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

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Two Officers Shot in Ferguson After White House Declares Open Season on Cops
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 12, 2015
Author: sara noble
Post Date: 2015-03-12 08:20:15 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 31031
Comments: 162

www.independentsentinel.com www.independentsentinel.com

Officer Cries In Pain On One Video

Ferguson “protesters” gathered outside the Ferguson police station following the resignation of Chief Jackson. Shortly after midnight, someone shot two police officers. No one knows who fired, but it appeared the shots were fired directly at the officers.

The DOJ released a scathing report accusing Ferguson police of racism knowing it would reignite the nearly-burned out furor in Ferguson.

A 32-year-old officer from nearby Webster Groves was shot in the face and a 41- year-old officer from St. Louis County was shot in the shoulder, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said at a news conference. Both were taken to a hospital, where Belmar said they were conscious. He said he did not have further details about their conditions but described their injuries as “serious.”

They weren’t even Ferguson police officers.

You can hear the officers screaming in pain on this video.

There were about 60 to 70 protesters and their behavior prompted the police to send officers in riot gear.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar told reporters, “I’ve said many times we cannot sustain this without problems and that’s not a reflection of those expressing their first amendment rights. But this is a very dangerous environment for our officers to work in.”

At least three shots were fired and the wounds were “very serious”, Belmar said.

Some said the shots seemed to come from a house but there was no house nearby and others said they might have come from a small hill.

Prior to the shooting, “protesters” were chanting to show they weren’t satisfied with the resignation of Chief Jackson. Others were angry and potentially dangerous. They smell blood in the water.

One protester said it was mostly peaceful until the shots rang out. Mostly peaceful?!?

If the participants were in the Tea Party, would it be described as mostly peaceful?

The acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division released a statement saying the U.S. government remains committed to reaching a “court- enforceable agreement” to address Ferguson’s “unconstitutional practices,” regardless of who’s in charge of the city.

What about the rights of the police who they are endangering with their race baiting?

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz wants Ferguson police disarmed.

The riots/protests were funded by George Soros among others and engineered by Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

The video of the shooting via Matthew Keys:

After the shooting, the leftists chanted this allegedly:

after the shooting

The chanting was utter nonsense. The only ones losing their freedom are the police and the normal people in Ferguson being subjected to these Soros-communist funded riots/protests which are based on a lie. They still have the hands up, don’t shoot posture.

This was one of the “chants”:

And another – “hands up, don’t shoot, stop this shit, we’re bullet proof”.

Don’t expect any words of comfort from the White House or calls to families of the officers.

One confused protester thinks the cops are “trigger happy”.

CNN

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 133.

#2. To: tpaine (#0)

No one knows who fired, but it appeared the shots were fired directly at the officers.

Uh...as opposed to the vast majority of shootings where people are injured by ricochets?

Are these reporters paid by the word to utter such drivel? Do they even have an editor?

They weren’t even Ferguson police officers.

The article doesn't explain why they were present if they weren't Ferguson cops.

Nor is there any exploration of who the protesters were, whether they were Ferguson residents or some thug types from around the greater metro area, as we saw during the riots that attracted every thug in the (larger) city.

It may be that the thugs deliberately shot cops just to provoke them into massacring the crowd to create another incident. Sharpton's crew is fully capable of it.

The riots/protests were funded by George Soros among others and engineered by Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

Any proof of that or will the accusation be enough to flack this sad-sack hatchet job?

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   8:39:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: TooConservative (#2)

It may be that the thugs deliberately shot cops just to provoke them into massacring the crowd to create another incident. Sharpton's crew is fully capable of it.

The zoo animals will reap what they sow... when they force a little roof top Justice.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-12   8:52:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: GrandIsland (#3)

The zoo animals will reap what they sow... when they force a little roof top Justice.

Like that is a desirable solution.

Given Ferguson's history (and constant looting of the citizens as a notable bandit town), why don't the police have some cameras outside the station? You'd think that some cop would at least pull out a smartphone and try to record all the protesters' faces in the event of rioting or unrest. Or cops getting shot in front of a police station.

The scammy website this is from has insecure, possibly malware, scripting on it.

Here are the two vids, direct from YouBoob.

