[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles

Title: Power Tripping Cop Sued for Pulling Over Ambulance Carrying a Patient In Order to Intimidate Them
Source: Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bu ... ice-officer-pulls-competition/
Published: Jul 8, 2017
Author: Jack Burns
Post Date: 2017-07-09 17:33:12 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6268
Comments: 41

Jackson, KY – Most people may see nothing wrong with a town councilman becoming a police offer, but what if that councilman cop also owns an ambulance company, and begins pulling over competing ambulances—then does he have too much power?

The answer is still “No” in the city of Jackson, Kentucky, despite the fact that the taxpayer-funded Kentucky Association of Counties is now paying a $26,000 settlement to Emergency Medical Technician Jason Crigger.

Crigger filed a lawsuit against Breathitt County Special Deputy and Councilman Steve McIntosh, claiming that McIntosh had no legitimate reason to pull over the ambulance he was driving in June 2016.

“Never gave me a reason that he pulled me over….Never accused me of any traffic violations or anything of the sort. It appeared to me he just pulled me over to try to threaten and intimidate us,” Crigger said.

This accusation is just the latest in a series of alleged conflicts of interest Crigger claims McIntosh has in his official positions as an officer of the law, a businessman and a town councilman.

Mountain News WYMT reported that when one of its reporters attempted to talk to the Jackson city councilman, he refused to be recorded on camera. He did reportedly say that he had good reasons for pulling Crigger over—but refused to say what those reasons were.

Jay Arrowood, owner of Arrow-Med Ambulance, Inc. told reporters he believes that the city needs to “jerk this guy’s badge.

The two competing ambulance companies have been locked in a series of legal battles. McIntosh is suing Arrow-Med in another lawsuit that alleges the company had defrauded Medicare and Medicaid out of more than $1 million.

At the time McIntosh pulled Crigger over, there was a patient riding as a passenger who had just undergone dialysis and was being transported back home. Arrowood didn’t appreciate the officer’s actions and remarked:

“Mr. McIntosh needs to work on improving his own service versus trying to put our service out of business,” Arrowood said. “If you’ll pull an ambulance over for no reason, hindering patient care, there’s nothing that you won’t do.”

Crigger is suing for damages related to his “humiliation and suffering, punitive damages against McIntosh and an injunction preventing anyone acting in concert with McIntosh to stop interfering with Arrow-Med,” according to Mountain News.

Predictably, Breathitt County Sheriff Ray Clemons told Mountain News he was not aware of any wrongdoing on behalf of his deputy. However, Arrowood says the harassment has been going on for years.

As The Free Thought Project has reported, altercations between police officers, EMTS, and even fireman are nothing new. In 2009, Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper Daniel Martin pulled over ambulance drive Maurice White, choked him, and proceed to arrest him.

White objected to being pulled over while transporting a passenger in need of emergency medical care. But that didn’t stop Martin, and his superiors took his side. Not only was Martin allowed to keep his job with the OKHP, but he was later involved in another scandal where he showed an inappropriate photo to another officer.

Having a police officer who is also a town councilman is a conflict of interest enough for a sheriff who’s worth his weight in salt to deny employment. But having an officer who owns a competing ambulance company, who then pulls over his competition is a blaring display of both police corruption and political corruption. If Sheriff Clemons is truly concerned with maintaining the public’s trust, he may need to revisit his decision to keep such an officer on the force.

In the case of Jackson, Kentucky, while Crigger will receive a $26,000 settlement, the burden to pay the bill is on the taxpayers—not McIntosh, who still remains in his capacity as a sheriff’s deputy.


Poster Comment:

I spent most of my summers there in Jackson when I was a kid.

Seems as if things have changed for the worse.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

When someone shoots this corrupt POS in the back of the head none of this will get mentioned in the news reports.

Anthem  posted on  2017-07-09   18:08:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Anthem (#1)

You are getting sucked into Deckards world. One bad cop makes him paint all cops as bad. Yes cops have bad days just like the rest of us. Some should never be cops but thats the war on drugs for you. Some are just corrupt. The vast majority 99% are good people trying to make a difference in a fucked up world. Letting Deckard and his creed paint all cops as criminals is just wrong. Deckard is an anarchist and would destroy all that is good so he can smoke pot all day, wave his weapon like child holding a cap gun and shoot off his gun in town without a care.

Justified  posted on  2017-07-09   18:21:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

Im wonder how many more times you will rehash this story to promote your ideologue of all cops are bad?

Justified  posted on  2017-07-09   18:40:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Justified (#2)

I have been on this rotating revolving rock too long to get sucked into anyone else's world. Mine is bad enough.

I don't recall implying that all cops are bad. In fact I wrote "this corrupt POS...".

Anthem  posted on  2017-07-09   19:16:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Anthem (#4)

Im saying Deckard implies all cops are bad unless they refuse to do their job.

