Police union condemns Obama's comments , page 5

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by northexpedition

---

My home was invaded by four guys with guns who thought I had drugs or something worth taking...bad call on their part. The guy who held a gun on me was flabbergasted that I didn't feel threatened by him. If it hadn't been for the fact that I had others to think about, I would have taken it from him and shot his dumb ass. That and the mess I'd have to clean up afterwards, both physical and paperwork saved his life for him that night.

As it was, they got some minor crap and the worst anyone suffered was a lump on the head, a friend of mine who happened to be there and didn't know how to handle things...quite literally a cowboy. I actually could have killed all four of them without much effort or difficulty, but it simply wasn't worth the hassle.

At least one of them died for sure a short time later, a week or so. What none of them realized was that there are more ways to kill than by shooting or knifing someone. If you reach into someone's spirit you can tweak them to do things that will get them killed, just by pushing on their natural tendencies and let nature take its course. I tweaked them all while they thought they were taking from me...I doubt any of them are still alive today, they pissed me off no end.

So no, I don't need cops to protect me, or to protect mine. I can take care of most anything comes up, and have.

The ONLY reason I will ever call 911 is for a medic or firefighter, not a cop: they are vastly more trouble than they're worth.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by apacheman]

Perfect example of why there should be a "BS post of the month award".

This post gets it hands down.

reply to post by northexpedition

---

Where exactly did I EVER say that the police are not expected to be polite and civil? You are quoting me totally incorrectly. I never said any such thing. I believe that if the cops are PROFESSIONAL, as most cop groupies always claim they are, then they are expected to act professionally at ALL times, no matter how cold their donuts and coffee get.

Let me ask you this: Would you accept an excuse from a doctor? If your doctor acted unprofessionally would you accept the excuse that he had a bad day? Would you let him operate on you or a loved one if he was frustrated and acting in a manner that belied his professional responsibilities? NO!! Hell NO!! So WHY accept any excuses from someone CLAIMS to be a ' professional'?

The cop groupies always claim that cops have the worst jobs...are always under stress...are always to be forgiven when they snap and act like barbarians...but there is NO OTHER " Profession' that allows excuses about stress to dominate their jobs, now is there?

Is being a cop tough? Sure. So does that mean that we hire only the best and expect the best, or do we hire anyone who qualifies at minimum and then say:" Well, he had a rough day out there...so forgive him for violating rights and the law and acting like a Nazi".

Answer this please: Name ONE OTHER " profession' that makes excuses for misconduct. Can you imagine a lawyer standing before a Bar committee and saying:" Fellow attorneys, my excuse for not representing my client in a professional manner is that I had a bad day and I have to deal with criminals all day and its tough out there..ya know?" No way.

So, cops, among all other ' professionals', have a built in excuse mechanism; its a tough job so forgive all my egregious acts of lawlessness. Its not an easy job, so let me get away with illegal conduct and violate the Peoples' rights...hey, being an Alaskan fisherman is far more dangerous than being a cop, so why not allow the deck hands to stand down when the seas get rough? After all, who needs fish?

Who needs a " Professional" police force? WE DO!! Who needs for so-called ' professionals' to accept that some days are rough but that you just have to put it aside and get the job done. If cops are so fragile and so weak that they cannot act in a calm and legal manner then why should we make excuses for them?

Cops whine and gripe all day long, every day..about how miserable they are and how the job sucks..so let them get another job if they cannot be a true professional. Once again, compare it to a REAL professional; if you accept excuses from those who are supposed to be professional, then you are placing yourself and all others in jeopardy. I expect the SAME level of professionalism from a cop as I do a doctor, and if they cannot act in such a manner, then they should quit and let a stable and calm person take over.

NO EXCUSES FOR COPS!! If they cannot handle the stress, then they should be OUT!! If they CAN handle it, then we should not see these cases where they act in such an idiotic and stupid manner.

No one has refuted legally my argument that there was NO probable cause for arrest, and no one can. The elements were not there. The cop simply has an ego that needs feeding, like most cops. Not suprising at all; thats the real shame of it all. We do not expect cops to act professionally, and so they don't. Cops, for the most part, and NOT professional, or we would not hear constant whining about how tough the job is. Can't take the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

reply to post by Highground

---

You STILL have not shown where I said cops were not supposed to be polite, which you claimed in your first response. All you do is copy and paste what I already said, with no refutations.

The Mass. statutes need not be totally removed from the archives just because they no longer are legally applicable.

For example: The Supreme Court recently ruled that evidence technicians MUST be brought physically to court to answer for their allegations that their testing and results are accurate. Before, the DA could merely take a lab report and tell the jury that it was scientifically beyond dispute and the courts allowed this. The STATE LAWS allowed it.

But NOW, all across the nation, it has changed. NOW, all the statutes that say..STILL..that a lab technician need not appear..and INVALID even though they may not have been amended with new legal language or removed from the statute books. What happens is a lawyer sees that no lab tech is in court and moves for a dismissal..the courts will have to hash out what exceptions there are...and they will wind their way thru the courts..but the Supreme Court decision covers all states.

