yet another display of cops abusing their power

Rich B · Jun 29, 2011

Gunslinger said:
Blah, blah, blah. What the dirtbags see is a huge lawsuit by this woman against them. Firing that gutless, pos thug would show they were serious. Nothing will come of this. Certainly not in the Gulag.

I have to agree, this sounds like the same BS I have received from departments. Hell, just look at the ridiculous responses I got from Wallingford in response to the IA investigation into my case.

Did you ask this guy if the same officers being investigated are the ones investigating it like Wallingford did?

Ctclassic · Jun 29, 2011

I heard on a local news station ( I believe it was NBC30 ) that the Rochester Dept. did in fact drop the charges on this lady, but at the same time the Chief ( I believe ) of the same dept. issued to all the patrol officers.... RULERS, yes 12" rulers to take on duty with them and issue tickets to anyone, in and around the courthouse etc... who has parked over a foot from the curb. I guess the HEAT got to him, and he has adopted the, 'I'll show you' mentallity. What a surprise!!

dcmdon · Jun 29, 2011

Gunslinger said:
This started with klinton and his pos ag, reno. They got the AWB rammed through; they killed women and babies at Waco, not Bush. Bush got the AWB sunsetted. The VAST majority of NRA A or A+ rated candidates are Republicans. There are no schumers, finesteins, boxers, barney the franks or mccarthys in the GOP. And look at whom Bush appointed to the SC. Compare that with the ******** obooba did. Their qualifications: one's gay and the other's Hispanic, period. That they're both morons and liars didn't matter to the messiah.

Uh. . . you're kidding right?? About the only thing Bush supported was the 2nd Amendment.

If thats good enough for you, then go back to your cave and live your life.

Bush gutted the 4th and 5th Amendments which is what this abuse of police power is all about. Its not about guns. Its about the right to do what you want on your property. Its about being free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

This is what I mean about all this crap. The republican are WORSE than the democrats when it comes to keeping the cops in line. So please don't piss and moan ignorantly about Obama when the cops conduct a warrantless search of your house. Conservatives don't respect liberty. They're too busy pushing their own version of morality down people's throats. 9/11 gave the Ashcrofts of the Bush Admin what they needed to start intruding on and spying on the citizens of this country.

Open your eyes.

Don

p.s. Most of what you said about democrats is true, but that does not change the fact that the Republicans have been just as bad, but in a different way.

Thundar · Jun 29, 2011

Gunslinger said:
This started with klinton and his pos ag, reno. They got the AWB rammed through; they killed women and babies at Waco, not Bush. Bush got the AWB sunsetted. The VAST majority of NRA A or A+ rated candidates are Republicans. There are no schumers, finesteins, boxers, barney the franks or mccarthys in the GOP. And look at whom Bush appointed to the SC. Compare that with the ******** obooba did. Their qualifications: one's gay and the other's Hispanic, period. That they're both morons and liars didn't matter to the messiah.

This started with the 17th A and was accelerated by that POS FDR. Our republic may never recover from those twin towers of disaster!

Gunslinger · Jun 30, 2011

dcmdon said:
Uh. . . you're kidding right?? About the only thing Bush supported was the 2nd Amendment.

If thats good enough for you, then go back to your cave and live your life.

Bush gutted the 4th and 5th Amendments which is what this abuse of police power is all about. Its not about guns. Its about the right to do what you want on your property. Its about being free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

This is what I mean about all this crap. The republican are WORSE than the democrats when it comes to keeping the cops in line. So please don't piss and moan ignorantly about Obama when the cops conduct a warrantless search of your house. Conservatives don't respect liberty. They're too busy pushing their own version of morality down people's throats. 9/11 gave the Ashcrofts of the Bush Admin what they needed to start intruding on and spying on the citizens of this country.

Open your eyes.

Don

p.s. Most of what you said about democrats is true, but that does not change the fact that the Republicans have been just as bad, but in a different way.

