[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: 30941
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 (1-78) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#106. 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.

That is not true. Many asset forfeitures are done prior to a conviction and people have to fight to get their money or property back once it is declared forfeit.

Perhaps NY state had some protections on forfeiture but you need to check the states you live or travel in. You'd be surprised at the horror stories, especially in some states that otherwise have a good reputation for clean government.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   6:22:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: Pinguinite (#102)

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.

I'm demonstrating nothing of the sort. You hear what you want to hear... you see what you want to see.

Pick and choose what laws you'll follow at your own risk. You are certainly FREE to act in any way you feel is right.

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  2015-03-18   6:25:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: Pinguinite (#101)

The difference between you and I is this, I base my ideals on direct knowledge. I've dealt with asset forfiture. I know what a department must do, the hoops they must go through before the asset is finally awarded to the department. You base your vast constitutional law degree on YouTube videos.

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  2015-03-18   6:30:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: TooConservative (#106) (Edited)

That is not true. Many asset forfeitures are done prior to a conviction and people have to fight to get their money or property back once it is declared forfeit

Obviously, if I stop you on the highway with a duffle bag of cocaine, your F250 Ford truck you are mule-ing the drug with will be confiscated FOR EVIDENCE at the time of arrest and kept for EVIDENCE until after your conviction. The truck still belongs to YOU. However if the truck qualifies for asset forfiture, and the department jumps through all the hoops and files all the legal paperwork, a judge might order the truck forfeited if it's proved by the department that the truck was purchased with money from illegal activity. THEN the title of the truck is changed and the truck gets removed from IMPOUND and transferred to the departments fleet of vehicles to be used for LE purposes.

I use this as an example because the last asset forfiture I worked on was a Ford diesel pickup truck. The defendant couldn't produce a single pay stub for the past 5 years... but he could pay cash for a 46K truck with hidden compartments built in, aftermarket.

To a non cop, of course it LOOKS like we take your property before conviction, but they don't. It's EVIDENCE until conviction and then forfeited AFTER.

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  2015-03-18   6:43:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: GrandIsland (#109)

Again, maybe NY has some citizen protections but in many states this is not true.

As with so many LEO stories, it's the state laws and the very significant differences between them that leads to a lot of public confusion.

You might check forfeiture laws and cases in your new home state, just to see how they match up with NY.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   6:50:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: TooConservative (#110)

You might check forfeiture laws and cases in your new home state, just to see how they match up with NY.

I could check Pa law (I'm only here for a few years until I flip the house)... but I'm honestly not worried about any of my assets being seized and forfeited. I don't break laws and all my assets I can prove I bought with money I EARNED legally.

In NY, it was actually a pain in the ass to permanently seize property. If there was a loan on the property and the defendant owed anything even close to its value, we never even bothered. We returned the property after the trial.

It was just the very obvious drug related purchases.

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  2015-03-18   7:00:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: GrandIsland (#111)

In NY, it was actually a pain in the ass to permanently seize property.

NY and some of the Blue states do a much better job of protecting their citizens on a wide variety of issues, asset forfeiture and warranty limitations and other consumer protection measures being only a few of the obvious examples.

Regardless of their other virtues, the Red states don't do as well on these measures.

We shouldn't be surprised by this. The CCW movement swept the states, the Red states and the South in particular. Yet there are still significant differences between state laws on matters like Stand Your Ground, castle doctrine, etc.

As Tip O'Neill once said, "All politics are local." Unfortunately (at times) so are criminal statutes.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   7:07:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: GrandIsland (#108)

You base your vast constitutional law degree on YouTube videos.

lol, good one

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-03-18   9:43:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: GrandIsland, Biff Tannen, Pinguinite, nolu chan (#108)

I've dealt with asset forfeiture.

You dealt with asset forfeiture in the state of New York.

There are also federal forfeiture laws and all the other states and territories have their own forfeiture laws, many with considerable differences between them.

Even in states with abusive forfeiture laws, not every PD is using them abusively. But some bandit towns will use every provision to line their pockets.

It is a pattern that is quite clear. It is useless for G.I. to pretend that the forfeiture laws of NY state are operable elsewhere in the country. We all know they are not.

I see that Wyoming (among the worst forfeiture laws among the States) got a bill passed to curb abuses and the governor vetoed it. Apparently, Minnesota passed a big reform bill that really cleaned things up, kind of a model reform bill for other states. Tennessee is trying but didn't get the job done yet AFAIK.

Holder rescinding the federal program does help in more ways than is readily apparent because many of the states' seizures were actually justified under looser federal laws, not under criminal statutes in the states where they were passed. We don't know if the new A.G. will leave Holder's order in place or will subvert it to maximize police/federal partnership in looting the citizens. It is certainly a black mark on Holder that he tolerated these abuses constantly until he signed an order to abolish much of the abuse just as he was shutting off the lights in his A.G. office and leaving. A despicable act.

I wish I could find better state-by-state comparisons on this because I think most people would be surprised at how much variety there is among the States on forfeiture. Also, not every locale in every state uses these laws abusively. You can have a bandit town anywhere in the country, making use of forfeitures to line their pockets and keep taxes down for themselves or to fund police expansion and other goodies without having to ask elected officials for the funds. It's mad money that the cops can spend as they please generally. Under normal budgeting, there is a lot more discipline and regulation of funds.

Maybe nolu knows a source that could settle this matter of how local the issue of forfeiture really is.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   10:58:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


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

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

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

Me:By whose standards?

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

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

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

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

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

"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   11:15:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: TooConservative (#114)

There are also federal forfeiture laws and all the other states and territories have their own forfeiture laws, many with considerable differences between them.

I have no direct knowledge on federal asset forfiture. I'm sure the Feds do the same after a federal conviction. I'll assume they have more red tape than we had to seize property permanently... but I have nothing to base that assumption on.

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  2015-03-18   13:15:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: TooConservative (#114)

I wish I could find better state-by-state comparisons on this because I think most people would be surprised at how much variety there is among the States on forfeiture. Also, not every locale in every state uses these laws abusively.

I wish you did too. I'd be interested in the information. I would hope that the one standard would be to prove the asset was bought or being paid for through funds gained by illegal activity that they arrested for and received a conviction.

IMHO, every asset forfiture should be put in front of a judge and decided by a judge if the seizing of said property was proper.

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  2015-03-18   13:19:46 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: redleghunter (#115)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



      .
      .
      .

Comments (120 - 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