Given such a lousy article, we get more actual info from these lo-res vids. And that police HQ doesn't look like a poverty-stricken precinct that can't afford cameras. They're blowing plenty of money on electricity for decorative outside lighting.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   9:01:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#5)

Like that is a desirable

Neither is being a target because you wear a uniform.

See, every once in a while, you spin. Not as much as some others... but you do spin. I never suggested it would be desirable... sticking your hand in your toilet to clean it isn't desirable... but if you keep shitting all over the bowl... it's a must.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-12   9:21:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: GrandIsland (#7)

See, every once in a while, you spin. Not as much as some others... but you do spin.

Because I suggested that vigilantes firing from rooftops isn't desirable?

Yes, I am guilty of that, I suppose. Not sure why that is so heinous or considered grounds for being accused of "spin".

Reuters filed a story, not much better than this one:

The violence grew out of a Wednesday night demonstration in which several dozen protesters gathered in front of the Ferguson police department, just hours after Police Chief Thomas Jackson resigned.

The night started peacefully but about two dozen officers clad in riot gear later faced off with the protesters. At least two people were taken into custody.

Gunshots rang out about midnight turning a scene of relative quiet into pandemonium. Many of the remaining few dozen demonstrators fled, some screaming.

The line of police scrambled, with many taking defensive positions drawing their weapons and some huddling behind riot shields, according to a video published online.

Belmar said the shooter was among the demonstrators standing across from the officers.

"I don't know who did the shooting, to be honest with you right now, but somehow they were embedded in that group of folks," he said.

Protesters at the scene, however, said on social media that the shots did not come from where they were standing.

"The shooter was not with the protesters. The shooter was atop the hill," activist DeRay McKesson said on Twitter.

"I was here. I saw the officer fall. The shot came from at least 500 feet away from the officers," he said.

I'd like to know more about the firearms used. If it was rifle ammo, then maybe the shots rang out from the Grassy Knoll, as the protesters said. If the slugs are from a pistol, most likely it came from the protester ranks.

Apparently, ballistics is a forgotten police science in Ferguson.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   9:49:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: TooConservative (#14)

I'd like to know more about the firearms used. If it was rifle ammo, then maybe the shots rang out from the Grassy Knoll, as the protesters said. If the slugs are from a pistol, most likely it came from the protester ranks.

Apparently, ballistics is a forgotten police science in Ferguson.

Do you think ANY serious, honest investigation will be forthcoming in this case??

(come on - really.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-12   9:57:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Liberator, Grand Island (#18)

Do you think ANY serious, honest investigation will be forthcoming in this case??

It's hard to imagine they'll fail to do ballistics tests and identify the type of bullets and guns used.

Maybe they'll be those 5.56 NATO steel-tipped NATO rounds that BATFE wants to ban. But it would be hard for that cop to take one to the face and still have a face left.

I'm leaning toward pistol rounds, fired within 20'. Given that there were a few dozen cops in riot gear only feet from the protesters, it seems hard to imagine that someone didn't see a flash from the gun or something to indicate where the bullet originated.

Maybe they were having a donut break and wear too busy to watch the crowd.

I still don't grasp why the cops went out in riot gear on their front step. It seems purposeless to me. "Hey, you darned protesters, get off our lawn!"

Seems dumb but maybe you had to be there to get why the supervising officer sent them out.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   10:18:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: TooConservative (#22) (Edited)

It's hard to imagine they'll fail to do ballistics tests and identify the type of bullets and guns used.

Maybe they'll be those 5.56 NATO steel-tipped NATO rounds that BATFE wants to ban. But it would be hard for that cop to take one to the face and still have a face left.

I like the way you're thinking here. Of course your theory that 5.56 wouldn't leave much face would obviously disprove that this round was used, but I wouldn't expect "investigators," the media, and the Regime to dismiss rhetoric and propaganda that would be so useful.

I'm leaning toward pistol rounds, fired within 20'. Given that there were a few dozen cops in riot gear only feet from the protesters, it seems hard to imagine that someone didn't see a flash from the gun or something to indicate where the bullet originated.

In a universe where there's an honest investigation. law, and justice? Yeah. ("Remember: SELMA!!!!")

