Cops Using Small Doses of Martial Law

Regarding the death of the Weaver family, you wrote:

Posted by cavscout
Snip...
It was not egregious, it is quite normal for the jack-booted federal agents to do dispiclable things in the name of law enforcment.

This is the second or third time you've incorrectly used the word egregious. Please look it up -- or simply click on it and scroll down.

Posted by cavscout
Snip...

What's your solution??? What more would you like to see done about this??? Let's hear it.

Paid dearly? Which government agents were tried and executed?

The grand jury didn't indicte them and the county prosecutor didn't proceed forward with charges against the special agents.

i

Posted by cavscout
Snip...
How many dirty corrupt pigs were given life sentences?

Pigs are for farms.

Posted by cavscout
Snip...
Anyone who "admitted wrongdoing" in the deaths of those people admitted to being accessories in their murder.

Culpability and murder aren't necessarily one and the same.

Posted by cavscout
Snip...
The day that at least one of them (we can start with Lon Horiuchi) stands trail for murder in an Idaho courtroom is the day any of them will "pay dearly"

The grand jury and the county prosecutor declined to move forward with charges. That is the legal system that we have. It may not work perfectly all the time, but it is the best in the world, bar none.

Posted by cavscout
Snip...
And what about the countless other atrocities committed by dirty, lying, backstabbing, corrupt jack-booted thugs?

Cavscout,

Are you grateful for the blessings that you have as a United States citizen? Are you glad to be an American??? Do you love this country? I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from.
.

Originally posted by Yxboom
This is the second or third time you've incorrectly used the word egregious

Wrong. While I understand your intentions for being pretentious were most likely to use the above sentence against someone; you have failed. I understand the word, and I am using it correctly. The despicable acts committed at Ruby Ridge were not remarkably bad, they did not stand out for their undesirable qualities, they were just the way federal agents conduct business. Countless times have we seen similar or far worse acts from federal agents.

The grand jury didn't indicte them and the county prosecutor didn't proceed forward with charges against the special agents.

WRONG. Lon Horiuchi WAS indicted by an Idaho prosecutor for manslaughter and a FEDERAL JUDGE threw the case out; the judge ruled that a federal police agent can’t be charged with a crime, even after killing an unarmed and unwanted woman in her own home.

Cavscout,

Are you grateful for the blessings that you have as a United States citizen? Are you glad to be an American??? Do you love this country? I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from.
.

I have shed blood and tears for the government of the United States, I have earned my citizenship within it. Every American has a right to criticize the government, without that right we are no longer American citizens, but slaves to a tyrannical corporate government. I have taken that a step further, I have bled for that same government, and no one has any business asking me those questions. I will, however, answer you questions.


I love my country above all else except my creator. I would leave my family behind in tears to fight for her, and have in fact done so. I am grateful to those men who died trying to ensure that we would never again be made to suffer the very injustices we discuss here. I am grateful God blessed us with a republic and a fair constitution. I am grateful that it has not gone far enough that we can't still fix this republic, and send those who would instill upon us a socialist democratic dictatorship packing. Just as a nation of great men sent their oppressors home in shame over two centuries ago, so shall we, as a nation, send our oppressors packing, running for the borders, so as not to face the wrath of the people. God-willing, we shall see you and your ilk behind the very bars you have sent good men and women to. God willing, those great men who secured our nation's freedom will not have died in vain.


I trust in my God, in my people, and in the spirit of the Republic of the United States of America that soon you will no longer be able to crap on the constitution you swore to protect.



Now, would you mind answering my question?

And what about the countless other atrocities committed by dirty, lying, backstabbing, corrupt jack-booted thugs?

[edit on 17-1-2005 by cavscout]

The following is from “Send In The Waco Killers”, a book written by Libertarian author and editor of the Las Vegas Review Journal Vin Suprynowicz. Thought it would fit well here.

Thanks Vin, you’re the man.

By persecuting their fellow Americans under laws that are unconstitutional on their face, all sworn officers of the state violate their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. We have a name for depriving one’s fellow citizens of their rights – or even their lives – under the law. The word is “felony.”

These vicious rodents, who fatten themselves and their payrolls off this hypocrisy, must be advised that the day will come when anyone who has ever served as a drug cop, drug prosecutor, or drug judge will be submitted to a fair trial by jury, a jury drawn randomly from a pool containing many of their former victims. The obvious precedent – and a helpful guide for how we should deal with the plea “I was only following orders” – is Nuremburg.

Given that most of these felons would be convicted on the basis of their own recorded statements alone, this only leaves the question of appropriate punishment, one that will make these enemies of liberty think twice about going back to work next week spying on, seizing the homes and bank accounts of, arresting, and jailing those who do no more than engage in consensual commerce in medicinal plant extracts.

