It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gov. Jay Nixon signs exec. order to send Missouri National Guard to Ferguson

page: 63
96
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



When do your constitutional rights end? Where do they begin?


My understanding is that all constitutional rights were "suspended" when the governor declared martial law by bringing in the Guard. As one constitutional attorney put to me, "You have only the rights the authority figure before you is willing to grant."




posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

He declared a state of emergency, not martial law.
National Guard units under state command can engage in civilian law enforcement functions without violating posse commutates.

Your rights end the moment they interfere with someone elses rights.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Your rights end the moment they interfere with someone elses rights.


Mind sharing how you came to this conclusion? I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: loam

Yeah I would like to back up this post and ask for the same relevant information. Rights do not stop unless you are a convicted felon according to ANY law ANYWHERE in the U.S.A. Unless of course a Martial Law E.O. is called in. That is literally the only time that is legal ANYWHERE.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

Your rights end the moment they interfere with someone elses rights.


What rights would have been interfered with? And actually, the Supreme Court has been more terse in preserving First Amendment rights than any other right so I'd like to see some Supreme Court cases to back that idea up where one person's rights end the moment they interfere with someone else's right.

My retort would be some of the most inflammatory and perhaps shocking first amendment cases of all time:

Brandenburg v. Ohio Brandenburg was a KKK leader who well, burned a bunch of crosses and said a whole lot of things at a televised KKK rally. And oh my, did it set off a storm of anger. Imagine how terrifying that would've been for those who had learned to fear such things to turn on the television and see that horror show.

Burning crosses? Yep, generally free speech and the only time it's not is when there is the intention to intimidate. The intent to intimidate must be proven for it to become unprotected free speech. If Brandenburg had lit that outside a home, he would be busted today. Virginia v. Black

Texas v. Johnson Johnson and his fellow protesters marched on through the streets of Dallas in protest of Reagan's administration during the Republican National Convention. Didn't get arrested marching, he got all the way to the Dallas City Hall where he then, to the deep horror and offense of so many, provoking outrage, lit the US flag ablaze. He was arrested and charged for burning the US flag. People were so mad but it didn't matter. So deeply reprehensible was this action that it was something that 48 out of 50 states had banned. But flag burning? It's protected speech. And he was Communist, btw.

Snyder v. Phelps Snyder's son was a marine killed in Iraq and Phelps? He was the complete nutjob jerk that ran the Westboro Baptist Church. You can imagine what all those signs said. Snyder didn't even get the right to bury his son in peace and nobody does really. Why? Because even the crap that the Westboro Baptist Church says and where they say it is, in fact, protected free speech. In fact, because they did it so much whenever and wherever they decided to turn up, that was a deciding factor in the case. It wasn't personal. Yuck, huh? I wonder if we could work an "intent to intimidate" ruling in there somehow. Maybe?

Implying that one has rights til they interfere with another's isn't how it works. Especially in free speech matters. You have the right to not like it and have the right to speak about it. And you can interfere with it in a whole lot of ways. Like all those people drowning out the Westboro Baptist Church to interfere with their rights of free speech. Totally legit. You just can't prohibit it.

Technically, I guess the recent Hobby Lobby ruling could be another one of these. The list of supreme court cases where somebody's rights interfered with another is very long indeed. Good luck finding one that supports your premise. I had to learn over 150 for poli sci so I'm guessing you'll have to dig.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   
This has been going on for over eight days now depending on when you wan to think it started. The LA riots only lasted six days. I wonder if calling in the guard will cause this to die back down or if it's too late.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ObjectZero

I don't see it dieing down. The people are sick of being treated like what the police called them, animals. What we have seen go on in the past week is what is driving this in my opinion. The police think they can do whatever they want whenever without fear of any doing anything. Mark my words this will spread across this country.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

He declared a state of emergency, not martial law.
National Guard units under state command can engage in civilian law enforcement functions without violating posse commutates.

Your rights end the moment they interfere with someone elses rights.




Could you give me a definition of martial law? He called out the organized militia to assist in keeping the peace. It says so in his executive order. If calling in military to keep the peace isn't martial law, then what would constitute martial law in your opinion?



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

Could you give me a definition of martial law? He called out the organized militia to assist in keeping the peace. It says so in his executive order. If calling in military to keep the peace isn't martial law, then what would constitute martial law in your opinion?


Here is the definition per the Legal Dictionary at Law.com


n. a system of complete control by a country's military over all activities, including civilian, in a theoretical or actual war zone, or during a period of emergency caused by a disaster such as an earthquake or flood, with the military commander having dictatorial powers. In the United States martial law must be ordered by the President as commander-in-chief and must be limited to the duration of the warfare or emergency. It cannot result in a long-term denial of constitutional rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to a trial, and to free press. Martial law was ordered in contested areas during the Civil War (but the Supreme Court ruled President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional), and during the San Francisco earthquake and fire in 1906 when the city was in ruins, tens of thousands were homeless, and looting and disease posed great dangers to the public. Misuse of martial law, such as destruction of the veterans' encampment in Washington, D.C. under President Herbert Hoover, has proved unpopular in the United States. In many foreign countries martial law has become a method to establish and maintain dictatorships either by military leaders or politicians backed by the military. Martial law is not to be confused with "military law," which governs the conduct of the military services and applies only to service men and women.


Bold, of course, my emphasis. So according to this "martial law" can only be declared by the President of the US, not a Governor of a particular State. In this case, while I'm sure it could be argued that this seems like it could be equated to a state sponsored type of "martial law", at the moment the National Guard is not there to enforce any state/county/town laws but merely there to protect the command center of the local police. (By local - state/county/town). Also, the commander of the National Guard in Ferguson has not been given dictorial powers, which is another aspect of the definition of "martial law".

Hope this helps.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaynkeel
a reply to: ObjectZero

I don't see it dieing down. The people are sick of being treated like what the police called them, animals. What we have seen go on in the past week is what is driving this in my opinion. The police think they can do whatever they want whenever without fear of any doing anything. Mark my words this will spread across this country.


I think that's part of what is fueling this. There have been a lot of police shootings and beating showing up in the news. While this is still a small number compared to the number of people beaten and shot by gang members. Gang members are not expected or paid to protect. This just could have been the final straw for some people.

It has already spread over it, just the amount of actions takes is not as great, as of yet at least. If they don't get a handle on this, it's not going to end well for a lot of people.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The media makes it worse by showing it and ramping it up all day.The black communities are still terrible with poverty and violence though.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   


The media makes it worse by showing it and ramping it up all day.


Really?

A media blackout will fix it? I imagine the police will agree with that.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
How come people cannot figure out ththat Mr. Brown stole some cigars,and pushed the onwer over and not understand that Mr.Brown is a criminal right there.How come people are not bright enough to understand the owner called the police over a shoplifter and that goes out on police scanners.So the police look for the description of the man and probably all ready know Mr. Brown has shoplifting records all ready on His recods.

So they see Mr.Brown and a confrontation breaks out and the cop feels threatened and is taught at a Police Academy to shoot His gun at criminals who threaten Him.The whole thing is did the cop need to shoot Mr.Brown in the head and kill Him.

If Mr. Brown grabbed the officers gun or attempted to grab His gun and the gun went off inside the car then the Police Officer would be scared that Mr.Brown is trying to kill Him.
edit on 19-8-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   


How come people are not bright enough to understand the owner called the police over a shoplifter ...


Because the owner did not. It was a third party.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jobeycool
How come people cannot figure out ththat Mr. Brown stole some cigars,and pushed the onwer over and not understand that Mr.Brown is a criminal right there.How come people are not bright enough to understand the owner called the police over a shoplifter and that goes out on police scanners.So the police look for the description of the man and probably all ready know Mr. Brown has shoplifting records all ready on His recods.

So they see Mr.Brown and a confrontation breaks out and the cop feels threatened and is taught at a Police Academy to shoot His gun at criminals who threaten Him.The whole thing is did the cop need to shoot Mr.Brown in the head and kill Him.

If Mr. Brown grabbed the officers gun or attempted to grab His gun and the gun went off inside the car then the Police Officer would be scared that Mr.Brown is trying to kill Him.

1.Robbery doesn't carry the death penalty
2. the owner didn't call the police
.
read up on the threads, you're late to the meeting



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Jobeycool

Well firstly we do not know if any of that information is legitimate. All we have are incomplete reports from main stream media, security camera footage that does not clearly identify anyone, a cop's testimony from a police department that has a history of injustice, etc. etc. From past experience, we should never EVER give the MSM any backing when it comes to high priority stories. They are LIARS. They do not care for the truth and never will. They are corporate mouthpieces. Why isn't anyone bright enough to recognize that? I think that is more important here.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I really don't think the media is making it "worse" by airing the protests, if that's what was meant. To me, the ones at fault for fueling the fire are those that are insisting it's about race and only race. Use your heads, playing the race card only works for one thing in this country, and that's fanning flames.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

After the things I saw last night, I am pretty convinced that the people are to blame for the ongoing violence. The police officer may have gone too far in shooting MB.....but these people in the streets at night are vicious, mean and dangerous.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ObjectZero

originally posted by: jaynkeel
a reply to: ObjectZero

I don't see it dieing down. The people are sick of being treated like what the police called them, animals. What we have seen go on in the past week is what is driving this in my opinion. The police think they can do whatever they want whenever without fear of any doing anything. Mark my words this will spread across this country.


I think that's part of what is fueling this. There have been a lot of police shootings and beating showing up in the news. While this is still a small number compared to the number of people beaten and shot by gang members. Gang members are not expected or paid to protect. This just could have been the final straw for some people.

It has already spread over it, just the amount of actions takes is not as great, as of yet at least. If they don't get a handle on this, it's not going to end well for a lot of people.


They are animals and the police are correct in calling them animals.

I'm not buying any of this false outrage. Brown was a thug and at least 12 people are reporting he charged the officer. At that point he deserved to be shot however many times it took to put the rabid dog down.

Chicago and NY just had several shooting and probably more rapes and beatings. Where is the outrage there? Are the cops to blame? Is the white man? Who exactly is to blame in those cases where more that 30 have been shot and or killed?

This may spread across the country as you say but it will be limited to inner cities and those may very well go up in flames. They bring it out of the inner cities and they will have a real problem with real Americans that are prepared to repel these invaders. Yes, I said real Americans. These thug racists that are rioting and looting are not Americans. They are criminal thugs that need to be shot on the spot when caught looting or rioting.

I for one have no sympathy for a culture that values life and property so little that when given the chance they blame their decades plight and poverty on one cop that by several accounts defended himself.

I for one hope more of these looting thug racists are shot. That is the only way to shut this farce down.



posted on Aug, 19 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: truckdriver42


I'm not buying any of this false outrage. Brown was a thug and at least 12 people are reporting he charged the officer. At that point he deserved to be shot however many times it took to put the rabid dog down.



Been following this story from Day 1. Can you please post a source for this unsubstantiated claim you have made?



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join