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.
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]
Originally posted by richierich
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.
Originally posted by Highground
Originally posted by richierich
You totally miss the point: This old statute is NOT in force. Court cases since it's writing have narrowed it all down. For example, it is NOT illegal anymore to be ' idle' now is it? No. It is not illegal anymore to censor words because of the sex of the person offended:"or annoy persons of the opposite sex"..See? You can quote any old general law that has been made invalid in this day and age, but it is not a valid debating point. It is like me quoting an old supreme court decision that validated slaery and saying that is is still Ok today...it is not!
It is also not illegal to be a ' streetwalker', whatever that means...now the courts demand specific and not general applications. Prostitution is illegal, but walking down a street , whether or not some cop thinks you are a hooker, is LEGAL. Those old laws are gone, thank God..and you should find a real example or admit that I am right.
By the way, how would you define today the following: RAILER...AND BRAWLER ?? Invalid..AND INVALID MEANS not in effect.
1) You failed to mention why you used the term, "redneck," and imply that all "rednecks" are racist.
2) If those "old laws" are gone, why are they still listed in the Massachusetts state code? Why not find me the block of legislature or judicial rulings that nullify this code and section - it is the same code and section listed in the arrest report filed against Mr. Gates. The only judicial ruling against that particular code is Commonwealth v. Mulvey, in which the court decided that police presence alone cannot "turn an otherwise purely private outburst into disorderly conduct." However, the man stepped out of his house, where you cannot be guaranteed, or reasonably expect privacy, and continued yelling and making his remarks.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted that the rationale behind criminalizing disorderly conduct rests on the belief that a disorderly person can provoke violence in others. Commonwealth v. Mulvey
Again, there was the possibility that Mr. Gates could have provoked a violent reaction by the crowd surrounding his lawn/porch area.
I have provided my sources, your turn.
Originally posted by Kaytagg
Does this same union ever condemn police brutality, misbehavior, tasering old ladies and young children, breaking the constitution, etc?
If not, then I don't give a damn WHAT this bogus, socialist union says.
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 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.
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.
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 apacheman
Originally posted by Oldnslo
Respect is a 2 way street. You’ve got to give it to get it in return.
Exactly.
Cops fail to offer respect in the first place, most times, not always, but mostly.
And Darryl Gates' LAPD was filled with thugs, apparently you missed all the reports of corruption, abuse, etc., throughout the eighties and nineties?
Did you forget Rampart Division? You know, the division where the cops fabricated evidence, shook down drug dealers, killed witnesses, and generally ran the local rackets?
A lot of cops are criminals, and a lot of so-called "good cops" cover for them, making them accessories.
Look, the cops are human beings, same as the rest of us. They are not magically better just because they are cops. There is probably a higher percentage of lawbreakers among police than among the general population, just because the job itself is so attractive to personality types that are likely to abuse the power vested in them, and the lack of courage on the part of their colleagues to confront and prosecute the "bad apples".
I'd be a lot more respectful if there were a lot less tolerance of "bad apples" by the mythological "good ones".
As far as I'm concerned a cop is a state-sanctioned criminal until and unless proven otherwise. I can personally imagine no circumstance which would drive me to call them, as most issues I can resolve on my own, peacefully and without major trauma to anyone. Calling in cops nearly always has unforseen and usually negative consequences, occasionally resulting in the death of someone who didn't need to die, but irritated a cop.