I still don't grasp why the cops went out in riot gear on their front step. It seems purposeless to me. "Hey, you darned protesters, get off our lawn!"

HA!

Well, there's two trains of thought -- strap it on, OR, play it passively (which would be perceived as weak.) Look -- Ferguson is Ground Zero for "The Beginning."

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-12   10:43:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Liberator (#29)

I'm leaning toward pistol rounds, fired within 20'.

If they fired from the crowd under fluid nighttime conditions and managed to hit two cops, I assume they had to be close. Or they were really terrific shots with a pistol. Given the gunslinging skills of your average homeboy, I'm thinking they were close, not expert pistoleros from Da Hood.

[Notice how I deftly managed to reply to myself while only pretending to reply to you? LOL.]

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   10:51:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: TooConservative (#33)

If they fired from the crowd under fluid nighttime conditions and managed to hit two cops, I assume they had to be close.

Good assumption,given the fact that the typical black thug almost always missed the guy he is shooting at and hits children 10 feet away from them.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-03-12   16:56:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: sneakypete (#45) (Edited)








Italians: be gone!

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   17:28:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: TooConservative (#46) (Edited)

Italians: be gone!

Fixed?

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-12   17:36:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: tpaine (#48) (Edited)


Yeah, I tried. I think it's twisted in a HTML knot with unclosed B and I and SPAN tags mixed together. You can confuse a browser if you do enough of those.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   17:42:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: TooConservative (#49)

Is it busted forever?

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-12   17:47:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: tpaine, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Murron (#50)

I dunno. Neil might know a trick. Otherwise, it's just this thread that's borked. Or Stone could just delete Murron's comment.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   18:05:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: TooConservative, tpaine, A K A Stone, Murron (#51)

I dunno. Neil might know a trick.

It can be fixed by admin editing the offending comment and removing the stray bold tag.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-13   3:02:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Pinguinite, TooConservative, tpaine, A K A Stone (#64)

It can be fixed by admin editing the offending comment and removing the stray bold tag.

HUH? What 'offending comment' did I post?

Murron  posted on  2015-03-15   14:48:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Murron (#65)

HUH? What 'offending comment' did I post?

I'll suggest that Pinguinite isn't saying you comment was offensive, in the literal term... but he/she is suggesting that your comment is the "offender" that caused the corrupt text to be continued down this thread.

He or she is saying you are guilty of Aggravated Font Change in the 1st degree. A LF Class B Misdemeanor. Sentence, already served.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-15   14:58:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: GrandIsland, Murron (#66)

As much as I disagree with GI on many important issues, in this case s/he is correct. It's not offending in the literal sense, only "offending" in the context of the font spillover that damaged the thread display. Some how, a comment ended up with a stray Bold & Italic HTML codes that got through the normally tight HTML clean-up code that runs right before comments are posted. My hat's off to you if you managed that, and it's something to figure out.

But at the moment I posted the fix solution, "offending comment" was the first descriptor that came to mind, so that's what I called it. I think I was in a bit of a hurry at the time. I wrote that even without knowing in who's comment the stray HTML code was introduced.

Cheers...

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-15   16:55:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: Pinguinite (#67)

As much as I disagree with GI on many important issues

Say what... can't be true. lol

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-15   17:06:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: GrandIsland (#68)

Say what... can't be true. lol

Well, I was surprised to see you getting so hard lined about smoking rights, even to the point of telling neighbors they can go pound sand if they don't like smoke entering their homes. Why this wouldn't apply to say, marijuana smoke along with tobacco is a puzzle to me though. Seems you would object to all of your neighbors complaining about your smoking, but submissively give in to the demands of legislatures voted into power by the exact same neighbors that would put the exact same prohibition on a sheet of paper and call it a "law". Is that right?

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-15   18:56:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Pinguinite (#69) (Edited)

Well, I was surprised to see you getting so hard lined about smoking rights, even to the point of telling neighbors they can go pound sand if they don't like smoke entering their homes. Why this wouldn't apply to say, marijuana smoke along with tobacco is a puzzle to me though. Seems you would object to all of your neighbors complaining about your smoking, but submissively give in to the demands of legislatures voted into power by the exact same neighbors that would put the exact same prohibition on a sheet of paper and call it a "law". Is that right?

