[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: 31244
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 # 153.

#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  


#91. To: Pinguinite, Y'ALL, grandIsland, misterwhite, gatlin, etc (#82)

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. ---- ---- 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. --- Pinguinite

Even if that were true, two wrongs don't make a right. --- Pick and choose what laws you'll follow AT YOUR OWN RISK... -- GrandIsland

ALL citizens of the USA are bound by obligation to support and defend the Constitution. -- They do NOT have the ability to "pick and choose" what laws they'll follow. -- It is their duty to oppose unconstitutional ' law', -- as you say, at their own risk.

The pity is, that you, as a sworn officer of the law, and some others here at LF, will not admit that large sections of our statutory law dealing with drugs, guns, and non-violent behaviors, -- are obviously unconstitutional, and should be ignored and unenforced.

How do you fellas explain your ability to ignore your duty?

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-17   19:03:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: tpaine (#91)

- It is their duty to oppose unconstitutional ' law',

If it's unconstitutional, awesome. A jury or higher court will have your back. Like I said... at your own risk. Good luck.

It's why we are FREE. Do as you feel you feel is right. Roll the dice... gamble on 12 of your peers.

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   21:58:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: GrandIsland (#92)

If it's unconstitutional, awesome. A jury or higher court will have your back.

Juries will never hear any such argument that drug laws are unconstitutional because judges will not allow it as a defence.

It's one of those control tools the courts employ.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   23:46:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#98)

Juries will never hear any such argument that drug laws are unconstitutional because judges will not allow it as a defence.

Trial court judges do not have discretion to permit such a defense. Binding federal precedent prohibits any trial level court in the United States from entertaining such a defense.

The trial court judges need not agree with the Supremes but they are required to comply with all binding higher court precedent. SCOTUS holdings are binding in all jurisdictions.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/

SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2004
GONZALES V. RAICH

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 03–1454.Argued November 29, 2004—Decided June 6, 2005

California’s Compassionate Use Act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents claim that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The District Court denied respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that they had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient’s physician pursuant to valid California state law. The court relied heavily on United States v. Lopez,514 U. S. 549, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, to hold that this separate class of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power.

Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6–31.

(a) For the purposes of consolidating various drug laws into a comprehensive statute, providing meaningful regulation over legitimate sources of drugs to prevent diversion into illegal channels, and strengthening law enforcement tools against international and interstate drug trafficking, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II of which is the CSA. To effectuate the statutory goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except as authorized by the CSA. 21 U. S. C. §§841(a)(1), 844(a). All controlled substances are classified into five schedules, §812, based on their accepted medical uses, their potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body, §§811, 812.Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, §812(c), based on its high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment, §812(b)(1). This classification renders the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana a criminal offense. §§841(a)(1), 844(a). Pp. 6–11.

(b) Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States,402 U. S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154–155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 127–128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. E.g., Lopez, 514 U. S., at 557. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U. S. C. §801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Pp. 12–20.

(c) Respondents’ heavy reliance on Lopez and Morrison overlooks the larger context of modern-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence preserved by those cases, while also reading those cases far too broadly. The statutory challenges at issue there were markedly different from the challenge here. Respondents ask the Court to excise individual applications of a concededly valid comprehensive statutory scheme. In contrast, in both Lopez and Morrison, the parties asserted that a particular statute or provision fell outside Congress’ commerce power in its entirety. This distinction is pivotal for the Court has often reiterated that “[w]here the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power ‘to excise, as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.” Perez, 402 U. S., at 154. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the laws at issue in Lopez and Morrison had nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise. See Lopez, 514 U. S., at 561; Morrison, 529 U. S., at 610. In contrast, the CSA regulates quintessentially economic activities: the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market. Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational means of regulating commerce in that product. The Ninth Circuit cast doubt on the CSA’s constitutionality by isolating a distinct class of activities that it held to be beyond the reach of federal power: the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with state law. However, Congress clearly acted rationally in determining that this subdivided class of activities is an essential part of the larger regulatory scheme. The case comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the CSA’s findings and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, Wickard and its progeny foreclose that claim. Pp. 20–30.

352 F. 3d 1222, vacated and remanded.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part III. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/opinion.html

OPINION OF THE COURT
GONZALES V. RAICH
545 U. S. 1 (2005)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 03-1454

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

[June 6, 2005]

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.

[...]

Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128–129 (1942). As we stated in Wickard, “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” Id., at 125. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude. When Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See Perez, 402 U. S., at 154–155 (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U. S. 256, 259 (1927)(“[W]hen it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so”)). In this vein, we have reiterated that when “ ‘a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.’ ” E.g.,Lopez, 514 U. S., at 558 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196, n. 27 (1968)).

Our decision in Wickard,317 U. S. 111, is of particular relevance. In Wickard, we upheld the application of regulations promulgated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 31, which were designed to control the volume of wheat moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and consequent abnormally low prices. The regulations established an allotment of 11.1 acres for Filburn’s 1941 wheat crop, but he sowed 23 acres, intending to use the excess by consuming it on his own farm. Filburn argued that even though we had sustained Congress’ power to regulate the production of goods for commerce, that power did not authorize “federal regulation [of] production not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm.” Wickard, 317 U. S., at 118. Justice Jackson’s opinion for a unanimous Court rejected this submission. He wrote:

“The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee’s own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.” Id., at 127–128.

Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.

[...]