So,the mere fact that a statute remains unchanged on its' face means NOTHING!! The states do NOT have to go back and rewrite all the laws that a high court overturns, now do they? NO!! As long as the COURTS are aware of the pertinent rulings then it does not matter what the language of the statute says.

Remember that once in a while some writer does an article on the silly old laws that remain on the books, and it is humorous. Are you saying that the fact that some state has not removed some old meaningless statute from the books means that it is legally in force? You better not, as that would be too easy to refute.

To prove my point beyond dispute, simply look at this case: In Virginia, it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry. The law sits on the books for decades, and many of the statute books STILL have this law on them...and YOU would quote it as proof that a law on the books is valid, right? WRONG!! Here is the logic of the trial judge:

" Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."


The High courts of course threw this hateful and sick law out by reversing the finding, and it is no longer illegal to marry outside your race in the USA. But I am sure that someone could find a statute that still reads the old law, but it is NOT IN FORCE!! NO COURT would dare to reenact the old meaning.

So, states have no legal responsibility to remove old and outdated laws from the statute books every time a court decides that they are invalid. There are STILL many states that have anti-sodomy statutes in them...in fact MOST state lawbook still have them, but it does not matter: Lawrence Vs. Texas means that all those old statutes are INVALID and cannot be applied.

Just like in the case you quote: The old statutes means ZERO...if the high court rules they are out, they are out, even though they remain in print. Understand now? Just because you can find some old law that has been rendered invalid does NOT mean that it is enforceable.

So I am proven correct and you are proven wrong, again. Show me ONE state law that overrides the supreme courts final word, and I will admit I am wrong. You cannot. You also cannot show that the old Mass. law is in force after admitting that the higher court decisions have rendered them no longer in effect.

And PLEASE don't just keep pasting previous statements...come up with an original and intelligent refutation of the FACTs or relent.

reply to post by richierich

---

My "first response" was as follows:

Chapter 272, Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I see nothing in the code that requires these "essential elements" you speak of. AND, how is Mr. Gates shouting racist rhetoric at a police officer, with many other onlookers (who may start a civil disturbance if Mr. Gates is not quelled), different from your "redneck" scenario? And are you implying that all rednecks are racist? Why even use the term "redneck" at all?

I see nothing in there saying you said anything about police officers or respect. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? Not too sure about that one...

However, your anti-sodomy laws are quite fascinating, and your repetitive explanation of how judicial review works is nothing I didn't learn in my Criminal Justice 1101 class. That being said, you still have not SHOWN ME, in CASE LAW or JUDICIAL REVIEW where these laws have been REPEALED or shown INVALID or UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I showed you the one (1) and only supreme court case having anything to do with that statute, and you seemed to ignore that tidbit.

Perhaps you only see what you want to?

I responded quite promptly and adequately to your remarks, while all you have done is derail the topic and go off on anti-sodomy laws, slavery, and anything and everything EXCEPT the topic at hand. I understand judicial review, I understand the purpose of the supreme court, etc. However, judicial review or case law cannot be applied, if there was no judicial review of the statute to begin with!

I implore you to show me where this law was struck down. Show me where the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional, or a violation of federal law.

Let me guess: You can't.

edit to add: You still haven't attempted to explain away your blatant racism towards "rednecks."

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Highground]

Look at this picture.

Obama's revealing body language

www.americanthinker.com...

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.


Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?


In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

reply to post by Highground

---

OK, let me make this VERY simple: EVERY time a higher court decides against a law, that court decision makes the law INVALID>

So you do not go off on a long rant again saying nothing, let me make this very plain and clear: Here is an example:

I use the sodomy statute because it ILLUSTRATES clearly the point I am making; That laws can remain in print, on ' the books' and yet be invalid, thus proving my point.

The law that Texas used to prosecute the men is STILL in the statute books of Texas. if you get any Texas law books, you will find the statute that makes consenual sex between members of the same sex illegal. Does that mean that some cop can arrest someone for this law? NO!!

The supreme court decided that the Texas law was invalid and unConstitutional. therefore, even though the statutes have not been reprinted since then, you cannot be prosecuted, or arrested, for that' offense'.

Thism proves my point totally, If you are intellectually honest enough to admit it. Just because a styate does not reprint all law books every time an overiding decision is made doews NOT mean that the law is in effect!!

Is THAT plain enough English for you? here is another example for you, just in case you are stubbornly clining to the illusion that you are correct in this matter:

In Virginia there is a law that says ( and you can still find it in law books):

"It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this chapter, the term 'white person' shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this chapter."

Of COURSE this law is invalid, even though the law books reflected this for decades after its removal from jurisprudence. Had you gone into a statute book anytime from the 1950's until the law books were reprinted, you would find this law. Would you be able to enforce it? NO!! Is the law valid just because it rests in a law book? NO!!

COURT decisions CHANGE the law, as in the case of ' loitering' ( your cexample would be' idle', as in the instant case), which still exists in many state law books, but is NOT a crime anymore. The police cannot arrest us just because we are not doing something they consider worthwhile.

So, and please read this carefully....it does not MATTER at all that the states do not remove invalid laws from their books. All the lawyer has to do is CITE the relevant case law and that does it. There need be NO SUCH THING as some refutation printed...there need be NO such thing as a proof that the law is invalid...it does not work that way.