No. I don't feel I'm hard lined about a smokers rights. I loath smoke like any other ex smoker.

I'm hard lined at the rights of legal activity INSIDE your home. I feel that if you are doing something legal inside your home, you shouldn't be restricted at all.

Obviously, living in row housing, apartment buildings, condos and trailer parks causes a closer habitat to your smelly and loud neighbors. If you might be bothered by what your neighbor LEGALLY does INSIDE their home, then buy a single family home with a large lot.

Look, by code, there is a brick or cinder block firewall between the two homes. There is no reason the complainer can't seal up every hole inside his house... to keep the smokers smoke out.

Telling a person they can't smoke in their own home is a slippery slope. It's the kind of slippery slope that has allowed big brother government to not only feel like they must exist or citizens can't survive... but the pathway that allows governmrnt rights and loss of citizen freedoms.

You can't possibly be against intrusive government and in the same breath support a court action telling a homeowner that they can't smoke in a house he's lives in for 50 years.

I feel the burden is on the smoke hating complainer for change... or even to move.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-15   20:03:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: GrandIsland (#70)

You are apparently avoiding the point of my question, but... okay....

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-16   0:15:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Pinguinite (#71) (Edited)

Why this wouldn't apply to say, marijuana smoke along with tobacco is a puzzle to me though.

It would if recreational marijuana was legal in the state in question. When you learn the difference between illegal and legal activity, well then your puzzle is solved.

No where in the constitution does it give you the right to break constitutional laws inside your home. Drug laws are constitutional.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-16   0:44:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: GrandIsland (#72)

You still miss my point. Perhaps your time in law enforcement has biased your perspective.

For you, there's apparently a strong distinction between "legal" and "illegal" activity. But at the same time, you state that you have a moral right to tell everyone in your community to go fly a kite if they all came to you to tell you you can't smoke in your house.

But these people are also voters. If they *vote* to make smoking in your home illegal, would you then adhere to the "law" they enacted and comply with their demand, and agree that you no longer have a moral right to smoke in your house?

In one case, you refuse to adhere to the will of the people, and in the other, you would acquiesce to it. Does your moral right to do as you please in your own home change *solely* because of the degree of the formality taken by the majority of your neighbors to decree what is and is not legal activity?

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-16   1:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Pinguinite (#74)

But these people are also voters. If they *vote* to make smoking in your home illegal, would you then adhere to the "law" they enacted and comply with their demand, and agree that you no longer have a moral right to smoke in your house?

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

No law prohibiting smoking, inside your own home, would ever stand the test of constitutionality. When you compare it to marijuana, it isn't "smoking it" that's illegal in your home.... IT'S POSSESSING IT. it's a banned substance in most states, and that's a constitutionally tested law.

Yes, smoking marihuana, IN PUBLIC, is also against the law, in most states...but the inside of your home isn't public, now is it.

Your analogy, is ridiculous, at best.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-16   6:25:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: GrandIsland (#75)

Okay, let me get this straight.

Drug laws are constitutional.

Tobacco is a drug.

Marijuana is a drug.

A ban on tobacco would be unconstitutional.

The ban on marijuana is constitutional.

Neither marijuana nor tobacco is mentioned or referred to in any way in the Constitution.

Laws are enacted by the will of the people as a whole.

You have a moral right to reject the will of the people with regard to tobacco, but not the will of the people with regard to marijuana.

Is there any item listed here that is incorrect?

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-16   13:30:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Pinguinite (#76)

Tobacco is a drug.

Tobacco is not classified as a drug. I stopped reading your reply at the word "tobacco"

I don't entertain spin. Reword and resubmit your response

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-16   15:08:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: GrandIsland (#77)

Tobacco is not classified as a drug. I stopped reading your reply at the word "tobacco"

Had you continued reading, you would have seen:

Is there any item listed here that is incorrect?

No, this is not about "spin". Not by me, at least. This is about trying to understand your logic. I'm a bit puzzled that you have exhibited both a sense of freedom to do in your home what you please with regard to tobacco, but not with regard to marijuana. But okay, I'll reword:

* Drug laws are constitutional.