Deckard constant bombardment of this site with bs and repostings(I have seen him post same story 4 or 5 times and call it new) is meant to inciting rage and hate for cops in general.

Justified  posted on  2017-07-09   19:24:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Deckard (#0)

Send the cop up for two years hard labor in the state pen.

rlk  posted on  2017-07-09   19:39:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Justified, Anthem (#5)

...all cops are bad unless they refuse to do their job.

Hmmm, was this cop "doing his job" when he pulled over the ambulance?

I have seen him post same story 4 or 5 times

Read it again - this shit happens all the time. This may be the 3rd or 4th time I've posted a story where a cop has overstepped his authority and interfered with an ambulance or firefighters.

Different stories.

You like to pretend that cops are gods and can do no wrong.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-09   20:04:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Justified (#3)

Im wonder how many more times you will rehash this story

Like I said - this happens all the time. I've posted stories similar to this one - different towns, different ambulance, same arrogance shown by the cops.

What you really need to do is read the entire article - not just the headline.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-09   20:06:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Deckard (#7)

Didn't say there were not bad cops but you act like there is nothing but bad cops and its all out of control. Im sorry but its not. Now if you are a criminal you might feel that way. If you are paranoid you might feel that way. But for normal people 99% of the police are good hard working people who have to deal with shitty people on their worst day. Never forget police are almost always called out to the place by guess who? Yes people who want cops to deal with something on their behalf.

You always post stuff multiple times acting like "see it happen again" when its being published to let people know what is going on with this case. Hell I know I have seen you post about the same thing in a 1 or 2 week period 4 maybe even 5 times using same article or article published by a different source from the same article. You just pick up click-bait and repost the damn article without even reading.

Justified  posted on  2017-07-10   8:38:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Deckard (#8)

What you really need to do is read the entire article - not just the headline.

That is hilarious coming from you who problem doesn't read half the articles you post. Its all about clickbait for you.

There probably isn't but a hand full of times this has happen where an office pulls over an ambulance. Its so rare its shocking which is why you post it multiple times. In fact Its only happen twice that I have seen in extreme situations Once in KY and once in OK where the office was out of control.

Justified  posted on  2017-07-10   8:47:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Justified (#9)

Hell I know I have seen you post about the same thing in a 1 or 2 week period 4 maybe even 5 times using same article or article published by a different source from the same article.

You're a liar, full of shit.

And a jack-boot cheerleader.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-10   8:48:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Justified (#10)

Its so rare its shocking which is why you post it multiple times.

You fucking idiot.

This is a different story, different place, different arrogant badged thug.

There's been half a dozen of theses cases just that I have seen.

You consider that rare?

Most sane people would question why it happens AT ALL!

Not you though - you, Gatlin and whitey - LF's cop-worshiping trio.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-10   8:51:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Deckard (#12)

Most sane people would question why it happens AT ALL!

Most people are thankful to live in America where the government pretty much leaves you alone.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-10   8:57:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Deckard (#12)

You fucking idiot.

Talking to yourself again! LOL

There has only been 2 that I have seen so far. Now they have posted updates to these 2 stories which is where you see multiple stories. Since you just see clickbait and do not read the story how would you know that they are the same stories rehashed multiple times?

I do not worship anyone. I respect officers and do realize there are bad ones, ones that have bad days(just like any human) and ones that should not be officers. I can think for myself unlike you who live in a paranoid state.

Justified  posted on  2017-07-10   8:58:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A K A Stone (#13)

in America where the government pretty much leaves you alone.

Thanks for the laugh.

Oh, you were serious?

Geesh!

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-10   9:04:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Deckard (#15)

What did they do to you this month? This year? Last year?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-10   18:35:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Justified, Anthem (#2)

You are getting sucked into Deckards world.

Once again, It is easy to see that willful and selective blindness to objectivity is a true hallmark of a libertarian. There is nothing better than a libertarian reading an article published by The Free Thought Project that gives only ONE side of the story and then immediately deciding someone is a “corrupt POS” to illustrate this. But then this is understandable for a libertarian since the lack of objectivity is one trait I find common to all libertarians.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-07-10   21:18:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Gatlin (#17)

It's pretty obvius this cop is a corrupt POS.

At the time McIntosh pulled Crigger over, there was a patient riding as a passenger who had just undergone dialysis and was being transported back home. Arrowood didn’t appreciate the officer’s actions and remarked:

“Mr. McIntosh needs to work on improving his own service versus trying to put our service out of business,” Arrowood said. “If you’ll pull an ambulance over for no reason, hindering patient care, there’s nothing that you won’t do.”

Of course, cop worshipers like you and justie see noting wrong with his actions.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-11   7:29:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Deckard (#18)

It's pretty obvius this cop is a corrupt POS.
Obvious from WHAT? Obvious from a yellow journalism article published by The Free Thought Project that presents only one side of the story?

