United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: AGW SWAT “hero” Arrested in Child Porn Sting
Source:
Eric Peters Autos
URL Source: https://www.ericpetersautos.com/201 ... -arrested-in-child-porn-sting/
Published: Oct 26, 2019
Author: Eric
Post Date: 2019-10-28 11:25:27 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2451
Comments: 20
A Louisiana armed government worker and “leader” of a Hut! Hut! Hut! crew of AGWs has been arrested on multiple counts of child pornography and child rape. Dennis Perkins and Cynthia Thompson Perkins face first-degree rape charges and 60 counts of pornography production involving a juvenile under the age of 13. The Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office, where Perkins worked as a “lieutenant” arrested him Tuesday. Sheriff Jason Ard said he fired the “lieutenant” (in air quotes to beg the question – who commissioned this creep?) after investigators made him aware of the charges. Perkins, 44, led the SWAT team and had worked for the department since 2002. Despite the heinous acts committed by the AGW, the head AGW still made an effort to defend him: “It’s a sad day for all of us, for all law enforcement officers, when you arrest one of your own,” Ard said in a statement. “We at the LPSO work hard everyday to retain the trust placed in us by our citizens. I understand this was a veteran law enforcement officer, one who had dedicated a lot of time and effort into this community, but as I have said in the past – no one is above the law.” Italics added to make the point. People like this Perkins creature (and his wife – also a government worker) are exactly the type of creature attracted to what is styled “law enforcement” these days. Which entails power to legally torment people. Psychologically normal people are repelled by the thought of swaggering around with a gun and badge, hassling people on trumped-up “charges” – and SWATTING them. But for people like Perkins, it’s a dream come true to be issued a gun and a badge by the government. The Soviet CHEKA and NKVD were well-stocked with people like this. And now, because America has its own CHEKA and NKVD, American “law enforcement” is well-stocked with people like this, too. Doubt it? Here’s another one. . . Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Deck, wonder how long it will be before the " Crew " show up to defend that POS, to tell us how much a Hero he is, and that the community owes so much to him. They are probably busy setting up a Go fund Me for the POS. You better be careful, they may try to torch your house for posting this. Watch your 6 !!!
Not much of a canary crew around these parts lately ever since GrandIsland and Gatlin went on the lam. After watching white and nolu sham defending a cop who murdered a woman in her home, nothing those two say or post would surprise me in the least. You better be careful, they may try to torch your house for posting this. Shhh...don't give them any ideas.
I have wondered if nolu sham and gatlin are not one and the same.
I don't think so. nolu wants to be perceived as some sort of whiz-bang lawyer - more likely he is a first year law student who obviously does not have a real job so he posts his "opinions" to make people think he is some kind of legal whiz. Gatlin's style of posting is different. Unless they really are the same person and is suffering from schizophrenia.
Nolu does some good legal work. I can't recall the last time he was wrong on the law itself. Of course, he has very strong political opinions on things, and when he gets angry, or motivated, on a cause he becomes a strong legal advocate for his way of looking at it. When presented is a sound LEGAL argument to the contrary, he doesn't deny the law itself, or attempt to make up law that isn't there. (Lots of people do that.) He does what a good lawyer does and advocates for his cause. Example: that woman shot in her house. He found the training procedures - the regulations by which the cops are taught. And he has a point too: if the jury is persuaded to hold him to that standard, which is not an unreasonable thing to expect, that cop may very well be acquitted. Screaming at Nolu for that fact doesn't change the fact, and it doesn't hurt Nolu's feelings because he knows that, structurally, he's right. Of course he's not going to engage on the matter of jury nullification - the truth that ultimately the jury has the power to judge both the facts AND the law (even though many judges hate that latter power). He's not going to fight about that, because he knows that's true. I think he is quite good at what he does.