* Tobacco is not classified by law as a drug, and legislatures are constitutionally banned from classifying it as a drug, and therefore cannot ban tobacco.

* Marijuana is classified by law as a drug, though legislatures are free to classify it as a non-drug if they so choose.

* A ban on marijuana is constitutional because legislatures have decided to classify it as a drug.

* Neither marijuana nor tobacco is mentioned or referred to in any way in the Constitution.

* Laws are enacted by the will of the people as a whole.

* You have a moral and Constitutional right to reject the will of the people with regard to tobacco, but no moral or Constitutional right to reject the will of the people with regard to marijuana.

All in all, I find your position very arbitrary. Your moral foundation of what is right and wrong is based simply on what laws have been passed, and laws passed are simply the result of popular sentiment (or all too often, just lobbying by special interests). This includes what is and is not considered a drug. The medical establishment does indeed classify nicotine and alcohol as drugs.

Slavery was once found to be Constitutional, but that didn't make it right. If tobacco was classified as a drug by statute, and then banned (something that actually could happen in the future if popular sentiment goes that far) would you then suddenly agree it's morally reasonable for a man to be prohibited by court order to not smoke tobacco in his home?

Is your moral compass simply in tune with laws, and nothing else? It seems from your postings that's precisely the case. I would say today's police officers have lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve and protect for that exact reason.

And I think we're called to be more than that.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   4:00:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Pinguinite (#78)

All in all, I find your position very arbitrary. Your moral foundation of what is right and wrong is based simply on what laws have been passed, and laws passed are simply the result of popular sentiment

Picking and choosing which constitutionally tested laws you will obey is worse than a slippery slope... It's a dangerous ideal. It will decay society (look around you, we are seeing it now and it's magnified in Ferguson). It's no different than officers that picks and chooses what laws they will enforce.

This concept I'll never waiver on... there are many laws I don't like. I'll obey them or I'll move to another state, like I did with the Adolf Cuomo's SafeAct.

Aside from that very essential ideal, we live in a free society. If we aren't breaking the law inside our castle... we need to be left alone. Regardless how much my activity inside my home bothers you. Obey my lawful activity freedom or MOVE like I did.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   6:26:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: GrandIsland (#80)

Picking and choosing which constitutionally tested laws you will obey is worse than a slippery slope... It's a dangerous ideal.

A slippery slope is what we are already on. You claim drug laws have been "constitutionally tested" and yet the only drug that appears in the constitution is alcohol. Congress has never been constitutionally authorized to ban any other drug. But courts have invented this "living document" doctrine by which they claim some law is "constitutional" even though it clearly is not. Because of that, more and more rights are trashed every year, such as the 4th Amendment, and it's the police that are the tools of the state which are used to violate these rights. Those on the police force become mindless, robots of the state, and essentially religious fanatics of sorts, enforcing any and every statute against a peaceful people because "the law is the law", or worse, with civil asset forfeiture, themselves become greedy, legalized looters of law abiding citizens.

By your own ideals, tobacco can one day be banned along with marijuana and the ban can be called "constitutional", and you'll have no choice but to accept that as law inside the home of every American. That will always be a real possibility, and your stated belief that such a think is impossible probably is a lot like the founders belief that the numerous articles in the Bill of Rights couldn't possibly be violated. But that's the USA today. And you think my position is a slippery slope? No it's not. A slippery slope is what the US has been on for a long time.

My ideals are staying put right where they are. Thanks for playing....

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   14:24:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Pinguinite (#81)

A slippery slope is what we are already on.

Even if that were true, two wrongs don't make a right.

Pick and choose what laws you'll follow AT YOUR OWN RISK... I can respect that. Respect the fact that you won't ever get my blessing.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   14:46:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: GrandIsland (#82)

Even if that were true, two wrongs don't make a right.

The D of I says when a gov becomes tyrannical and no longer serves the interests of the people, it's the moral right and duty of the people to overthrow it.

If cops break into your home to get you to stop smoking, or if cops take all your money without charging you with a crime, both under the color of law....

There is a limit to what should be morally tolerated.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   15:25:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Pinguinite (#83)

There is a limit to what should be morally tolerated.

By whose standards?

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-17   15:40:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: redleghunter (#84)

By whose standards?