It is pretty obvious that you have a personal problem Your problem is that you are a paranoid libertarian who has developed a hatred against authority and a unhealthy distrust for government far past any normal and reasonable extent.

You mind is totally controlled by your hatred. Your hatred leads to no solutions it only makes you lash out wildly when the reasonable rational thing to do is cool down and objectively look at all sides of a situation.

Your hatred is self defeating since hate des not mobilize people for reform. You need to see professional help immediately. You will be a better person when you do …

Gatlin  posted on  2017-07-11   12:09:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Gatlin (#19)

Calm down princess - take another Midol.

This PMS rant is nothing but the usual authority fetish from you.

It is pretty obvious that you have a personal problem

I'd disagree - seems to me you are the one with blinders on.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-11   12:29:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Gatlin (#19)

... you are a paranoid libertarian who has developed a hatred against authority and a unhealthy distrust for government far past any normal and reasonable extent.

As opposed to you who bows down like a slave in your fealty to ANY authority figure with a badge or title and worships the ground that cops walk on?

You're a real hoot!

I have a completely normal distrust of government, the real question is why don't you?

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-11   12:33:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Deckard, Justified (#18) (Edited)

Of course, cop worshipers like you and justie see noting wrong with his actions.
I never said I see nothing wrong with his actions. I can emphatically state that I see nothing to show me his actions were wrong and neither can you since TFTP does not present both sides of the story.

Get a life, you libertarian asshole. Something is not “SO” just because TFTP says it is and you want to believe it is.

You blindly accept carte blanche what TFTP spoon feeds you when you need to engage critical thinking that does not cause you to blindly believe biased arguments and conclusions rendered on one-sided information. You need to quit buying discerning assumptions and not assess conclusions on incomplete information and evidence.

Deckard, you’ve obviously done too many drugs in your life and your parents were probably overbearing which has resulted in you being so gullible.

Grow the fuck up….stop believing EVERYTHING you read by TFTP!!!

Gatlin  posted on  2017-07-11   12:35:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Deckard (#21)

You're a real hoot!

What I am is an critical thinker who can objectively look at a situation and not from any conclusions on one-sided biased information.

It is an easy thing to do….even you can do it, if you only learn to try.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-07-11   12:39:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Gatlin (#22)

Get a life, you libertarian asshole.

Go and blow a cop you submissive little prick.

Something is not “SO” just because TFTP says it is and you want to believe it is.

Guess you didn't bother reading the story from the original source, did you?

Gatlin - the "Truthseeker"!

What a fricking joke!

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-11   12:43:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Gatlin (#22)

I can emphatically state that I see nothing to show me his actions were wrong

Yeah - pulling over an ambulance transporting a dialysis patient to the hospital is the epitome of "good cop" behaviour.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-11   12:46:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Deckard (#21)

I have a completely normal distrust of government, the real question is why don't you?
Nah, a real question is what is “a completely normal distrust of government” and who gets to decide that a distrust of government is “normal” at all?

Another real question is: What SPECIFICLLY has the government done to you that causes you to have a “normal” distrust of the government?

Gatlin  posted on  2017-07-11   12:50:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Gatlin (#26)

What SPECIFICLLY has the government done to you that causes you to have a “normal” distrust of the government?

Spying on emails, surveillance cameras everywhere, invasive body pat downs at airports, the rampant expansion of the police state, podunk towns armed with military vehicles, cops who are more criminal that the criminals themselves.

Assassinating civilians, MKULTRA, the Tuskegee experiment, false flags used to start wars, lies from the government, the government murder of Michael Hastings, Clinton's death list, Bush and Cheney lying about WMDs, Watergate, the massacre of the Branch Davidians in Mt Carmel, Ruby Ridge, the orchestrated 9/11 attacks, assassination of JFK, RFK, MLK et al.

S.D. Cops Forced Catheters for Drug Testing , DEA Allowed Criminal Cops to Build Their Own Drug Empires for Over a Decade .

I could go on but you look at the world through rose-colored glasses.

Bend down and lick the hand that feeds you slave.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-11   13:02:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Deckard (#25)

I can emphatically state that I see nothing to show me his actions were wrong

Yeah - pulling over an ambulance transporting a dialysis patient to the hospital is the epitome of "good cop" behaviour.

There you go again.

Stop and see just how materially deficient you really fuck things up.

You stated “an ambulance transporting a dialysis patient to the hospital.

You can never get anything straight.

The yellow journalism article categorically stated: “There was a patient riding as a passenger who had just undergone dialysis and was being transported back home.

What the fuck is wrong with your comprehension?

Once again, you have proven that most libertarian rational is derived from baseless cherry-picked examples they cannot even keep straight in their own mind and intentionally give false impressions to exaggerate the severity of an existing situation when there was NONE. There was no health threat to the passenger….he was going home.

Why are you libertarians so stupid that you cannot get things straight?

Gatlin  posted on  2017-07-11   13:06:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Deckard (#27) (Edited)

When, where and how did the government spy on your emails?

Gatlin  posted on  2017-07-11   13:10:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Gatlin (#28)

“There was a patient riding as a passenger who had just undergone dialysis and was being transported back home.”

Oh - in that case the cop is a "hero" for pulling over the ambulance. In Gatlin Bizarro World that is.

Geesh man, you really do have a bad case of authority worship.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-11   13:12:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Deckard (#30)

I never said the cop was a hero for pulling the ambulance over.

I don’t even know why the cop pulled the ambulance over….do you?

Gatlin  posted on  2017-07-11   13:14:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Gatlin (#29)

What SPECIFICLLY has the government done to you that causes you to have a “normal” distrust of the government?

Gee - if nothing of note happened to me, I guess that means it never happens to any one.

This shit goes on every day.

Spying on emails, surveillance cameras everywhere, invasive body pat downs at airports, the rampant expansion of the police state, podunk towns armed with military vehicles, cops who are more criminal that the criminals themselves.

And Gatlin continues to bow down to his masters who are keeping him "safe".

What a pussified little weasel!

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-07-11   13:16:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Deckard (#32)

Gee - if nothing of note happened to me, I guess that means it never happens to any one.

Gee - If nothing happened to you, I guess that means you don’t know what happens.

You only know what the MSM wants to tell you happens.

Do you believe everything the MSM tells you or only what you selectively want to believe?

There's really nothing more fun than watching an obnoxious a libertarian stoner engage in endless and useless rambling about stuff he receives from second and third hand MSM information.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-07-11   15:23:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Deckard (#0)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1901248116305692434

JASON CRIGGER, Plaintiff,
v.
DARRELL STEVE McINTOSH, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 5:16-247-DCR.

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington. June 8, 2017.

Jason Crigger, Plaintiff, represented by Ned Pillersdorf, Pillersdorf, DeRossett & Lane.

Darrell Steve McIntosh, Defendant, represented by Jonathan C. Shaw, Porter Banks Baldwin & Shaw.

Darrell Steve McIntosh, Official Defendant, represented by Jonathan C. Shaw, Porter Banks Baldwin & Shaw.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DANNY C. REEVES, Chief District Judge.

This matter is pending for consideration of the defendant's motion for summary judgment [Record No. 23], motion in limine [Record No. 32], and motion to exclude evidence [Record No. 33]. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be granted, in part, and denied, in part. The motion in limine and motion to exclude will be denied.

I. Background

Plaintiff Jason Crigger ("Crigger" or "plaintiff") is an Emergency Medical Technician ("EMT") who works for an ambulance service called Arrow-Med in Breathitt County, Kentucky. [Record No. 14-1, p. 5] Darrell McIntosh ("McIntosh" or "defendant") is a Breathitt County Deputy Sheriff. [Record No. 1-1, p. 1] He also is the owner McIntosh Ambulance, a competitor of Arrow-Med. Id. Arrow-Med and McIntosh became involved in a commercial dispute, which resulted in Arrow-Med filing suit against McIntosh in Breathitt Circuit Court in October 2015 (See Breathitt Civil Action, C115-CI-240.) [Record No. 1-1, p. 2; 14-1, p. 2]

On June 22, 2016, McIntosh apparently was observing activities in a dialysis center parking lot in Jackson, Kentucky. [See Record No. 15-1, p. 1.] He claims that he observed Crigger driving with one hand and "doing something on his cell phone with the other hand." Id. According to McIntosh, this constituted careless or reckless driving, especially because a patient was being transported. Id. McIntosh "attempted to flag down" the ambulance, but Crigger did not stop. McIntosh then activated his emergency lights as Crigger was pulling onto the highway. Both vehicles then pulled to the shoulder of the road. Id. McIntosh contends that he approached Crigger and explained that he had stopped him for "driving while using his cell phone." [Record No. 15-1, p. 2] According to McIntosh, Crigger asked if he was being detained. When McIntosh told him that he was not, Crigger left the scene without incident. McIntosh maintains that the stop lasted two minutes or less. Id. at p. 2.

Crigger's version of events differs somewhat.[1] [Record No. 14-1, p. 3] He testified that McIntosh had been following "just about every one of [Arrow-Med's ambulance drivers]" for several months. Id. at p. 9. Accordingly, "one or two" of the drivers had taken photos with their cell phones to document McIntosh following them. Id. Crigger stated that he grew tired of McIntosh following and harassing the EMTs so, while in the parking lot, he pointed his cell phone at McIntosh. Id. at p. 11-12. Crigger concedes that he had his cell phone "up" for an unspecified length of time while operating the ambulance, but denies that he was "filming" McIntosh while the vehicle was in motion. Id. at p. 12. Rather than discussing a traffic violation, Crigger alleges McIntosh detained him for approximately five minutes during which McIntosh accused him of "filming patients" and violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). Id. at p. 6-7.

On June 24, 2016, Crigger filed this action in Breathitt Circuit Court. Thereafter, McIntosh filed a timely notice of removal. [Record No. 1] Crigger alleges that his seizure was without probable cause and based on McIntosh's misuse of his position as deputy sheriff. [Record No. 1-1 at p. 2] His claims include false detention and imprisonment in violation of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as a state law claim of false imprisonment.

II. Motion to Exclude

The defendant has moved under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to exclude all evidence at trial which the plaintiff failed to disclose under Rule 26. [Record No. 33] This would result in excluding all of the plaintiff's proposed evidence, since the plaintiff concedes that he failed to make any disclosures prior to the close of discovery. Id. at p. 3.

"If a party fails to provide information . . . as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information . . . to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). This sanction is mandatory unless the offending party provides a reasonable explanation for the non-compliance or the mistake was harmless. Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Seaway Marine Transp., 596 F.3d 357, 370 (6th Cir. 2010). In determining whether a party's omitted or late disclosure is substantially justified or harmless, the Court considers the following factors: "(1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would be offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the surprise; (3) the extent to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial; (4) the importance of the evidence; and (5) the non-disclosing party's explanation for its failure to disclose the evidence." Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2015).

In this case, the plaintiff has failed to offer a valid justification for failing to comply with the requirements of Rule 26. [See Record No. 42.] Instead, counsel appears to have been under the impression that the related issues in the state-court proceeding somehow relieved the plaintiff of his obligation to provide initial disclosures in this case. While this position is patently incorrect, there is a strong preference for deciding cases on their merits. Therefore, the Court is reluctant to impose the sanctions requested by the defendant based on the obvious lack of diligence by the plaintiff's attorney. The first four Howe factors weigh in favor of admitting the limited evidence identified in the plaintiff's untimely Rule 26 disclosures. [Record No. 42-2] The plaintiff has not identified any items or documents other than pleadings filed in the state-court record. Id. at p. 2. Additionally, the only individuals identified are Crigger, an Arrow-Med employee who was present during the traffic stop, and the owner of Arrow-Med.[2] Id. It is clear that the defendant was aware of these pleadings and individuals prior to the close of discovery in the instant matter. Accordingly, the danger of surprise with respect to this evidence is absent.

Rule 26 also provides that "a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide. . . a computation of each category of damages . . . [and] the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). The plaintiff likewise did not comply with this requirement, but provided computations for punitive damages and damages for embarrassment and humiliation in his belated Rule 26 disclosures. The Court notes that the plaintiff identified each of these categories of damages in his Complaint. Further, the defendant has not objected specifically to the plaintiff's failure to disclose damages. It is generally recognized that "because emotional suffering is personal and difficult to quantify and because compensatory damages are typically considered a fact issue for the jury, emotional distress damages are not subject to the kind of calculation" required for initial disclosures. Scheel v. Harris, No. 3: 11-CV-17, 2012 WL 3879279, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 6, 2012). Punitive damages, like damages for emotional suffering, are not readily amenable to the requirements of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Id.

On August 2, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling Order which included deadlines for making disclosures under Rule 26(a). [Record No. 7] In that Order, the parties were directed to file monthly joint status reports, summarizing the activities in the case for the preceding thirty days. Id. at p. 5. Although the parties submitted timely reports, neither indicated that the Scheduling Order had not been followed or that discovery was not proceeding according to plan. Based on the foregoing, the defendant's motion to exclude will be denied.

III. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues regarding any material facts and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A dispute over a material fact is not "genuine" unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. The Court must determine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). See also Harrison v. Ash, 539 F.3d 510, 516 (6th Cir. 2008).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating conclusively that no genuine issue of material fact exists. CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin, 538 F.3d 402, 412 (6th Cir. 2008). Once the moving party has met its burden of production, the nonmoving party must come forward with significant probative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Chao v. Hall Holding Co., 285 F.3d 415, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the Court views all of the facts and inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

a. Qualified Immunity

The defendant contends that he is shielded from the plaintiff's federal law claims based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. Generally, a government official performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity and is shielded from civil suit if his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009); Barber v. City of Salem, Ohio, 953 F.2d 232, 236 (6th Cir. 1992). "Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231. The protection provided by qualified immunity covers mere mistakes in judgment, id., and immunizes from suit "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Humphrey v. Mabry, 482 F.3d 841, 847 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).

