Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
Since my post was ignored in the other thread about this, I'll repost it here and see if it gets any discussion:

The difference between the original code (which is ALREADY law) and the new amended code is the deletion of two very important subsections:


(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.


The new version now allows any of this to take place in direct violation of both Federal and State laws prohibiting the restriction of freedom of protest or any number of other things. It now can be argued to supersede any other US or State law in its application, as this clause was specifically eliminated.

Furthermore, and scarier, it now deletes the requirement that the offender be prosecuted by the AG in a jurisdictional Federal court instead of being tried by the military under NDAA laws in the jurisdiction of whereeverthehelltheywant, including Gitmo.


I did read your post, but I don't understand it even with your explinations, was deleting these subsections a positive thing then?




posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


First you have to recognize that there is still a slim chance that HR 347 does not become law -- it is still awaiting signature of the president I believe; at least that is what it says here - Library of Congress. Just lick on "Passed Congress, Sent to President".

Second, I believe -- and I am not speaking for them -- they are stating it isn't a good turn of events. It brings the existing law in line with the NDAA law by A: Removing the requirement that a person subject to the current law falls under the jurisdiction of the AG of the United States -- and -- B: They wish to strike the clause that specifically stated that State's held jurisdiction.

This actually will fly in the face of a recently held Supreme Court case -- Bond v. United States -- in which dealt directly with jurisdiction and the application of the law. It shall be interesting but my guess is this change could face purview and judicial review by the Justices eventually.

In case you wanted to dig into Bond v. United States -- you can find that here: Bond v. United States

The specifics is held in this opinion:

Bond has standing to challenge the federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States.


In my opinion, this is a response to that to show that the Federal Government isn't going to back down on expressing its interest to supersede State and Local Law anytime soon.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
I did read your post, but I don't understand it even with your explinations, was deleting these subsections a positive thing then?


Well, that depends----do you value your state's laws being respected by the federal government? Then no. Do you value your right to be prosecuted by the usual justice system in the jurisdiction where you "committed the crime" instead of military tribunal or other such injustices? Then no.

No, the deletions were not positive things.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Second, I believe -- and I am not speaking for them -- they are stating it isn't a good turn of events. It brings the existing law in line with the NDAA law by A: Removing the requirement that a person subject to the current law falls under the jurisdiction of the AG of the United States -- and -- B: They wish to strike the clause that specifically stated that State's held jurisdiction.


Finally, someone pays attention.

Jesus H.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Second, I believe -- and I am not speaking for them -- they are stating it isn't a good turn of events. It brings the existing law in line with the NDAA law by A: Removing the requirement that a person subject to the current law falls under the jurisdiction of the AG of the United States -- and -- B: They wish to strike the clause that specifically stated that State's held jurisdiction.


Finally, someone pays attention.

Jesus H.


Calm down -- It is why I also stated case law to counter it.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


HR 347 does not prevent protests.

HR 347 applies a federal statute to federal buildings in terms of tresspassing, as local and state laws apply to local and state buildings / property.

Protesting is valid and legal.

Rioting, destroying private and public property, blocking public roadways preventing citizens who are NOT protesting from using those roads / avenues / etc, are illegal as they do not fall under protesting.

People need to learn the difference between what protesting is, and what it is not.

Unless law enforcement has a specific agreement with a private property holder, they cannot enforce tresspassing laws, as the police are not responsible for the property. To get around that, businesses sign agreements of enforcement, allowing the police to enforce no tresspassing on private property absent property owners presence.

If you want to get technical cases can be made for burglary,. which is a felony, instead of trresspassing. Forcibly entering premises that do not belong to you. HR 347 is Federal, since local and state authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law, and federal officers are not empowered to enforce state local law.

Hence the reason people mut be knowledgable about how their government works, at aLL levels.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
HR 347 does not prevent protests.

HR 347 applies a federal statute to federal buildings in terms of tresspassing, as local and state laws apply to local and state buildings / property.


Glad you didn't even bother reading my discussion up to this point. Since I have been questioning the line that that is being pushed that this is to "make protest illegal".


Protesting is valid and legal.

Rioting, destroying private and public property, blocking public roadways preventing citizens who are NOT protesting from using those roads / avenues / etc, are illegal as they do not fall under protesting.

People need to learn the difference between what protesting is, and what it is not.

Unless law enforcement has a specific agreement with a private property holder, they cannot enforce tresspassing laws, as the police are not responsible for the property. To get around that, businesses sign agreements of enforcement, allowing the police to enforce no tresspassing on private property absent property owners presence.

If you want to get technical cases can be made for burglary,. which is a felony, instead of trresspassing. Forcibly entering premises that do not belong to you. HR 347 is Federal, since local and state authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law, and federal officers are not empowered to enforce state local law.