Perhaps the sentence should be something like this:

“The defendant having been found guilty of depriving his fellow Americans of their rights and liberties under color of law, such verdict having been rendered by a randomly selected jury, including many drug users whose civil rights have been rightfully restored, and given that this defendant has long and publicly and incorrigibly held that it is not the right of the individual to determine how he shall alter his consciousness by use of certain drugs, but rather that it is the sole right and prerogative of the state to determine how each individual’s consciousness may or may not be altered, it is therefore the sentence of this court that the condemned be remanded to the nearest federal penitentiary to serve the maximum sentence allowed by law, during which sentence he is to be subject to the involuntary administration by the state of precisely those drugs that he has in the past persecuted his fellow Americans for using.

“Let the wardens further be instructed that the timing and order of administration of these various drugs shall not be known to the prisoner, so that each day may bring him a new and surprising realization of just how pernicious is this notion that the state can or should have any control over the medication and internal states of consciousness of any individual. And may God have mercy on his soul.”

shots it would really help if you read all the previous posts not to mention the original post that started this thread.it clearly says my brother was ticketed twice not arrested.

Originally posted by Drew Da General
shots it would really help if you read all the previous posts not to mention the original post that started this thread.it clearly says my brother was ticketed twice not arrested.

Ticketed or arrested is not relevant. Again you leave out the facts of what caused this.

Why do you make statements without giving the facts? I am sure you are leaving something out here. Again I am not saying you are a liar. What I am saying is you are leaving out the facts, why is that?

i am leaving nothing out.those are the facts.i dont understand what more you want me to say.he was walking the dog about 6-7pm and they creeped up on him.they even told him to tie up the dog so they can write the ticket or they are gonna shoot it.the ticket was for no dog tags and i have dog tags.that should end the controversy.

Originally posted by Drew Da General
i am leaving nothing out.those are the facts.i dont understand what more you want me to say.he was walking the dog about 6-7pm and they creeped up on him.they even told him to tie up the dog so they can write the ticket or they are gonna shoot it.the ticket was for no dog tags and i have dog tags.that should end the controversy.

Let me guess you did not have the dog tags on the dog did you? Obviously had the tags been on the collar they could not have issued a ticket for no dog tags could they? That is not their fault is it? They were just doing their job by checking for tags it is done all the time.

As for creeping up on your brother! Sure sounds like someone is paranoid but that is JMHO

So now we can't be trusted with drugs, guns, or un-registered dogs either? Gun-control wasn’t enough; we now need dog-control.

Great. I work so they can steal my money and then use it stop the hordes of tag-less dogs.

With tens of thousands of murders in our country, and a law enforcement budget large enough to feed the worlds hungry, they need to worry about dogs with no papers?

I am starting to think that the point is to make so many laws that it is impossible to be an honest citizen. Once everything is illegal, you can’t avoid being a criminal, and they will be able to treat you like one at will (so far as corporate law is concerned anyways.)

Originally posted by cavscout
So now we can't be trusted with drugs, guns, or un-registered dogs either? Gun-control wasn’t enough; we now need dog-control.

Licenses have been required for decades or didn't you know that?. Granted not in all areas; however in major city's and most small towns. Why do you have a problem with dog licenses might I ask?

You seem to be making a habit of asking questions answered in the same posts you are quoting.

With tens of thousands of murders in our country, and a law enforcement budget large enough to feed the worlds hungry, they need to worry about dogs with no papers?

I am sure I could come up with at least 50 other reasons, but I will just stick with that.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by cavscout]

look chief i am not paranoid.that is what they do over here they creep aka lurk.they see you and they drive not even drive they roll behind as if they are discussing if they should f*ck with you or not.ihave seen this millions of times.so please stop trying to make it look like i am trying to start some revolution against the cops because it sounds to me like you were never in any of these situations.i made this thread to enlighten people as to whats really going on out there in the streets.

Hey, here is a nice one. Cops break into the wrong house, throw a paraplegic to the floor and take him off his breathing machine.

I do suppose a round of applauds are in order, however; they managed not to shoot him in the process.


www.boogieonline.com... dsmar.html

A SWAT team seeking to serve an arrest warrant bashed in a window and a sliding door entering the wrong address.

As reported in an AP story in the March 19, 1995 Pensacola News Journal, p.6B, the Oldsmar, Florida SWAT team broke into the home of 31-year-old Charles Inscor, knocking him from his bed and detaching him from a machine assisting his breathing, before realizing they had the wrong house.

The correct house was two buildings down. The "suspected drug dealer" there was arrested later without incident.

The real outrage of this story is not that the team demolished the wrong back door, but that police now serve arrest warrants in a manner more fit to third-world dictatorships. This is an inevitable consequence of the drug war and its ever-escalating invasion of our rights.