In determining whether qualified immunity applies, the Court must determine: (i) whether the facts as alleged establish that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right and (ii) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the offense. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001); Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231. The Court may consider these questions in any order, but if the answer to either question is "no," the defendant is immune from suit. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. "To overcome qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). See also Perez v. Oakland Cnty., 466 F.3d 416, 427 (6th Cir. 2006). However, the Court must still construe the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 377 (2007).

b. The Traffic Stop as a Fourth Amendment Violation

The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . ." U.S. CONST. amend. IV. This protection extends to brief investigative stops such as traffic stops, which are "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996). To justify this type of seizure, officers need only "reasonable suspicion" of illegal conduct. Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S.Ct. 530, 536 (2014). See also Sampson v. Village of Mackinaw City, No. 16-1919, 2017 WL 1279281, at *4 (6th Cir. April 6, 2017). Reasonable suspicion must be based on "a particularized and objective basis" for suspecting the particular person stopped of breaking the law or committing a traffic violation. Sampson, 2017 WL 1279281, at *3. See also United States v. Miranda-Sotolongo, 827 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2016). "A citizen's right to be free from traffic stops based on less than reasonable suspicion is a clearly established right." Smith v. Williams, 78 F.3d 585, *6 (6th Cir. 1996) (table). See also Feathers v. Aey, 319 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2003); Wilson v. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 66 F. App'x 791, 796-97 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-27 (1968)).

McIntosh contends that he was enforcing K.R.S. §§ 189.292 and 290 when he stopped Crigger. Section 189.292 prohibits drivers from typing or reading text messages, instant messages, and e-mails while driving on a "traveled portion of a roadway." The statute expressly excludes prohibitions on reading, selecting, or entering a phone number for the purpose of making a phone call; using a global positioning system that is part of a personal communication device; or summoning help or reporting illegal activity. K.R.S. § 189.292(3). Additionally, the prohibition does not extend to use of personal communication devices by operators of emergency vehicles when the use of such device is an essential function of the operator's official duties. Id. The statute does not prohibit any cellular telephone uses other than text-based communications.

McIntosh has not provided a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that Crigger had violated or was about to violate K.R.S. § 189.292. It is unclear that Crigger was driving on a traveled portion of the roadway when McIntosh observed him "doing something with his cell phone." McIntosh eventually explained to Crigger that he was stopped for "driving while using his cell phone." Put simply, reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch. Officers must point to "specific and articulable facts" that suggest unlawful conduct. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. "Using" or "doing something" with a cell phone while driving does not constitute a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that a violation of the anti-texting statute has occurred.

Kentucky Revised Statutes § 189.290 provides as follows:

(1) The operator of any vehicle upon a highway shall operate the vehicle in a careful manner, with regard for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other vehicles upon the highway.

(2) No person shall willfully operate any vehicle on any highway in such a manner as to injury the highway.

McIntosh also has failed to identify specific, articulable facts regarding what he characterizes as Crigger's "careless/reckless" driving. Despite the defendant's tendered exhibits regarding "distracted driving," [Record No. 23-2, 3] there is nothing inherently careless or reckless about using a cell phone while driving. While McIntosh indicates that he was concerned because Crigger was transporting a patient, he has not provided any specific facts to indicate that Crigger's purported use of a cell phone prevented him from operating the ambulance in a careful manner as required by § 189.290.

McIntosh contends, without explanation, that "an Arrow-Med Ambulance had been apparently videotaping Lee County Ambulance personnel and dialysis patients." [Record No. 15-1, p. 1] He also claims that Crigger "apparently . . . was video recording with his phone." Id. at p. 2. Because McIntosh has failed to provide supporting facts, it is unclear what caused McIntosh to believe that Crigger was recording or when McIntosh believes the recording occurred. Crigger concedes that he pointed his phone at McIntosh while parked at the dialysis center and that he had his phone "up" at some point while the ambulance was in motion. However, without more, these circumstances do not constitute reasonable suspicion of careless or reckless driving under § 189.290. But see, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 567 F.3d 755, 757 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Scott, 338 F. App'x 517 (6th Cir. 2009) (speeding or driving erratically constitutes reckless driving in violation of § 189.290); United States v. Carter, 45 F. App'x 339, 344 (6th Cir. 2002) (speeding, making a u-turn, erratic driving, and crossing the center line); United States v. Copley, No. 4: 16-CR-10, 2016 WL 3964070, at *2 (W.D. Ky. July 19, 2016) (driving across the fog line and onto the rumble strip repeatedly); United States v. Thompson, 3: 15-CR-10, 2016 WL 845337, at *2 (W.D. Ky. March 2, 2016) (changing lanes without signaling and cutting off other cars); United States v. Shanklin, 3: 06-CR-148, 2007 WL 2042452, at *2-3 (W.D. Ky. July 11, 2007) (weaving back and forth between lanes and failing to use turn signal).

