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: 2442
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 # 9.
#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.
"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.... Well, the Original Intent was the progenitor of Constitutional Law, based on consensus and common sense during a day when law would NEVER have based equality, fairness and justice solely on sexual considerations and a social justice agenda. It would have rightly been sneered at. Facts are facts, and truth, truth -- whether 200 years ago or 2000 years ago. Replacing THAT broken, stodgy, rigid Original Intent with what has today become a "new set" of court opinion today has rigged the law and justice. This is provable. Moreover, the amorphous "Living Constitution" and Court we find ourselves parsing law points today has helped create our current upside down world of chaos and anarchy, dividing Americans into slivers and bits. Hasn't it indeed been this flexible anti-OI ilk, whose demented courts have created the insanity called, "same-sex Marriage"? Have un-equally applied and created select laws enforced FOR/AGAINST select demographics (Hate Laws/Speech/AA, Quotas, Black & Gay Privileged)? Courts and LE that selectively and un-equal protection/enforcement (Antifa vs Conservatives)? And selectively, unfairly, and unequally applied the law in politically targeting conservative businesses (Bakeries/Florists/Chick-Fi-A)? This while The bending over backwards on speech and laws that un-equally support "Gay/LBGTQ"/SJW EVERYTHING? Etc?? 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". No kidding. But the truth is, yes -- one side HAS surrendered the high ground, the fair ground, the EQUAL ground with respect to law and its application. The debate is now with respect to WHO surrendered OI as a basis of law, and why. Some say the Elites have evolved to such a position of power that they eventually and currently control BOTH sides of the Courts, thus the ultimate direction. (Once people don't respect the Law they deem unfair, they defy it, ergo chaos/anarchy. ARE we seeing this nowadays?) 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. Are you really convinced the Courts have NOT been hijacked by subversive elements? Truth does NOT "evolve." Lies do. Acceptance of Lies to rectify past wrongs is not "justice"; It is travesty. How dare the (female-heavy) Courts apply what are reparations. How dare they apply "revenge" justice upon men and Whitey. The decidedly ideological-based socialist, fascist, situational, anti-sovereignty bent that now defines American courts now as well as European courts will not turn out well. The "Winner": Nobody but the Elites. The "Losers": Everybody else.
#10. To: Liberator (#9)
My problem with appeals to the past is that the hallowed past was full of slavery and oppression, and that was fine within the constitutional order. To me, that vitiates rather decisively the original constitutional order.
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.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
(Edited)
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.
Replies to Comment # 9.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]