Superceding laws mean that the law may remain printed in a book, but it is not enforceable in court. Proof that the law forbidding being ' idle ' is no longer valid? Here:

Illinois ( Chicago) passed a law that forbade ' gang members' from ' loitering'. The law can STILL be found on the statuet books. BUT, is is NOT valid, as shown here:

"The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court and ruled the ordinance unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the court ruled that the ordinance violated the requirement that a legislature establish guidelines to govern law enforcement. "

So, where is the proof that the law is invalid? In the supreme court decision, thats where!! I have proven the point beyond any doubt. Admit it.

Originally posted by richierich
reply to post by Highground

---

OK, let me make this VERY simple: EVERY time a higher court decides against a law, that court decision makes the law INVALID>

So you do not go off on a long rant again saying nothing, let me make this very plain and clear: Here is an example:

I use the sodomy statute because it ILLUSTRATES clearly the point I am making; That laws can remain in print, on ' the books' and yet be invalid, thus proving my point.

The law that Texas used to prosecute the men is STILL in the statute books of Texas. if you get any Texas law books, you will find the statute that makes consenual sex between members of the same sex illegal. Does that mean that some cop can arrest someone for this law? NO!!

The supreme court decided that the Texas law was invalid and unConstitutional. therefore, even though the statutes have not been reprinted since then, you cannot be prosecuted, or arrested, for that' offense'.

Thism proves my point totally, If you are intellectually honest enough to admit it. Just because a styate does not reprint all law books every time an overiding decision is made doews NOT mean that the law is in effect!!

Is THAT plain enough English for you? here is another example for you, just in case you are stubbornly clining to the illusion that you are correct in this matter:

In Virginia there is a law that says ( and you can still find it in law books):

"It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this chapter, the term 'white person' shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this chapter."

Of COURSE this law is invalid, even though the law books reflected this for decades after its removal from jurisprudence. Had you gone into a statute book anytime from the 1950's until the law books were reprinted, you would find this law. Would you be able to enforce it? NO!! Is the law valid just because it rests in a law book? NO!!

COURT decisions CHANGE the law, as in the case of ' loitering' ( your cexample would be' idle', as in the instant case), which still exists in many state law books, but is NOT a crime anymore. The police cannot arrest us just because we are not doing something they consider worthwhile.

So, and please read this carefully....it does not MATTER at all that the states do not remove invalid laws from their books. All the lawyer has to do is CITE the relevant case law and that does it. There need be NO SUCH THING as some refutation printed...there need be NO such thing as a proof that the law is invalid...it does not work that way.

Superceding laws mean that the law may remain printed in a book, but it is not enforceable in court. Proof that the law forbidding being ' idle ' is no longer valid? Here:

Illinois ( Chicago) passed a law that forbade ' gang members' from ' loitering'. The law can STILL be found on the statuet books. BUT, is is NOT valid, as shown here:

"The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court and ruled the ordinance unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the court ruled that the ordinance violated the requirement that a legislature establish guidelines to govern law enforcement. "

So, where is the proof that the law is invalid? In the supreme court decision, thats where!! I have proven the point beyond any doubt. Admit it.

He wasn't idle! It was a disorderly conduct charge. Sections of the law have been ruled invalid, sure, but "disorderly conduct" has not. In the supreme court's ruling ON THAT VERY LAW, they said that the ONLY factor that needs to be in place is the possibility of a civil disturbance, or an act of violence being caused as a result. You are completely dense, and I dare say you don't even understand what you write or read half the time. I have spelled this out numerous times, that nowhere has a disorderly conduct law been stricken down, nor have you provided me with evidence. I provided you with the exact quote from the judicial review of THAT EXACT LAW, which says nothing about it being unconstitutional or invalid.

Again, you ignore things.

And you have REFUSED to answer as to why you are racist towards rednecks.

reply to post by richierich

---

So, where is the proof that the law is invalid? In the supreme court decision, thats where!! I have proven the point beyond any doubt. Admit it.

Which decision are you referring too?

I find it hard to follow your position. You have cited several laws and how they are invalid, but I don't understand the correlation with disorderly conduct your trying to make.

Its pretty clear in this case the professor was trying to instigate a reaction from somebody, this was percieved by the officer as trying to encourage a uprising or riot, and rightly so IMO.

BREAKING rumour: Kim Jong-Un assassinated?
  Posted 0 days ago with 58 member flags

Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds
  Posted 10 days ago with 41 member flags

Parents furious as 13-year-old girls given contraceptive implants at school without their knowledge
  Posted 2 days ago with 28 member flags

European Parliament Official In Charge Of ACTA Quits, And Denounces The \'Masquerade\' Behind ACTA
  Posted 15 days ago with 26 member flags

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbl
  Posted 7 days ago with 25 member flags

Romney Reports Income From Funds at Goldman Sachs
  Posted 17 days ago with 23 member flags

Again, Eric Holder Caught Lying Under Oath Regarding F&F!!! He knew about Agent Terry\'s Murder
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags

Catholic Church Strikes back at Obama Administration
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: