It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: resistanceisfutile
I don't understand.
1 - the man was at that point innocent as he had not yet been proven guilty.
2 - he can use any legal defense he wants. That's his right.
I fail to see how even having this device on him is constitutional. Let alone SHOCKING someone because you don't like what there saying....He should have been treated like any lawyer in the court .
originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Grimpachi
I don't know. Maybe it's an age related thing.
I can remember a time when we were the paragon of liberty and justice- that is, at least we tried to be.
A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779
The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: eriktheawful and James1982
Are you surprised to learn that I agree with you completely? I've always said the shocks were too much, I have no problem punishing the judge. I'm not familiar with how widespread those shockers are, but I can see some purpose in them if the defendant goes crazy. You certainly don't want somebody spraying bullets or mace in a crowded room.
I have no trouble with people speaking out about it. it was a failure in the system that should be repaired.
But it is not part of a conspiracy to deprive Americans of their rights until we are slaves.
Does that help clear things up between us?
originally posted by: charles1952
One of the things that is interesting to me is how ATS finds an example or five or twenty, then says "This is what the United States has become. We're losing all our freedoms. We need a revolution." When all that happened was that a crabby old judge was called out of retirement to hear a nut babble nonsense, and he lost it.
originally posted by: defcon5
Apparently courts are now using shock devices to control unruly defendants:
Sheriff's stun vest a hidden tool to stop unruly defendants in Saginaw County court
As this guy is a member of the sovereign movement, and they like to go off on bogus legalese tantrums, I actually find this sort of amusing. Guess that's one way to show these guys that the laws actually DO apply to them, regardless of what they read on the internet.
During a heart attack, heart muscle cells die and release proteins into the bloodstream. Blood tests can measure the amount of these proteins in the bloodstream. Higher than normal levels of these proteins suggest a heart attack.
Commonly used blood tests include troponin tests, CK or CK–MB tests, and serum myoglobin tests. Blood tests often are repeated to check for changes over time.