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

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

Vibe Shift


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: 30945
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

Comments (1-64) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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?

("We sing about God because we believe in Him. We are not trying to offend anybody, but the evidence that we have seen of Him in our small little lives trumps your opinion about whether or not He exists". ~ Jeff Foxworthy)

Murron  posted on  2015-03-15   14:48:49 ET  Reply   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.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

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

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-15   17:06:37 ET  Reply   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   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.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-15   20:03:17 ET  Reply   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   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.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

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


#73. 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.

I hope this incident is remembered next time some tea party type brings up "2nd amendment" solution nonsense.

Pericles  posted on  2015-03-16   1:24:42 ET  Reply   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   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.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

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

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

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


#79. To: Pinguinite (#78)

* 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.

Pointed summary and conclusion.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-17   4:59:13 ET  Reply   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.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   6:26:42 ET  Reply   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   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.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

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


#84. To: Pinguinite (#83)

There is a limit to what should be morally tolerated.

By whose standards?

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)

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


#85. To: Pinguinite (#83)

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....

Neither is happening. Like I said, pick and choose what laws you will follow AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Good luck.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   16:03:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Pinguinite (#83)

The word is change, not overthrow.

Don  posted on  2015-03-17   16:09:01 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: GrandIsland (#85)

Neither is happening.

Wrong. Civil asset forfeiture IS happening, every day. I'm sure it won't happen to you since you are "one of the boys" and once you show the cops you are one of them they will instantly become your pals and they won't take your money or stuff. But the rest of us not in the club won't have that luxury. We'll be treated like lower scum because the cop rolling up to the scene will already "know my type" at a glance just as you proclaimed about me here and I'll be treated accordingly.

That is true and you know it.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   18:39:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Don (#86)

The word is change, not overthrow.

It wasn't an exact quote on my part.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Declaration of Independence, 1776

Words are "alter or abolish", and institute a new government. I would say abolishing and instituting a new gov qualifies as an overthrow.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-17   18:45:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Pinguinite (#88)

Wrong. Civil asset forfeiture IS happening, every day. I'm sure it won't happen to you since you are "one of the boys"

Negative, I won't be a "victim" of "asset forfeiture" because to actually be able to keep those assets as a LE agency, YOU MUST GET A CONVICTION on the crimes associated with the assets.

I don't violate drug laws. I get high on life.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   18:54:19 ET  Reply   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   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.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

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


#93. To: tpaine (#91)

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 unconstitution

That's not for me to declare for you. Hopefully 12 of your peers look at drug laws like you do.

Good luck.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   22:01:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Pinguinite (#89) (Edited)

There is a large difference when you start using the word "overthrow." Can you really see the Founding Fathers write in the U.S. Constitution that citizens can overthrow the goverment? There is also a difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which includes the time frame of the applicability of the documents.

Don  posted on  2015-03-17   22:20:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: GrandIsland (#93)

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?

That's not for me to declare for you. ---

Feel free to believe you've made an answer to my comment and question, --- but do you really imagine you have, and that others here do?

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-17   22:37:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: tpaine (#95)

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

2) Feel free to believe you've made an answer to my comment and question, --- but do you really imagine you have, and that others here do?

1) Officers are sworn to uphold and enforce all constitutional laws of their state. Drug laws have been upheld as constitutional MANY TIMES by the highest courts. An officer that "ignores" a law already deemed constitutional is just as criminal as you for breaking it. Do so at your own risk.

Besides, I'm no longer a sworn officer. I don't have to explain shit.

2) I've answered your questions several times... Like a child, you don't like the answer... and you've shown that anything you don't like or agree with, you aren't gonna listen too.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   23:07:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: GrandIsland (#96)

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

2) Feel free to believe you've made an answer to my comment and question, --- but do you really imagine you have, and that others here do?

1) Officers are sworn to uphold and enforce all constitutional laws of their state.

An officers primary oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the USA, as you well know, but refuse to acknowledge.

Drug laws have been upheld as constitutional MANY TIMES by the highest courts.

And they have been constitutionally questioned by many States high courts. The question is far from settled.

An officer that "ignores" a law already deemed constitutional is just as criminal as you for breaking it.

A doubtful concept, given that "deemed constitutional" is the point in question.

Do so at your own risk. ---- Besides, I'm no longer a sworn officer. I don't have to explain shit.

Your oath to uphold our Constitution does NOT expire.

2) I've answered your questions several times... Like a child, you don't like the answer...

Your so-called answers are childlike and incomplete.

--- and you've shown that anything you don't like or agree with, you aren't gonna listen too.

It's amazing how you transfer your own failings to apply to others. -- Rest assured, you're fooling no one but yourself.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-17   23:42:45 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Pinguinite (#98)

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

Negative. It's not a defense becsuse there is already existing case law that says its constitutional for a state to write, legislate and enforce drug laws.

Break those laws at your own risk. You are FREE to do so. Enjoy.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   23:53:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: tpaine (#97)

It's amazing how you transfer your own failings to apply to others. -- Rest assured, you're fooling no one but yourself.

Look, if you are such a constitutional scholar... start up a pot growing business in your cellar and a meth lab in your garage (don't do that on the house, its explosive)... ADVERTISE the shit out of it. Large neon signs... "METH FOR SALE" in your front yard. You are the smartest person you know... you can't go wrong.

Let me know how you make out... scratch that. I don't really care.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-03-17   23:59:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: GrandIsland (#90)

Negative, I won't be a "victim" of "asset forfeiture" because to actually be able to keep those assets as a LE agency, YOU MUST GET A CONVICTION on the crimes associated with the assets.

Either you've not been keeping track of what your successors have been up to since you left the force, or you've been smoking something other than tobacco.

You don't need to be convicted or even charged to lose your property. Here's just one easily found youtube on the matter.

Having this discussion with you is becoming increasingly depressing.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   0:13:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: GrandIsland (#99)

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

Negative. It's not a defense becsuse there is already existing case law that says its constitutional for a state to write, legislate and enforce drug laws.

So you disagree with me??

Is this how discussions go when cops question suspects? I guess being a cop must really take its toll on one's sanity. You are demonstrating hostility and paranoia.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-18   0:19:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: GrandIsland (#100)

1) Officers are sworn to uphold and enforce all constitutional laws of their state.

An officers primary oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the USA, as you well know, but refuse to acknowledge.

Drug laws have been upheld as constitutional MANY TIMES by the highest courts.

And they have been constitutionally questioned by many States high courts. The question is far from settled.

An officer that "ignores" a law already deemed constitutional is just as criminal as you for breaking it.

A doubtful concept, given that "deemed constitutional" is the point in question.

Look, if you are such a constitutional scholar... start up a pot growing business in your cellar and a meth lab in your garage (don't do that on the house, its explosive)... ADVERTISE the shit out of it. Large neon signs... "METH FOR SALE" in your front yard. You are the smartest person you know... you can't go wrong.

Typical digression,--- You can't make a cogent reply to the point in question, so you go off on an inane tangent about growing and making drugs.

Pitiful....

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-18   1:02:15 ET  Reply   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.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)

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



      .
      .
      .

Comments (106 - 162) not displayed.

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