By the only moral standards each of us have to adhere to, of course. Our own.

Or would you feel good about adhering to Obama's moral standards. Or maybe mine? Do what I tell you to do because you have faith in my morals, even if they contradict your own?

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   18:31:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Pinguinite (#87)

Or would you feel good about adhering to Obama's moral standards. Or maybe mine? Do what I tell you to do because you have faith in my morals, even if they contradict your own?

Thanks for making my point.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-18   1:58:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: redleghunter (#104)

Thanks for making my point.

You're welcome.

Though, I must add that..... I have no idea what your point was.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   3:33:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: Pinguinite (#105) (Edited)

Though, I must add that..... I have no idea what your point was.

You: There is a limit to what should be morally tolerated.

Me:By whose standards?

You: By the only moral standards each of us have to adhere to, of course. Our own. Or would you feel good about adhering to Obama's moral standards. Or maybe mine? Do what I tell you to do because you have faith in my morals, even if they contradict your own?

Me: Thanks for making my point. You: Though, I must add that..... I have no idea what your point was.

Each having their own moral "standard" is really not a moral standard at all. It is a multitude of 'islands' of opinions and self values. In effect each individual validates their own moral values relative to many others. Some of course will come close to others but none of them have a 'ruler' in which to measure said values. Each man or woman becomes their own form of metrics, their own 'measurement' aka ruler.

I find it odd in a society in which every profession has a set of metrics to evaluate measures of performance (MOP) and measures of effectiveness (MOE), the same sees no need for such when it comes to morals.

As we know from such professions which use MOPs and MOEs they are very results oriented. And they cannot hide their failure in relativism as many seem to do with morals. In effect in industry and other professions if one ignores MOEs and MOPs they will go bankrupt. Same for the moral revisionism...Moral bankruptcy.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-18   11:15:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: redleghunter (#115)

Each having their own moral "standard" is really not a moral standard at all. It is a multitude of 'islands' of opinions and self values. In effect each individual validates their own moral values relative to many others. Some of course will come close to others but none of them have a 'ruler' in which to measure said values. Each man or woman becomes their own form of metrics, their own 'measurement' aka ruler.

But if one does not act according to his own sense of right and wrong, then one must act according to the dictates someone or something else, in effect then sometimes doing things contrary to his own conscience.

In cases like this, I sometimes think of the Nuremberg trials where soldiers that followed orders of their superiors were convicted of crimes against humanity, because "following orders" was no defence. In effect, they were convicted of crimes against humanity because they placed the dictates of their superiors above what should have been a clear mandate of their own conscience.

If what you say is true, then these men should not have been convicted of anything, because they would have been wrong to place their own sense of right and wrong above all else, because their own sense of right and wrong could not have been reasonably trusted.

I'm going to second guess you here and anticipate your responding that it is correct that our own consciences cannot be trusted, and that is why we need the Bible to show us right from wrong, or perhaps the Holy Spirit to show us the right and wrong path. But certainly the old testament is hardly a guide for moral living, otherwise I could rally all the fighting men in my town and lead a raid on the next town to kill every man, woman and child in it, and bring all the loot from it back to my town because the people in my town are God's chosen people. Point being, that interpretation of the Bible is still in the eye of the beholder. What you say the bible calls us to do is not what I say the bible calls us to do. And if I insist the Holy Spirit is telling me to do something you consider a sin, how could you possibly tell me that I'm wrong and you are right, that my perception of my moral duties is off base?

You may reasonably say that one man with an axe chasing another man down the street trying to kill him is committing a horrible sin. But what if the man being chased is on his way to kill the axe-weilding man's family? Then one's perception changes dramatically. Point is, you cannot know for certain what is in my heart. You cannot judge whether I sin or not. Only I and God can judge that, and the only reason God can is because He knows what my perceptions were. And that is why I maintain that each of us only has his own moral compass to judge right and wrong from, and nothing else. Trying to say we need to rely on other sources of moral judgement would still require such information be passed through our own compass. I.e. a decision to apply a biblical passage to a course of action still requires one to decide by his own compass if it is the right thing to do.