In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. Lopez, 514 U. S., at 557; see also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc.,452 U. S. 264, 276–280 (1981); Perez, 402 U. S., at 155–156; Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 299–301 (1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 252–253 (1964). Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U. S. C. §801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels,[Footnote 33] we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Thus, as in Wickard, when it enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity, Congress was acting well within its authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to “regulate Commerce … among the several States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8. That the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment. As we have done many times before, we refuse to excise individual components of that larger scheme.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-18   15:31:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: nolu chan (#118)

Trial court judges do not have discretion to permit such a defense. Binding federal precedent prohibits any trial level court in the United States from entertaining such a defense.

The trial court judges need not agree with the Supremes but they are required to comply with all binding higher court precedent. SCOTUS holdings are binding in all jurisdictions.

The reason lower courts will not permit arguments against the constitutionality of drug laws be made by the defence to juries is not pertinent to my response in this discussion. Only the fact that they will not permit it is.

My position is that the court system as a whole is basically a failure in serving the nation it is supposed to serve. I look not at the mechanics of operation to find fault, only the end result, which has all manner of failures, from cops that kill innocent people going unpunished even though they provoke confrontations to the point of making people flee out of fear for their lives, or even place illegal chokeholds on them. Fourth amendment protections have been all but completely gutted, all forms of electronic communications being secretly recorded, extra-judicial executions of US citizens, and the list goes on and on and on and on.

The US Constitution used to be construed as a document that gives limited power to the central government, but now is construed as a document that sets the limits the power of the central government. There is a massive difference. The US government in particular no longer serves the interests of the people, only the interests of those in it and those corporate interests able to milk it in whatever manner for their own benefit, whether it being spending or sponsoring a coup in Ukraine (which provides no benefit to any state of the union -- which the Fed gov is supposed to be a servant of -- in any way).

Every branch has it's share of the blame in destroying what was a great USA, but the courts, including the USSC, may well carry the most blame of the three.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   16:00:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: Pinguinite (#121)

Juries will never hear any such argument that drug laws are unconstitutional because judges will not allow it as a defence.

It is not allowed as a defense because it is contrary to law and constitutes no defense. There is a difference between arguing to a jury and a defense.

The reason lower courts will not permit arguments against the constitutionality of drug laws be made by the defence to juries is not pertinent to my response in this discussion.

No law may be argued to the jury. Giving the LAW is the domain of the Court. The jury is the trier of FACT.

The law may not be argued to the jury as the jury is not empowered to decide what the law is. That has been an established part of United States common law since SCOTUS handed down its holding in Sparf and Hansen v. United States in 1895.

Case Law is the Common Law of the United States. It is law. The United States uses the Common Law system of law.

You must argue law to the Court. Arguing the law to a jury is forbidden as a matter of law.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/51/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court

Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895)

Syllabus at 51:

In the courts of the United States, it is the duty of the jury, in criminal cases, to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court, subject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case.

Opinion of the Court at 64:

The general question as to the duty of the jury to receive the law from the court is not concluded by any direct decision of this Court. But it has been often considered by other courts and by judges of high authority, and, where its determination has not been controlled by specific constitutional or statutory provisions expressly empowering the jury to determine both law and facts, the principle by which courts and juries are to be guided in the exercise of their respective functions has become firmly established.

Opinion of the Court at 98:

Mr. Justice Curtis well said,

"to carry the clearest implication that in this and all other criminal cases, the jury may be directed by the judge, and that while the object of the statute was to declare that there was other matter of fact besides publication and the innuendoes to be decided by the jury, it was not intended to interfere with the proper province of the judge to decide all matters of law."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/common_law.html

Law Library of Congress

Case Law (or Common Law)

When your legal research involves case law (or common law), it is important to know something about the significance of precedents or the doctrine of stare decisis, which refers to “adhering to or abiding by” settled decisions. Simply put, lower courts are bound to follow decisions of higher courts in the same jurisdiction. For example, a federal district court in Maryland is required to follow the decisions of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is not bound by the decisions of other district courts or by the Maryland state courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals that decide individual cases, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-18   19:26:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: nolu chan (#132)

No law may be argued to the jury. Giving the LAW is the domain of the Court. The jury is the trier of FACT.

The law may not be argued to the jury as the jury is not empowered to decide what the law is. That has been an established part of United States common law since SCOTUS handed down its holding in Sparf and Hansen v. United States in 1895.

The fact remains that, regardless of what courts have decided on the matter, juries DO have the de facto power to pass judgement on the law as well as the facts involved in any case whatsoever. They can do it simply by voting to acquit anyone charged of violating a law they consider unjust, and if they do, the court cannot void the judgement, and the defendant cannot be retried. Ergo, juries DO have the power to pass judgement on the law as well as the fact, and there is absolutely nothing a judge can do, or case law that can be invoked to stop, undo or change that.

All judges can do is what they do do ... lie to the jury and tell them they do not have that power, and also prohibit the defence from telling the jury they don't have the power they really do have.

Also, jury nullification need not be a case of them deciding a law is unconstitutional, though they may of course nullify for that reason. It may simply be because they don't believe the law in question, even if constitutional, is reasonable or beneficial in any way, shape or form.

If you want some case law... William Penn, 1670.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-19   3:59:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: Pinguinite (#152)

The fact remains that, regardless of what courts have decided on the matter, juries DO have the de facto power to pass judgement on the law as well as the facts involved in any case whatsoever.

Yes, Justice Chase said so.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-19   19:06:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 153.

        There are no replies to Comment # 153.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 153.

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