Hence the reason people mut be knowledgable about how their government works, at aLL levels.


Can always count on you to come charging in speaking from authority. But since you brought up the following when you stated "HR 347 is Federal, since local and state authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law, and federal officers are not empowered to enforce state local law", then why attempt to strike out the clause that is already in place that enforces this?

You are attempting to show there is a distinction and there is, but you are muddying the waters a bit. Are you saying that if I attempt to commit one of the offenses on here that a local law enforcement officer cannot enforce it? Or are you saying that they will only hold me until I am placed under proper jurisdiction.

If that is the case, then where does the jurisdiction lie? Currently it is spelled out that such violations fell under the jurisdiction of the AG of the United States. Under the proposed amended code, it gives nothing. Jurisdiction it seems is left wide open and subject to the whim of the government.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Second, I believe -- and I am not speaking for them -- they are stating it isn't a good turn of events. It brings the existing law in line with the NDAA law by A: Removing the requirement that a person subject to the current law falls under the jurisdiction of the AG of the United States -- and -- B: They wish to strike the clause that specifically stated that State's held jurisdiction.


Finally, someone pays attention.

Jesus H.


Calm down -- It is why I also stated case law to counter it.


You can imagine how frustrating it is to have two threads, multiple pages long, debating whether this will end protesting (without realizing it's already law, and this is an amendment), and numerous times wondering "why did they need to change it at all?" and post two answers to both of these issues, bringing up a topic that hasn't already been beaten to death, only to have them both completely ignored. Frustrating, indeed.

I was simply applauding the fact that someone seemed to have grasped it as well, finally. No need for the Beavis treatment.


ETA: the problem with citing precedent from your linked case is that the defendant committed a crime that the government then wanted to call a felony based on the enforcement of federal terrorism laws that the court saw as an unconstitutional overreach of government. If one challenged their incarceration or conviction under the law this thread is debating, they could not cite precedent from Bond because the act they committed was carried out on, for all intents and purposes, temporary federal property and therefore fully subject to federal statutes rather than local ones.
edit on 5-3-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jrkelly77
 


Hence the reason for the 2nd amendment, brother.

I think it is disgusting that republicans think it is a good idea to replace constitutional rights with government granted privileges....you have to buy a license from the government to conceal carry or stage a protest already. And a majority of folks in the U.S. don't see how this is already an erosion of rights.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
ETA: the problem with citing precedent from your linked case is that the defendant committed a crime that the government then wanted to call a felony based on the enforcement of federal terrorism laws that the court saw as an unconstitutional overreach of government. If one challenged their incarceration or conviction under the law this thread is debating, they could not cite precedent from Bond because the act they committed was carried out on, for all intents and purposes, temporary federal property and therefore fully subject to federal statutes rather than local ones.


True -- I should have clarified that the current court, in the past cases when it came down between the State or the Individual, the Court has been siding with the Individual -- for the most part. Merely highlighting rather than providing precedents; I stand corrected.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Hey, it was a good read----at least I learned not to put itching powder in anyone's undies or pepper on their doorknob or whatnot; I could find myself being labeled a chemical weapons terrorist! Jees.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dagon
reply to post by jrkelly77
 


Hence the reason for the 2nd amendment, brother.

I think it is disgusting that republicans think it is a good idea to replace constitutional rights with government granted privileges....you have to buy a license from the government to conceal carry or stage a protest already. And a majority of folks in the U.S. don't see how this is already an erosion of rights.



The second amendment is way outdated. We have police and armies now to protect us. Many people like those against the police should not be allowed any firearms period. And many of those should be wearing straight jackets. They all have mental problems. No one with a mental problem should be allowed the capability to buy an assault weapon and spray down dozens of people at will.

If someone does not like what someone is doing then they have the capability to write letters. No one is stopping them. People should not have the right to stand around the street or sidewalk interfering with law biding citizens right to travel while trying to manipulate people's view points. It is intimidation pure and simple.

Having to petition for a permit is hardly an erosion of rights. It is merely making sure that your actions do not impose on other people.

Public education is a must. People need to be educated how to get along with others.

The constitution needs to be revisited. Society has evolved since those days. We need not be hindered by antiqued documents.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
If someone does not like what someone is doing then they have the capability to write letters. No one is stopping them. People should not have the right to stand around the street or sidewalk interfering with law biding citizens right to travel while trying to manipulate people's view points. It is intimidation pure and simple.




Wait, let me get the marshmallows so I can make use of the coming flames.....



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
The second amendment is way outdated. We have police and armies now to protect us.