Bush appointed Conservatives to the Supreme Court. How's obama doing? That's why we have the gun rights we have now. There was no "gutting" of the 5th Amendment and it only peripherally applies in this case should charges have been levied. I named several democraps. Match them with Republicans of the same stripe. Name one Republican that should be included in that group of scumbags, the pride of the democrat party along with pelosi, wienerboy, Blago, etc, etc. How many women and babies were murdered by the fbi under Ashcroft? How about reno and klinton? I never said Republicans were perfect, just better than democraps on a playing field that takes our rights into prime position. And I never said I agreed with Bush across the board, because I didn't. But he deserves a lot of credit in the areas I did mention. What should obama get credit for? I believe if there was no 2A the others would be meaningless. And Conservatives not supporting liberty is news to a lot of people on this forum. Would probably surprise Reagan, Goldwater and others, as well. And if I live in a cave, it must have a pretty good library.

dcmdon · Jun 30, 2011

And Bush's conservatives along with the rest just gutted the 4th Amendment.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ce-can-create-their-own-exigent-circumstances

You seem to be replying to my points like I'm advocating a liberal point of view. I'm NOT. There are other ways of doing things than simply liberal and conservative.

The third way is libertarian. Less government intrusion into EVERYTHING.

Like the libertarian bumper sticker says, "Liberals want to be my nanny, Conservatives want to be my chaperon.

Gunslinger · Jun 30, 2011

dcmdon said:
And Bush's conservatives along with the rest just gutted the 4th Amendment.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ce-can-create-their-own-exigent-circumstances

You seem to be replying to my points like I'm advocating a liberal point of view. I'm NOT. There are other ways of doing things than simply liberal and conservative.

The third way is libertarian. Less government intrusion into EVERYTHING.

Like the libertarian bumper sticker says, "Liberals want to be my nanny, Conservatives want to be my chaperon.

You need to define your terms. What is a "Conservative" in your lexicon? What is a "Libertarian"? Here in my cave, I consider myself to be a Constitutionalist. Although I don't get out much, I can define these terms and show progression from being a Neo-Conservative since my college years...when I didn't live in a cave.

And btw, I disagree completely with the decision--as a Constitutionalist and Neo-Conservative, I don't blindly pledge my alligence to anyone in government. "and to the Republic for which it stands."

dcmdon · Jun 30, 2011

Modern conservativism includes:

1) approval of the aggressive use of the new surveillance authority given to the FBI and CIA for domestic security.
2) belief that a proactive, military foreign policy is our best way forward
3) pornography is bad and should be banned
4) Christianity is a core part of our government's guiding ideology
5) Belief that homosexuals are deviant and don't deserve the same rights as straight couples.
6) All drug laws should be aggressively enforced. This includes the use of marijuana recreationally and the use of banned opiates like Heroin in terminally ill patients.
7) Police should have a great deal of authority in dealing with suspects, even if it begins to erode their constitutional rights.

Libertarians don't agree with any of this. Less government intrusion into these things in addition to less government intrusion into things like firearms.

Ron and Rand Paul are both Republicans in the House and Senate respectively. They are not conservatives. Go to either of their web sites and read what they are in favor of. They are libertarians. (Small "L", a large "L" connotes the Libertarian party, which is not what I'm talking about here)

Gunslinger, please let me know what you think of Kentucky v. King. That will tell a lot.

Gunslinger · Jul 1, 2011

dcmdon said:
Modern conservativism includes:

1) approval of the aggressive use of the new surveillance authority given to the FBI and CIA for domestic security.
2) belief that a proactive, military foreign policy is our best way forward
3) pornography is bad and should be banned
4) Christianity is a core part of our government's guiding ideology
5) Belief that homosexuals are deviant and don't deserve the same rights as straight couples.
6) All drug laws should be aggressively enforced. This includes the use of marijuana recreationally and the use of banned opiates like Heroin in terminally ill patients.
7) Police should have a great deal of authority in dealing with suspects, even if it begins to erode their constitutional rights.

Libertarians don't agree with any of this. Less government intrusion into these things in addition to less government intrusion into things like firearms.