Drew Da General,

So your brother was ticketed for "walking the dog"? And that's the charge that was taken out of the state statute book??? I find that hard to believe. Let's examine your trumped up charge:

State Statute 123ABC.4
Walking the Dog
No citizen shall walk his dog, either with or without a leash. Any citizen who walks his dog is guilty of a civil infraction, punishable by not more that $500.

Are you 100% certain that the charge was "walking the dog," or are you embellishing the story?

Posted by Drew Da General
Snip...
Look chief i am not paranoid.

No one has accused you of being paranoid.

Posted by Drew Da General
Snip...
i am not trying to start some revolution against the cops.

Besides, the cops are the biggest gang in town. They control the streets. They wear colors (usually navy blue, tan or green, depending on what state you're in). The cops also work like a brotherhood. If you "take one out," then 100 more come on-scene for every one that is injurred. Yep, they are the biggest gang in town and they own the streets. When they come on-scene, other non-affiliated gang members back away because they know which gang in in charge.

.

Originally posted by Yxboom

Besides, the cops are the biggest gang in town.
.

I think that is indeed the point most of us have been trying to make. Most of the ones I know ACT like a gang.

I was with a Biker rally about 25 years ago this big tough gang (police) showed up to tell us to leave, we told them to get the hell out of there and dont come back......They left and they didnt

When I got out of the Army a friend was in Jail for some minor crap on his birthday. We had a party for him and somewhere during it we decided that he should be there, we called asking for them to release him, they refused.

We told them we would shoot everyone there and loaded up three car loads of armed people and headed to the county courthouse.

He was sitting on the steps waiting for us

Granted most of this happened before yall were born but still, cops when faced with equal or greater force will usually run llike the school -yard bullies most of them were

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Amuk]

cavscout,

Your opinions about the Weaver case are misconstrued. It sounds like you's been reading too many wack-job websites. Are you reading wack-job websites?

Have you talked to anyone who was directly involved in the Weaver case -- or is all your information third hand, like from wack-job websites???? Many of those wack-job websites are clearly against the government of the United States?
.

Originally posted by Yxboom
cavscout,

Your opinions about the Weaver case are misconstrued. It sounds like you's been reading too many wack-job websites. Are you reading wack-job websites?

Have you talked to anyone who was directly involved in the Weaver case -- or is all your information third hand, like from wack-job websites???? Many of those wack-job websites are clearly against the government of the United States?

.

First off, they are not opinions, they are facts. It is a matter of public record. What do you think I misconstrued?

I'll make you a deal. You answer my question that I have had to keep asking, and I will answer yours.

Key word being terrorist that is not the same as the average citizen.
Under those conditions I could see where it might be necessary. Not that I would condone it mind you...... It would have to depend on the situation I am sure.

According to the patriot act there are two kinds of terrorists:

1. Domestic
2. International

This means, everyone, is a possible terrorist. Therefore an anti-terrorism operation includes everyone.

Further, the thread was discussed here recently on the law passed shoot-to-kill on any citizen who runs away from the police. If you do a simple search, you will find it. Meanwhile, I'll try and find it for you.

Yx-boonm, it is absolutely hilarious that you would call my case "weak" when you have nothig to offer but a blind belief and even though my case is supported by hard facts. Oh, but of course, news articles by a range of media, is not facts, right?

It sounds like you are here to spread disinformation. That's alright, but you make it so so clear that you are doing that, not very smart now, eh?

[edit on 17-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Posted by cavscout
Snip...

This is the second or third time you've incorrectly used the word egregious

Wrong. While I understand your intentions for being pretentious were most likely to use the above sentence against someone; you have failed. I understand the word, and I am using it correctly. The despicable acts committed at Ruby Ridge were not remarkably bad, they did not stand out for their undesirable qualities, they were just the way federal agents conduct business. Countless times have we seen similar or far worse acts from federal agents.

This isn't English 101, so I won't push the issue too much. This isn't even a remedial English class, so you may continue to use the word "egregious" in any context that you wish, even in an incorrect context, as you have so aptly demonstrated.

Some people are required to take remedial English before they can progress to English 101. And if this were a remedial English class, you would have a big red X over your incorrect usage of the word. It is clearly evident that you have had neither English 101 nor remedial English -- and you will not deny this either.

The only reason I'm pointing this out is to demonstrate your general obstinance about your continued incorrect use of the word "egregious." People that are obstinate about little things tend to be obstinate about bigger issues as well.

Anyways, I challenge you to bring your usage of the word "egregious" to any high school English teacher for constructive feedback.
.

Originally posted by Yxboom

The only reason I'm pointing this out is to demonstrate your general obstinance about your continued incorrect use of the word "egregious." People that are obstinate about little things tend to be obstinate about bigger issues as well.

Anyways, I challenge you to bring your usage of the word "egregious" to any high school English teacher for constructive feedback.

.

Or, you could just stay on topic and answer my question.

Posted by cavscout
Or, you could just stay on topic and answer my question.

I would be delighted to answer your question.

Which one?