Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #41012
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    Malgus, you are missing the point.

    No, I’m not. In point of fact, I “got” the point you were and are making. I just reject it entirely on principal.

    The same DAs office has set precedent previously by prosecuting these cases, their sudden flip flop because of the lynch mob will make the situation untenable and possibly invalidate any prosecution

    Boo hoo. Poor them. DA’s are middle-management Elites who want to climb the ladder – no matter how many lives they have to destroy doing it – and so their job of throwing as many citizens in prison as possible to pave their way to higher office should be as difficult as possible.

    Don’t look for me shedding tears because some DA’s job just got tougher…

    Actually the blame and liability would fall on the department if the training was faulty and/or incorrect.

    Politicians can justify any outrage by affixing their scribble to it, thereby making it “legal”. Their Chief Goon does their bidding and his goons do his bidding… that the cops are low-level enforcer goons working for the DA isn’t my fault. But it is my problem.. it is a problem for all of us. However, the old adage: “Sh*^ rolls downhill” still proves true. You think those who created this stuttering cluster-f will be held accountable? Heh… no, they’ll throw some low level enforcer peons under the bus to satiate the mob… temporarily. In a month, nobody will remember it. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Your nazi comparison is hardly appropriate, but expected.

    It is absolutely appropriate and valid. You just don’t like it, is all.

    Those Nazi b-stards wrote up whatever they wanted and – since they were in charge – everything they wrote up was “legal”, no matter how heinous or egregious. There is a big difference between what is “legal”, what is “right” and what is “just”… and the three never shall meet… though “right” and “just” sometimes hook up. But not usually at the behest of the Elites…

    In this instance its more akin to the city fathers of Tombstone saying people couldn’t wear guns in town all those years ago.

    And those “city fathers” were wrong then, and they are still wrong now. “Because we said so” is bullsh*^. In point of fact, their “Because we said so” position effectively fostered the environment that led directly to the shootout. Making those “city fathers” culpable in the deaths that resulted.

    Some minor city dooshbags decree something that is in direct contradiction with the Supreme Law of the Land – just like that middle management enforcer goon down in New Orleans who stated that nobody was allowed to have guns, except the cops and the military – and everyone acted like Pavlov’s Dog or that his statements were not illegal, he was usurping and overstepping his authority, etc… the statements are the same, just the circumstances different. They do not have the authority to usurp and/or suspend the Constitution. Period. Any other position is indefensible…

    No setting precedent is not retroactive, you should understand that.

    I didn’t say it was. I said: “Isn’t “changing them retroactively” closely related to “setting precedent”?” Nice try, though. I felt I explained it well enough – the middle management goons are allowed to apply previous events to the present, calling it “precedent”, making sure the decisions today square with those made before. But us? We’re not allowed. “Spring assisted knives used to be legal” will go exactly nowhere in court. Nor will holding to account those Goons who assigned their scribble to some arbitrary “ban”, nor the later goons who pushed the envelope, contorting and torturing plain language until somehow “spring assisted” could mean damn near anything and thus, a “switchblade”….

    Much like the Commiefornia SKS ban where they changed their minds and made the now registered SKS’ s illegal retroactively. However those actions may set a precedent for future legal actions

    Heh… it’s so cute how you think they actually “changed their minds”… as if what happened wasn’t their plan all along and that giving “assurances” to the gullible rubes who still had faith in their mumblings and scribbles was a complete and total farce… a fraud perpetrated on them in order to gain more power over us poor proles…

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #41023
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    You reject it on principle, so much for an objective discussion.

    Guess this thread is dead, no point to continue.

    #41025
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    You reject it on principle, so much for an objective discussion.

    Having principals and willing to make a stand on them makes me incapable of objectivity?

    Uhh… okay… I think? Don’t know how that works, but whatever…

    Guess this thread is dead, no point to continue.

    I see plenty of opportunity for intelligent debate here. What constitutes “illegal” and why. The background behind the arbitrary knife law and how “switchblade” ended up meaning whatever it was the DA said it was… and how the knife law relates to their gun laws…

    Plenty of meat left here on the bone… don’t start a conversation and then bail out when it ends up not going your way…

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #41027
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    When the discussion can’t be objective, why continue it?
    Since you have already dismissed other ideas and opinions it hardly seems worth the ‘ink’.

    You have your opinions and that’s fine, I respect that.
    Your “cute” comment however shows a lack of respect for others.

    Why not bail on a conversation that is pointless?

    I try and put forth information from a particular viewpoint, to give some insight into the what and why, and why things are or may happen and it becomes an attack on the entire system with a few personal barbs thrown in.