McIntosh is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Crigger's § 1983 claims against him in his individual capacity. His motion for summary judgment on this basis will be denied.

c. Official Capacity Claims

An official capacity action filed against a public employee is the equivalent of a suit against the government entity which the employee represents. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985); Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs cannot hold municipalities liable for employees' actions under § 1983 based on a respondeat superior theory. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Instead, municipal liability must rest on violations that are attributable to the municipality itself. Such violations may spring from official policies, widespread customs or practices, or the failure to train employees adequately. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. See also Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 753 (6th Cir. 2006).

The plaintiff has failed to cite any unlawful practice or policy, nor a deficiency in training with respect to traffic stops. Additionally, he has not alleged that any policymaker condoned, or had reason to know, of McIntosh's alleged harassment of ambulance drivers using his sheriff's cruiser. In short, he has failed to provide facts which link the county to the defendant's alleged conduct in any way. Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the defendant with respect to the § 1983 claims against the defendant in his official capacity.

d. State Law Claims

The plaintiff alleges that he was falsely imprisoned in violation of Kentucky law as a result of the traffic stop. False imprisonment (sometimes called false arrest) is "any deprivation of the liberty of one person by another or detention for however short a time without such person's consent and against his will." Banks v. Fritsch, 39 S.W.3d 474, 479 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001). To qualify as false imprisonment, the restraint must have been "wrongful, improper, or without a claim or reasonable justification, authority or privilege." Id. The tort is complete after "even a brief restraint on the plaintiff's freedom" and plaintiffs may recover nominal damages. Id.

When a government employee is sued in his official capacity, he is entitled to the same immunity afforded to the agency employing him. Autry v. Western Ky. Univ., 219 S.W.3d 713, 717 (Ky. 2007). See also Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d. 510, 522 (Ky. 2001). Because the county is entitled to governmental immunity, McIntosh is also entitled to immunity and is shielded from the plaintiff's state-law claims against him in his official capacity. See, e.g., Comair, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Airport Corp., 295 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Ky. 2009) ("Counties . . . enjoy the same immunity as the state itself."). See also Schwindel v. Meade Cnty., 113 S.W.3d 159, 163 (Ky. 2003) ("A county government is cloaked with sovereign immunity.").

When sued in their individual capacities, qualified official immunity protects public officers from damages liability for good faith judgment calls made in a legally uncertain environment. Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d. at 522. The standard for applying qualified official immunity is set out as follows:

Qualified official immunity (what officers enjoy when sued in their individual, rather than official, capacities) applies to negligent performance by a public officer or employee of (1) discretionary acts or functions, i.e., those involving the exercise of discretion and judgment, or personal deliberation, decision, and judgment; (2) in good faith; and (3) within the scope of the employee's authority.

Id.

The parties do not dispute that McIntosh was acting within the scope of his authority when he stopped Crigger, or that the performance of a traffic stop is a discretionary act. However, questions remain regarding whether McIntosh acted in good faith. Bad faith may be predicated on a violation of a "constitutional . . . or other clearly established right which a person in the public employee's position presumptively would have known was afforded to a person in the plaintiff's position . . . or if the officer or employee willfully or maliciously intended to harm the plaintiff or acted with a corrupt motive." Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 510. As previously explained, it is unclear that McIntosh had reasonable suspicion for making the traffic stop. Additionally, Crigger's testimony given in the state-court hearing suggests that McIntosh may have been acting with a corrupt motive. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff's state-law claim will be denied.

V. Motion in Limine

The defendant has also filed a motion in limine to exclude various categories of evidence including, inter alia, "evidence that is not relevant," "all lay opinion testimony regarding the validity of decisions made . . . by the police officer," "evidence regarding Defendants' liability insurance," and "any hearsay statements." [Record No. 32] The motion in limine is premature, in large part, because there is no indication that the plaintiff will attempt to offer such evidence during trial. Further, the defendant has failed to identify any particular hearsay statements he seeks to exclude. If the plaintiff offers such evidence during trial, the defendant will have the opportunity to object, and the Court will address the defendant's objection at that time.

The defendant also requests that the Court preclude the plaintiff from asking the jury for an award of punitive damages. Punitive damages are available under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the defendant's conduct "is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983). A similar standard applies under Kentucky tort law. See Banks, 39 S.W.3d at 481. Because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the plaintiff's claims, the defendant's request regarding exclusion of a jury instruction on punitive damages is premature.

VI. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The defendant's motion to exclude evidence [Record No. 33] is DENIED.