Ron and Rand Paul are both Republicans in the House and Senate respectively. They are not conservatives. Go to either of their web sites and read what they are in favor of. They are libertarians. (Small "L", a large "L" connotes the Libertarian party, which is not what I'm talking about here)

Gunslinger, please let me know what you think of Kentucky v. King. That will tell a lot.

1> No
3> No. Child pornography should be aggressively stamped out and the traders in it put in jail for a long time. Adults can do whatever they choose with other types
4> No. But this country was founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics and that is a good thing. No state religion is what we believe, as the BoR states.
5> I don't, so even though many do, No.
6> ditto
7> Absolutely NOT as a Constitutionalist and Neo-Conservative. Read my posts and say that again.

As to KY v King, here's what I believe.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Although I stipulate the doctrine of exigent circumstances, for example "hot" pursuit of a fleeing 'felon' across county or state lines, it was an improper use of it in this case and a bad decision. I am for strictly limiting the police powers in this county, criminally prosecuting in Federal Court stormtrooper cops, giving them the maximum sentence with no parole, and putting them in max security Federal Prisons--where they can show how tough they are without a badge and a gun, and disbanding every so called 'swat' unit and taking full automatic weapons away from 'every' police agency except the Border Patrol and Secret Service. They certainly can keep their body armor, but should have no weapon greater in lethality than a Mossberg or semi-automatic AR/M-4. They can use Sniper rifles 'only' in bona fide hostage situations.

Citizen · Jul 1, 2011

Ctclassic said:
SNIP Yet Another Display of Cops Abusing Their Power

Don't worry. It is only an isolated incident by one of the very few bad apples. Nothing to be concerned about.

Also, cover your ears. In a moment you'll be deafened by the outraged roar of the 900K good cops in this country demanding their bad-apple brethren be fired or severely disciplined. Marches in the streets by our heroic protectors in blue are sure to come any day now.

[/sarcasm]

dcmdon · Jul 1, 2011

Gunslinger, you just advocated positions in direct conflict with modern mainstream conservatiive thought.

You, my friend, aren't a conservative, you're a libertarian. In fact some may call you a RINO. Republican in name only.

Welcome to the Club!!!

Gunslinger said:
1> No
3> No. Child pornography should be aggressively stamped out and the traders in it put in jail for a long time. Adults can do whatever they choose with other types
4> No. But this country was founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics and that is a good thing. No state religion is what we believe, as the BoR states.
5> I don't, so even though many do, No.
6> ditto
7> Absolutely NOT as a Constitutionalist and Neo-Conservative. Read my posts and say that again.

As to KY v King, here's what I believe.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Although I stipulate the doctrine of exigent circumstances, for example "hot" pursuit of a fleeing 'felon' across county or state lines, it was an improper use of it in this case and a bad decision. I am for strictly limiting the police powers in this county, criminally prosecuting in Federal Court stormtrooper cops, giving them the maximum sentence with no parole, and putting them in max security Federal Prisons--where they can show how tough they are without a badge and a gun, and disbanding every so called 'swat' unit and taking full automatic weapons away from 'every' police agency except the Border Patrol and Secret Service. They certainly can keep their body armor, but should have no weapon greater in lethality than a Mossberg or semi-automatic AR/M-4. They can use Sniper rifles 'only' in bona fide hostage situations.

Rich B · Jul 1, 2011

Citizen said:
Also, cover your ears. In a moment you'll be deafened by the outraged roar of the 900K good cops in this country demanding their bad-apple brethren be fired or severely disciplined. Marches in the streets by our heroic protectors in blue are sure to come any day now.

No wait, that was just a flash-bang in your backyard and your front door being kicked in. Same thing though, right?

Freiheit417 · Jul 1, 2011

Don't forget, Bush did appoint John Bolton to be U.S. Representative to the United Nations. He never got confirmed, but he served his purpose. He told the U.N. to get lost when they tried to impose global small arms control. Now we have Hillary bowing to them.... enough said.

"USRKBA: When you were the Ambassador to The United Nations you were adamantly opposed to the United States entering into any small-arms treaty. Why?