    I see no point in continuing an argument when one isn’t needed, and you obviously ignored a few pertinent coments in my opening post.

    #41032
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    When the discussion can’t be objective, why continue it?
    Since you have already dismissed other ideas and opinions it hardly seems worth the ‘ink’.

    You have your opinions and that’s fine, I respect that.
    Your “cute” comment however shows a lack of respect for others.

    Why not bail on a conversation that is pointless?

    I try and put forth information from a particular viewpoint, to give some insight into the what and why, and why things are or may happen and it becomes an attack on the entire system with a few personal barbs thrown in.

    I see no point in continuing an argument when one isn’t needed, and you obviously ignored a few pertinent coments in my opening post.

    I’ll pay you the complement of being blunt.

    It’s not my intention to start a war on Selco’s site. It’s his site. Not mine. But this once, I’ll be bluntly honest.

    My position has consistently been that of the Framers and Founders of this Republic. Yours has consistently been that of those who take power and authority from the Citizenry, or in defense of them.

    I do not know why you do this. Perhaps because you have clientele who are Law Enforcement and they read this website, and you don’t want to lose them as customers. Perhaps you’re a paid shill or agent provocateur, who knows? Maybe you feel some vestigial allegiance to your old job. But you consistently defend the indefensible and justify the egregious.

    You’ve got a lot of balls telling me I’ve no respect for others, given your chest-thumping disdain for me in a previous thread where you told me all about your old badge, your commendations, attaboys and such… and then said (quote): “Something you can’t say”, as if I didn’t know what I was talking about or my opinion wasn’t justified because I didn’t work in the Jerkwater PD and share your personal experiences…

    I stomped a mudhole in that hubris, because yeah, I CAN say… My experience is just as valid as yours. Arguably moreso. And I tell you honestly, I was praying… begging… for you to tell me that being an MP Sergeant wasn’t “really” Law Enforcement. To your credit, you didn’t rise to the bait.

    It became an attack on the entire system because the system itself is untenable, those who populate “the system” are notoriously corrupt and we’re headed for a giant train wreck, thanks to that very ‘system’…

    I didn’t invent the “us vs. them” mentality. I didn’t start calling the Citizenry “mundanes“. I didn’t take delight in taking people’s daily bread, lining the pockets of my masters by papering everyone with tickets or screwing over someone because I had a bad day, or ‘screening’ people as punishment because I had already tried and convicted them in my own mind.

    That stuff happens, and ‘the system’ encourages it. You admit it and then in the same breath defend those who inhabit that very system.

    I fought against that garbage, and it cost me. If it shows in my remarks, well then good! My disgust for “the system” is well earned and it is very much deserved. I pepper my comments with colorful terms, like “enforcer goons”, because I think it’s funny – and, yes, a dig at them. You argue against the verbiage and ignore the reasons why they are called that…

    That’s all I got.

    You want to shut the thread down, fine by me. You’re the one who began it anyways. But shutting it down, avoiding talking about these most serious issues because you don’t like which way the thread is going will not make them go away.

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #41037
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Whirly,
    Personally I don’t see the knife issue as relevant anyway. If the knife is illegal then it’s okay to kill him, or whatever happened. But if the knife is legal then it’s a problem? I know the guy was a lowlife but killing him for a pocket knife is nonsense. Even if his death was accidental in that they didn’t intend to hit him that hard, it’s still wrong.

    Malgus you brought this felons should be forgiven stuff up before and it just doesn’t wash. Do you have a personal stake in this issue? I can’t see why else you would want felons to have the right to own guns. With a recidivism rate of 75% it just would be plain stupidity allow legal sales of guns to felons.

    #41040
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    Malgus you brought this felons should be forgiven stuff up before and it just doesn’t wash. Do you have a personal stake in this issue? I can’t see why else you would want felons to have the right to own guns. With a recidivism rate of 75% it just would be plain stupidity allow legal sales of guns to felons.

    And yet, my position is exactly what we had from 1789 till 1968, and we’re still here. Your argument could be applied to fully automatic weapons – yet you could order them out of a Sears catalog along with crates of ammo, and have them delivered directly to your house via the US Mail. No background check, no nothing.

    In fact, I would argue that the halcyon days of the US were prior to 1968, when (gasp!) felons were not denied their inalienable rights upon being released from prison, could still vote, etc.

    I have no personal stake in any of this, save opposing the creeping totalitarianism that we’re staring at.

    Because denying them all their alleged inalienable rights is effectively putting them in “after-prison prison”. Which is stupid. So, we either let them out of prison and restore all their rights, or we don’t let them out at all. I do not see any middle ground that is justifiable.