2. The defendant's motion for summary judgment [Record No. 23] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

3. The defendant's motion in limine [Record No. 32] is DENIED.

[1] Arrow-Med applied for a preliminary injunction and restraining order in the state court action to prevent McIntosh from "misusing his position as a deputy sheriff" by pulling over ambulances. The state court held a hearing on September 23, 2016, during which Crigger testified regarding the incident. The state court granted a preliminary injunction, restraining McIntosh from misusing his position as deputy sheriff. The court concluded, based on the facts before it, that "there was no good faith attempt to enforce the law," but instead, "an attempt to intimidate and harass the Plaintiff's business." [Record No. 24-1, p. 2]

[2] Crigger and Hershel Arrowood testified in the state court hearing regarding Arrow-Med's motion for a preliminary injunction/restraining order against McIntosh. [Record No. 14-1] McIntosh filed the hearing transcript in the record in the instant matter on October 18, 2016. Id.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-11   17:30:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Justified (#2)

Deckard and his creed paint all cops as criminals is just wrong. Deckard is an anarchist and would destroy all that is good so he can smoke pot all day, wave his weapon like child holding a cap gun and shoot off his gun in town without a care.

Not all cops are good cops either. The bad ones make it difficult for good cops to do their job as well. Just because Deckard questions authority does not make for an anarchist. Anarchist are those that have total disregard for the law that was reserved to protect the citizens from corrupt public officers and officials altogether. I know of many cops that fit this description. And guess what, they still get to wear their badges while they plunder of people property and mock the local district attorney and even have a defense attorney assassinated for investigating one of those corrupt officers.

And as for the issue of pot...it's not a drug its an alternative form of medicine which many states have taken serious consideration into incorporating into their own studies and developmental medicinal cures. One of them happens to be the National Cancer Institute.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-11   17:42:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: nolu chan (#34)

When sued in their individual capacities, qualified official immunity protects public officers from damages liability for good faith judgment calls made in a legally uncertain environment. Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d. at 522. The standard for applying qualified official immunity is set out as follows:

Qualified immunity does not apply in those instances where the public officer acted outside the scope of their duties and the intentional reckless act was done under color of state law. This is where immunity is broken and liability is shifted onto the reckless officer involved in the act.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-11   17:50:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: goldilucky (#36)

Qualified immunity does not apply in those instances where the public officer acted outside the scope of their duties and the intentional reckless act was done under color of state law. This is where immunity is broken and liability is shifted onto the reckless officer involved in the act.

The opinion held that the plaintiff had immunity in his official capacity, and rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant in his official capacity,

The plaintiff has failed to cite any unlawful practice or policy, nor a deficiency in training with respect to traffic stops. Additionally, he has not alleged that any policymaker condoned, or had reason to know, of McIntosh's alleged harassment of ambulance drivers using his sheriff's cruiser. In short, he has failed to provide facts which link the county to the defendant's alleged conduct in any way. Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the defendant with respect to the § 1983 claims against the defendant in his official capacity.

And he did not have it in his individual capacity,

McIntosh is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Crigger's § 1983 claims against him in his individual capacity. His motion for summary judgment on this basis will be denied.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-11   18:45:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: nolu chan (#37)

The parties do not dispute that McIntosh was acting within the scope of his authority when he stopped Crigger, or that the performance of a traffic stop is a discretionary act. However, questions remain regarding whether McIntosh acted in good faith. Bad faith may be predicated on a violation of a "constitutional . . . or other clearly established right which a person in the public employee's position presumptively would have known was afforded to a person in the plaintiff's position . . . or if the officer or employee willfully or maliciously intended to harm the plaintiff or acted with a corrupt motive." Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 510. As previously explained, it is unclear that McIntosh had reasonable suspicion for making the traffic stop. Additionally, Crigger's testimony given in the state-court hearing suggests that McIntosh may have been acting with a corrupt motive. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff's state-law claim will be denied. [emphasis added here]

I found the above interesting to note.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-11   19:48:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: goldilucky (#35)

Just because Deckard questions authority does not make for an anarchist.

No that doesn't make him anarchist. The no government or higher authority makes him an anarchist. I think its great people question govenrment. Most the issues between police and citizens really comes from the WOD's.

The reason I call Deckard an anarchist is from reading his post. His idea of a good cop is one that walks around and does nothing or dead.

BTW I do not have a problem legalizing pot and regulating it like we do alcohol. I also think its crazy to be forced to wear helmets or seat belts. People want to be crazy with a vehicle and not use protection its darwins law being applied. I think having cash is a good thing. I prefer to use cash because of hackers. I think you should be able to pop a third eye in a criminal and not have to go to court as long as you are on your own property. ;)

Justified  posted on  2017-07-12   19:10:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Justified (#39)

...The no government or higher authority makes him an anarchist...

Explain that to me.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-12   21:07:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: goldilucky (#40)

...The no government or higher authority makes him an anarchist...

Explain that to me.

He believes he can do what every he wants anytime wants where every he wants without consequences. He doesn't believe in rule of law or the enforcement of law. He will not come out and say it this way but his words are just that.

Protest and destroy property and harass people without police stopping them. He is an anarchist.

Justified  posted on  2017-07-12   22:53:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com