk that comes with it. I will not accept the excuse that my rights are able to be infringed simply because Officer Jonny feels I might be a risk to him during a traffic stop. Unless he has some evidence that is quantifiable that I am planning to do him harm while he is interacting with me ina legal and constitutional encounter, he should have no more right than I do to disarm another person or infringe on their right to freely travel.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Officer safety is BS, and a "handwave" tool to any complaints about inappropriate actions involving any police officer. An officer has no "right" to safety, neither do you. We all take actions that either increase or decrease our safety relative to the norm. A police officer has made the choice to put on a uniform that may or may not make them a target for certain individuals. But then again, they are getting paid to wear that uniform, and by extension, to accept the increased risk that comes with it. I will not accept the excuse that my rights are able to be infringed simply because Officer Jonny feels I might be a risk to him during a traffic stop. Unless he has some evidence that is quantifiable that I am planning to do him harm while he is interacting with me ina legal and constitutional encounter, he should have no more right than I do to disarm another person or infringe on their right to freely travel.
    Um. . .
    Haven't you heard somewhere about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If safety isn't included in that, then what is? Unsafe things are generally accepted to be those that carry a risk of death.

    Furthermore, police are special in the sense that they are more at risk fromcertain unlawful sectors of the populacethan the average person is. Some people do things that, from their view, give them good reason to fear or hate the police. A lot of the people are flushed out during traffic stops. A "routine" traffic stop is one of the mostdangerous things that a typical officer does, because he doesn't know what to expect.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Flyer22 wrote:
    compmanio365 wrote:
    Officer safety is BS, and a "handwave" tool to any complaints about inappropriate actions involving any police officer. An officer has no "right" to safety, neither do you. We all take actions that either increase or decrease our safety relative to the norm. A police officer has made the choice to put on a uniform that may or may not make them a target for certain individuals. But then again, they are getting paid to wear that uniform, and by extension, to accept the increased risk that comes with it. I will not accept the excuse that my rights are able to be infringed simply because Officer Jonny feels I might be a risk to him during a traffic stop. Unless he has some evidence that is quantifiable that I am planning to do him harm while he is interacting with me ina legal and constitutional encounter, he should have no more right than I do to disarm another person or infringe on their right to freely travel.
    Um. . .
    Haven't you heard somewhere about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If safety isn't included in that, then what is? Unsafe things are generally accepted to be those that carry a risk of death.

    Furthermore, police are special in the sense that they are more at risk fromcertain unlawful sectors of the populacethan the average person is. Some people do things that, from their view, give them good reason to fear or hate the police. A lot of the people are flushed out during traffic stops. A "routine" traffic stop is one of the mostdangerous things that a typical officer does, because he doesn't know what to expect.
    we are heroes aren't we.

    my safety is more important than your so called rights.

  16. #16
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    SO called rights? What exactly did you mean by SO CALLED rights? Like my inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and BTW which I have the right to defend life and property? Choose your words well my friend. In this particular time and space these are very troubled waters for you to be casting dispersions on "rights" they are far from being "So called" Granted your personal safety IS a factor but not to the point of stepping unjustly on my "RIGHTS" TYVM
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    SO called rights? What exactly did you mean by SO CALLED rights? Like my inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and BTW which I have the right to defend life and property? Choose your words well my friend. In this particular time and space these are very troubled waters for you to be casting dispersions on "rights" they are far from being "So called" Granted your personal safety IS a factor but not to the point of stepping unjustly on my "RIGHTS" TYVM
    stop inciting violence. i've dedicated my life to making you safe! without me you'd be in constant danger, without me you'd probably be dead!

    the only inalienable right you have is to stop resisting, or ride the lightning.

  18. #18
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    PaulBlart wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    SO called rights? What exactly did you mean by SO CALLED rights? Like my inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and BTW which I have the right to defend life and property? Choose your words well my friend. In this particular time and space these are very troubled waters for you to be casting dispersions on "rights" they are far from being "So called" Granted your personal safety IS a factor but not to the point of stepping unjustly on my "RIGHTS" TYVM
    stop inciting violence. i've dedicated my life to making you safe! without me you'd be in constant danger, without me you'd probably be dead!

    the only inalienable right you have is to stop resisting, or ride the lightning.
    You are joking right? IF not you're not the fine LEO I had thought you are, and, it's doubtful that I would be dead. An entire NVA regiment tried, and they couldn't do it, besides, I'm armed, and dangerous, very dangerous, with a confirmed kill count,,so ride THIS lightening!
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    PaulBlart wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    SO called rights? What exactly did you mean by SO CALLED rights? Like my inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and BTW which I have the right to defend life and property? Choose your words well my friend. In this particular time and space these are very troubled waters for you to be casting dispersions on "rights" they are far from being "So called" Granted your personal safety IS a factor but not to the point of stepping unjustly on my "RIGHTS" TYVM
    stop inciting violence. i've dedicated my life to making you safe! without me you'd be in constant danger, without me you'd probably be dead!

    the only inalienable right you have is to stop resisting, or ride the lightning.
    You are joking right? IF not you're not the fine LEO I had thought you are, and, it's doubtful that I would be dead. An entire NVA regiment tried, and they couldn't do it, besides, I'm armed, and dangerous, very dangerous, with a confirmed kill count,,so ride THIS lightening!
    my job is tough... the NVA didn't go through the extensive 2 week training course I did. Did the NVA have a associates degree in liberal arts? did the NVA have 3 days tazer training? did the NVA have the US supreme court and a grateful and coorporitive nation behind them? i don't think so.

    i fight in this war everyday... millions of lifes lost, fallen brothers, big blue shields i'm told... war on crime... i'm a soldier.

    you sound like you're threatening me. i have the power of the entire united states government behind me. what will you do! other than get arrested and a day trip with me downtown... and if you're lucky a ride on the l bolt... if i'm lucky i'll mistake my gun for my tazer and get to kill someone.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang, you fell for that one, hook, line & sinker.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Walleye wrote:
    KansasMustang, you fell for that one, hook, line & sinker.
    lol

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    PaulBlart wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    SO called rights? What exactly did you mean by SO CALLED rights? Like my inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and BTW which I have the right to defend life and property? Choose your words well my friend. In this particular time and space these are very troubled waters for you to be casting dispersions on "rights" they are far from being "So called" Granted your personal safety IS a factor but not to the point of stepping unjustly on my "RIGHTS" TYVM
    stop inciting violence. i've dedicated my life to making you safe! without me you'd be in constant danger, without me you'd probably be dead!

    the only inalienable right you have is to stop resisting, or ride the lightning.
    You are joking right? IF not you're not the fine LEO I had thought you are, and, it's doubtful that I would be dead. An entire NVA regiment tried, and they couldn't do it, besides, I'm armed, and dangerous, very dangerous, with a confirmed kill count,,so ride THIS lightening!



    KansasMustang,

    PaulBlart is not a cop. He's a satirist. He satirizescertain cop attitudes.

    He's quite good at it.

    Many of us already knew this. I sort of assumed that everyone did.

    I hope you can forgive himfor taking you in.



    (Go easy on the good guys, Paul. By the way, congratulations on the popular success of your movie. I saw it posted very respectable numbers.)

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    If you really want to lose sleep, start researching the Federal Reserve, and not just the white-bread, sugar-coating stuff the Fed itself puts out.
    Funny you should say that, because I actually did lose sleep a while back when I took it upon myself to research that subject. I agree, it's a more serious subject than Terry stops, which is saying something, because protection from unreasonable searches is remarkably important.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    If you really want to lose sleep, start researching the Federal Reserve, and not just the white-bread, sugar-coating stuff the Fed itself puts out.
    Funny you should say that, because I actually did lose sleep a while back when I took it upon myself to research that subject. I agree, it's a more serious subject than Terry stops, which is saying something, because protection from unreasonable searches is remarkably important.
    Me, too.

    Afew comments.

    You all will be hearing more from me about the Federal Reserve.

    First, even ifone discounts the "conspiracy theory" type stuff as non-existent today, the Fed is still very bad news. Who needs conspiracy theory when the rest of the information by itself will knock you out of your shoes?

    Second, I suspect the Fed will be the ultimatecause for gun confiscations. That is to say, the Fed will be the original cause of the economic and social conditions that necessitate more and more government control andbig, legislatedchanges. After wrecking the economy this time, I think we needno more evidence of the huge effects it can create. Get this country in dire enough straights and I can already hear the justifications for a North American Union and a new currency, the Amero (since the dollar will have fallen to new lowsas inflation rises).

    Except, of course, to make it work, they will have to quiet those pesky people with guns who might dissent.

    In short, the government is not likely to get rid of the Fed easily. Too much rot in Congress.Too high stakes to get rid of it. I think the government would be much more inclined to confiscate guns, rather than fix the Fed and the problems it causes, or face the "problems" they think they would have if the Fed were to go.The relationship between big government and the Federal Reserveis the very definition of "vested interest."

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    PaulBlart wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    PaulBlart wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    SO called rights? What exactly did you mean by SO CALLED rights? Like my inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and BTW which I have the right to defend life and property? Choose your words well my friend. In this particular time and space these are very troubled waters for you to be casting dispersions on "rights" they are far from being "So called" Granted your personal safety IS a factor but not to the point of stepping unjustly on my "RIGHTS" TYVM
    stop inciting violence. i've dedicated my life to making you safe! without me you'd be in constant danger, without me you'd probably be dead!

    the only inalienable right you have is to stop resisting, or ride the lightning.
    You are joking right? IF not you're not the fine LEO I had thought you are, and, it's doubtful that I would be dead. An entire NVA regiment tried, and they couldn't do it, besides, I'm armed, and dangerous, very dangerous, with a confirmed kill count,,so ride THIS lightening!
    my job is tough... the NVA didn't go through the extensive 2 week training course I did. Did the NVA have a associates degree in liberal arts? did the NVA have 3 days tazer training? did the NVA have the US supreme court and a grateful and coorporitive nation behind them? i don't think so.

    i fight in this war everyday... millions of lifes lost, fallen brothers, big blue shields i'm told... war on crime... i'm a soldier.

    you sound like you're threatening me. i have the power of the entire united states government behind me. what will you do! other than get arrested and a day trip with me downtown... and if you're lucky a ride on the l bolt... if i'm lucky i'll mistake my gun for my tazer and get to kill someone.
    No, the NVA didn't have any degrees, "Liberal arts? that sounds mamby pamby. 3 days of tazer training, how about 12.7 MM heavy machineguns ? RPG's RPK's AK's ?? Ever been under mortar and rocket fire? YOU only have the power that "WE the People" who ARE the government give you. Don't overstep your bounds and Don't threaten ME. You are a soldier and I do applaud your efforts. I do know that your job is tough. Fallen brother's? How about 54,000 in my war? What I was trying to say was, and you know what I was saying, that you being the trained individual that you are will discern, unless you're just a knuckle draggin thug, within a minute or less that you are dealing with a LAC as opposed to a gangbanger.
    Now, can we get back to the job at hand, which is dealing with the socialist anti-gun pukes that want to disarm us all? I am on your side, the least you can do is be on mine.
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

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
  •