Of course, he has very strong political opinions on things, and when he gets angry, or motivated, on a cause he becomes a strong legal advocate for his way of looking at it. One can technically be correct as the law may be applied -- but it doesn't always make it right or fair. The best attorneys seem to have the ability to take either side and manipulate the semantics (or cite a subverted case law) to win their respective case -- and damn the original intent. I support the right of advocacy or of opining passionately or in anger at this forum -- whomever it is -- whether nolu, GI, or Gilligan; Just as long as spamming isn't abused, chronic ignorance isn't the rule rather than exception, and support of one's own opinion or case is given.
Yes, damn the original intent, because the idea that "original intent" should govern how the law is read and applied is merely the political opinion of ONE SET of constituents, who want it that way because then they can win their causes more easily, without having to struggle hard like everybody else. But that's not the way the game is played, and that's not the way people are going to be. There is real power, and wealth, and control, at stake in law, and so therefore OF COURSE nobody is going to simply concede the field of battle to one side because they claim "original intent". "Original intent", to the extent that can be determined and agreed upon at all (WHOSE "original" intent?), is just one way of looking at things. That it gets one party to a case the answer he wants is great for him, but on its own there is no inherent power in original intent - there is merely the argument of the fellow who wants to use it that it's best, because it gives him the outcome he desires. The opponent will, of course, point to other sources of authority, such as recent interpretation, the evolution of society and economics, righting wrongs, etc. The winner is the one who convinces the trier of law and of fact that to agree with him.
[Vicomte13] Yes, damn the original intent, because the idea that "original intent" should govern how the law is read and applied is merely the political opinion of ONE SET of constituents, who want it that way because then they can win their causes more easily, without having to struggle hard like everybody else. The Court is to look at the meaning of the words adopted, as that meaning existed at the time. Regarding the Constitution, reference is made to the English common law for terms taken therefrom. The anarcho-libertarian hive does not want to hear it. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 576-77 (2008) We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment. A The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - United States v Union Pacific Railroad Company, 91 U.S. 72 (1875)
I like those quotes regarding "Intent". Of course, there are many judges with the contrary view who make a point of citing to it, and while lower courts are bound by the senior courts, senior courts are only bound by their own previous decisions by a waivable principle of stare decisis. Generally, for reasons of judicial economy (and because the majority of the court agrees more or less with the old precedent), the Supremes like to "stare decisis et not quieta movetur" - to stand by the decided and not disturb that which is quietly settled. Except when they don't like it. Then they'll overturn those precedents at will (Brown v. Board of Education) or blow them up with dynamite because they can (the gay marriage decision!)
There are no replies to Comment # 17. End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Stoner (#1)
Deck, wonder how long it will be before the " Crew " show up to defend that POS, to tell us how much a Hero he is, and that the community owes so much to him.
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
#4. To: Stoner (#3)
I have wondered if nolu sham and gatlin are not one and the same.
#6. To: Deckard (#4)
nolu wants to be perceived as some sort of whiz-bang lawyer - more likely he is a first year law student
#7. To: Vicomte13, Deckard, nolu chan (#6)
(Edited)
Nolu does some good legal work. I can't recall the last time he was wrong on the law itself.
#8. To: Liberator (#7)
The best attorneys seem to have the ability to take either side and manipulate the semantics (or cite a subverted case law) to win their respective case -- and damn the original intent.
#15. To: Vicomte13, Liberator (#8)
[Liberator] The best attorneys seem to have the ability to take either side and manipulate the semantics (or cite a subverted case law) to win their respective case -- and damn the original intent.
II
In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.
In construing an act of Congress, we are not at liberty to recur to the views of individual members in debate nor to consider the motives which influenced them to vote for or against its passage. The act itself speaks the will of Congress, and this is to be ascertained from the language used. But courts, in construing a statute, may with propriety recur to the history of the times when it was passed, and this is frequently necessary in order to ascertain the reason as well as the meaning of particular provisions in it. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 24; Preston v. Browder, 1 Wheat. 115, 120 [argument of counsel -- omitted].
#17. To: nolu chan (#15)
Replies to Comment # 17.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]