Ambassador Bolton: The hidden agenda of a lot of the people who sought to negotiate a small arms treaty really, had less to do with reducing dangers internationally and a lot more to do with creating a frame work for gun control statutes at the national level. There was very little doubt, if you looked at the non-governmental organizations that were surrounding the UN and the negotiations they were perusing, some of the language they were trying to introduce into the negotiations, that the international aspects of the whole process were much less significant, from their point of view, than trying to constrain national government. And, specifically, and most importantly, constrain the United States."

http://www.usrkba.org/blog/2011/05/18/2nd-amendment-interview-with-ambassador-john-bolton-2/

Aside from the Second Amendment, there is plenty to criticize Bush about. Don't get me wrong.

dcmdon · Jul 1, 2011

John Bolton was awesome. He was ambassador to an organization for which he displayed open contempt. Fantastic.

Gunslinger · Jul 2, 2011

dcmdon said:
Gunslinger, you just advocated positions in direct conflict with modern mainstream conservatiive thought.

You, my friend, aren't a conservative, you're a libertarian. In fact some may call you a RINO. Republican in name only.

Welcome to the Club!!!

Constitutionalist, not 'conservative.' The evolution of Neo-conservatives from the '60s, Buckley's "Up From Liberalism" being the key book in my case. I share many opinions of Libertarians, clearly, but not all. As to Republican--I vote for the best candidate, don't throw my vote away on someone with no chance, however. I have invariably found that to be the GOP's. I'm not a racist, war monger, homophobe or supporter of the "State" overstepping enumerated powers. Hence, 'Neo' Conservative.

KIX · Jul 2, 2011

Gunslinger said:
Here in my cave, I consider myself to be a Constitutionalist.

+1, what I've been saying long before the "tea party" movement.

And as far as this "neocon" argument. Give me a break. Like anything else, the terminology has been pimped out, regurgitated and turned into something that the "anti-neocon" in the argument want it to be.

I love the label though, it takes focus off of the issues.

Jonathan

Gunslinger · Jul 2, 2011

KIX said:
+1, what I've been saying long before the "tea party" movement.

And as far as this "neocon" argument. Give me a break. Like anything else, the terminology has been pimped out, regurgitated and turned into something that the "anti-neocon" in the argument want it to be.

I love the label though, it takes focus off of the issues.

Jonathan

As have all labels. Those of us who have been Neo-Conservatives since the '60s know what it means and that it has morphed into Constitutionalist. Liberal, classically, was a conservative, i.e., Edmund Burke.

Citizen · Jul 2, 2011

Rich B said:
No wait, that was just a flash-bang in your backyard and your front door being kicked in. Same thing though, right?

No, no. That's just the poh-leece celebrating their independence--

From meaningful oversight, meaningful constraint of law, meaningful accountability, meaningful consequences for bad or anti-rights policy choices, and the hare-brained, hollow justifications they feed us for those same policy choices, etc.

dcmdon · Jul 2, 2011

Gunslinger said:
As have all labels. Those of us who have been Neo-Conservatives since the '60s know what it means and that it has morphed into Constitutionalist. Liberal, classically, was a conservative, i.e., Edmund Burke.

Gunslinger, the problem is that when you say neo-conservative, most will take the early 2000s meaning, which is the Rumsfelds, Wolfowitz, and that gang. A lot of what these modern neo-conservatives advocate runs counter your thinking.

I'm not in any saying in any way that you are using the term incorrectly, just that its meaning has shifted and people (like me) may think of the more modern meaning.

Here is a definition from Wikipedia. Granted, this is not an authoritative source, but it gets my point across:

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to topple American enemies and promote liberal democracy in other countries. The movement emerged during the early 1970s among Democrats who disagreed with the party's growing opposition to the Vietnam War and had become skeptical of the Great Society's welfare programs.

Although neoconservatives generally endorse free-market economics, they often believe cultural and moral issues to be more significant, and so have tended to be less thoroughgoing in opposition to government intervention in society than more traditionally conservative and libertarian members of the Republican Party.

KIX · Jul 3, 2011

And that's EXACTLY the point I was making (or attempting too!).

Jonathan

yet another display of cops abusing their power

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member