This is another area where Michael Newton's portrait of the spirit world makes things so clean. According to MN's findings, our behavior is judged according to what we truly believed, our moral conscience, not according to some absolute standard of which we may well have been completely, honestly and justifiably ignorant. That said, our sense of morality comes from our ever growing spiritual experiences by which we learn the eternal truth that loving others is the highest calling.

Ergo, my response to your original question of who's moral standards we are called to follow. Answer: The only one we can possibly have: Our own. Sure individual senses of right and wrong can vary somewhat, but that's okay.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   15:41:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: Pinguinite (#119)

If what you say is true, then these men should not have been convicted of anything, because they would have been wrong to place their own sense of right and wrong above all else, because their own sense of right and wrong could not have been reasonably trusted.

Again you are making my point.

There was an established rule of law addressing war crimes. There were several Geneva accords which were violated. There was a law giver to the warriors to measure their actions/inactions against. And in the case of the Nuremberg trials, those who violated the LOAC and those who did nothing to stop the violations were punished.

And thanks for the mind reading, or second guess. I did not mention anything about what you anticipated I would opine on. I'm still on moral metrics.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-18   15:52:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: redleghunter (#120)

There was an established rule of law addressing war crimes. There were several Geneva accords which were violated. There was a law giver to the warriors to measure their actions/inactions against. And in the case of the Nuremberg trials, those who violated the LOAC and those who did nothing to stop the violations were punished.

My impression, right or wrong, was that the convictions related at least in part to the famed "following orders is no defence" phrase, which implies that they should simply have known better from their own conscience. (Of course this applied only to German soldiers taking orders from the German military, not to American CIA agents torturing people, because that's somehow completely different, even though such agents were also just following orders). I think Japanese officers were also executed after the war by the US for crimes against humanity, even though Japan was not a party to the Geneva Convention accords.

These German soldiers were basically convicted because they didn't refuse to follow orders, even though not doing so may well have gotten them executed. IOW, they were executed after the war because they chose not to risk being executed during the war.

And thanks for the mind reading, or second guess. I did not mention anything about what you anticipated I would opine on. I'm still on moral metrics.

Second guessing is not mind-reading, as with second guessing, you don't have to be right. :). But I hope it helped make my point clear, even though for you I guess it hasn't.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   16:23:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: Pinguinite (#122)

My impression, right or wrong, was that the convictions related at least in part to the famed "following orders is no defence" phrase, which implies that they should simply have known better from their own conscience.

Now we are getting somewhere:)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-18   16:53:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: redleghunter, pinguinite, GrandIsland, Y'ALL (#123)

Pinguinite (#122) --- My impression, right or wrong, was that the convictions related at least in part to the famed "following orders is no defence" phrase, which implies that they should simply have known better from their own conscience.

Now we are getting somewhere:) --- redleghunter

Indeed, we are getting somewhere, --- back to the original discussion that GrandIsland and I had.

An American cop has no excuse (I'm just enforcing 'established law'), for zealously arresting non-violent suspects of our arguably unconstitutional drug, gun, and 'morality' wars..

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-18   17:53:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: tpaine (#127)

arresting non-violent suspects

Many criminals are "non violent". Most 5 and 6 time DWI offenders are swell guys and gals. Should we give them all judicial passes?

One example... you want more? Why say such stupid things as an educated man? Your spin is the propaganda that removes your credibility.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18   19:13:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: GrandIsland (#131)

An American cop has no excuse (I'm just enforcing 'established law'), for zealously arresting non-violent suspects of our arguably unconstitutional drug, gun, and 'morality' wars..

Many criminals are "non violent". Most 5 and 6 time DWI offenders are swell guys and gals. Should we give them all judicial passes?

Poor example, seeing that driving drunk is an inherently violent act, and commonly results in injuries to others.

One example... you want more? Why say such stupid things as an educated man? Your spin is the propaganda that removes your credibility.

Typically, you're using personal insult and a straw man argument, because you can't admit that you ignore your constitutional oath.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-18   19:28:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 133.

#136. To: tpaine (#133)

Poor example, seeing that driving drunk is an inherently violent act, and commonly results in injuries to others.

So is selling and dealing cocaine, meth, heroin or opiates. It's dangerous in the same ways... but the offenders are real nice non violent people.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-18 19:45:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 133.

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