    Guy goes to prison, does his time, is he not “square with the house”? If so, then give him his rights back. If not, then he’s not square with the house, it’s all a big fat lie and we’re just perpetrating a fraud…

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #41045
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    Whirly,
    Personally I don’t see the knife issue as relevant anyway. If the knife is illegal then it’s okay to kill him, or whatever happened. But if the knife is legal then it’s a problem? I know the guy was a lowlife but killing him for a pocket knife is nonsense. Even if his death was accidental in that they didn’t intend to hit him that hard, it’s still wrong.

    The knife itself is critical to the case.
    If its legal, then the arrest is bogus and the false imprisonment and other charges are pertinent and proper.
    However, if its an illegal knife per Baltimore law/ordinance, then the arrest is perfectly legal (right and just are another matter).
    Then it falls to the point where he was put in the van without being buckled in and given a rough ride. The point where the illegal/negligent activity started.

    The possession of a dangerous (prohibited) weapon by a felon is the reason for the arrest, his being a scumbag is another matter, people do change. However they wouldn’t have known his record until he was already in contact/custody. The knife and determining its legality is the reason for the stop. (Again BS but that’s the reason).

    The legality if the knife is critical to the charges against most of the officers, without it, the charges are groundless and the DA has stucknher foot in her mouth up to the hip.

    Then comes the inevitable riots and aftermath of the officers being released and put back on the street. And there will be blood, copious amounts.

    As to the cause of death, if you think the ME is going to put his life, career and reputation on the line for a couple cops when secondary autopsies by private doctors and the feds are likely these days, you’re insane.

    #41058
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Whirly,
    I doubt the cops side will make a case that justifies his death, and unless they move the trial to Wyoming they will never find a jury that will give them a pass. Some of the charges may be dropped but his death can’t be wished away. The cops involved are negligent in some manner or another, whether it can be proved as criminal remains to be seen. There seems to be more video and witenesses of his arrest not in the public domain that will be used against them. I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about the criminal guilt or innocence those charged.

    #41060
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    Whirly,
    I doubt the cops side will make a case that justifies his death, and unless they move the trial to Wyoming they will never find a jury that will give them a pass. Some of the charges may be dropped but his death can’t be wished away. The cops involved are negligent in some manner or another, whether it can be proved as criminal remains to be seen. There seems to be more video and witenesses of his arrest not in the public domain that will be used against them. I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about the criminal guilt or innocence those charged.

    Didn’t say justifies.
    However the blame shifts from all of them to the ones who drove the “rough ride” and whoever didn’t lap belt him in, if the knife is legal.

    Never said they all were innocent or without blame.
    But the blame needs to be put upon the right people.

    #41061
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    Whirl,

    An actual glimmer of hope.

    Two Nevada Staties stepped up and committed seppuku – sacrificing their careers and making a stand on principal – and filed suit against not only their own department, but also Las Vegas PD.

    Corruption. Racketeering. Fraud. Systematic 4th Amendment violations. Drug and Explosives dogs having an 85% failure rate and “alerting” on nothing, or on cue from their handlers. Also abuse those animals suffered at the hands of their handlers.

    From the article:

    The reliability of drug dogs and their handlers is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in state district court by two Nevada Highway Patrol K-9 troopers and a consultant, who claim that the Metropolitan Police Department’s police dogs, and eventually NHP’s own dogs, were “trick ponies” that responded to their handlers’ cues, and therefore routinely violated citizens’ rights to lawful search under the Fourth Amendment.

    The lawsuit goes on to make a number of other accusations in its 104-page complaint: that the Metropolitan Police Department is a racketeering organization, that money seized by motorists was misappropriated by the Department of Public Safety, that the two troopers were subjected to harassment and intimidation by their agency.

    But what has defense attorneys and civil advocates taking notice are the allegations of illegal searches, which could call into question the seizure of millions of dollars from motorists on Nevada highways and jeopardize an untold number of criminal cases stemming from those stops.

    For their courageous stand, these two Staties have been ostracized… shunned. Persona non grata.

    Moral courage is the most precious and rare of all. It should be cultivated and protected at all costs. And I am actually impressed.

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/legal-challenge-questions-reliability-police-dogs

    So yeah, not all cops are bad cops. Some actually do have the courage of their convictions. I would be proud and honored to call either of these men “friend”, and I wish both of them strength and length of days…

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #41073
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    Good for those Las Vegas cops. Hopefully some good will come of their sacrifice. What would be even better is if others on the force will testify on their behalf.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.