So an Amendment, which speaks to the Natural Right of self-defense, is outdated? That we must rely upon others for our own protection?


Many people like those against the police should not be allowed any firearms period. And many of those should be wearing straight jackets. They all have mental problems.


It took til your third sentence to bring out the large broad brush and start painting persons who question the tactics that are being employed by some police officers as having "mental problems."


No one with a mental problem should be allowed the capability to buy an assault weapon and spray down dozens of people at will.


What is a mental problem, who will decide and at what severity.


People should not have the right to stand around the street or sidewalk interfering with law biding citizens right to travel while trying to manipulate people's view points. It is intimidation pure and simple.


This all depends here. If we are talking about say a "human-chain" and it is deliberately preventing the normal flow of traffic then I am all for intervention to only ensure that normal flow resumes. If the protesters wish to continue with that, then they crossed the line from protesting to being a nuisance.

As far as your claim of "manipulation", isn't that what you are doing now? Trying to persuade your reader's that your views should be heard above others? This is the 3rd day I have ran across such irony and it seems completely lost on people.


Having to petition for a permit is hardly an erosion of rights. It is merely making sure that your actions do not impose on other people.


And what happens when the State begins to deny permits -- for reason that are not so clear anymore? In the name of security? In the name of the Public Good (as if the State knows what the Public Good is).


The constitution needs to be revisited. Society has evolved since those days. We need not be hindered by antiqued documents.


And here in lies the issue that I have with your line of reasoning. The Constitution isn't directed towards the People. It is a document aimed at what the Government can and cannot do. We are not hindered by it at all. It is the Government not following it that is the hindrance. But I will agree that it does need to be revisited more often rather than implementing code and bogus legislation to circumvent the prescribed path set forth via the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
The second amendment is way outdated. We have police and armies now to protect us.


So an Amendment, which speaks to the Natural Right of self-defense, is outdated? That we must rely upon others for our own protection?


What do you have against the police? It is their job to protect the citizens. If you are living a life where you have to defend yourself frequently then maybe you should rethink the people you hang out with. Accept some personal responsibility for the company you keep.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuzaMany people like those against the police should not be allowed any firearms period. And many of those should be wearing straight jackets. They all have mental problems.


It took til your third sentence to bring out the large broad brush and start painting persons who question the tactics that are being employed by some police officers as having "mental problems."


What tactics? Police have to do what they can to keep the crazies in line. If you have a problem with police then maybe you should rethink your lifestyle. People need to accept personal responsibility for the choices they make. So long as you do what the police tell you to do then you will have no problems with them.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuzaNo one with a mental problem should be allowed the capability to buy an assault weapon and spray down dozens of people at will.


What is a mental problem, who will decide and at what severity.


Obviously anyone who is paranoid and thinks the police are out to get them shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuzaPeople should not have the right to stand around the street or sidewalk interfering with law biding citizens right to travel while trying to manipulate people's view points. It is intimidation pure and simple.


This all depends here. If we are talking about say a "human-chain" and it is deliberately preventing the normal flow of traffic then I am all for intervention to only ensure that normal flow resumes. If the protesters wish to continue with that, then they crossed the line from protesting to being a nuisance.

As far as your claim of "manipulation", isn't that what you are doing now? Trying to persuade your reader's that your views should be heard above others? This is the 3rd day I have ran across such irony and it seems completely lost on people.


No I am just using common sense. Obviously a document that is over 200 years old is outdated and needs to be replaced.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuzaHaving to petition for a permit is hardly an erosion of rights. It is merely making sure that your actions do not impose on other people.


And what happens when the State begins to deny permits -- for reason that are not so clear anymore? In the name of security? In the name of the Public Good (as if the State knows what the Public Good is).


The constitution needs to be revisited. Society has evolved since those days. We need not be hindered by antiqued documents.


And here in lies the issue that I have with your line of reasoning. The Constitution isn't directed towards the People. It is a document aimed at what the Government can and cannot do. We are not hindered by it at all. It is the Government not following it that is the hindrance. But I will agree that it does need to be revisited more often rather than implementing code and bogus legislation to circumvent the prescribed path set forth via the Constitution.


The government would be well within reason to deny some permits. Some people who want to spread paranoia or propaganda against the government would be against the better good of society. Society as a whole needs to be protected against the mental cases. We have enough problems without a bunch of crazies coming along claiming the government is out to get them. Society has evolved. There are not a bunch of Nazis out to get people. We need to be civilized.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
What do you have against the police? It is their job to protect the citizens. If you are living a life where you have to defend yourself frequently then maybe you should rethink the people you hang out with. Accept some personal responsibility for the company you keep.


You make a contradicting statement -- saying on one had we must rely upon the police to protect us -- then saying we must accept some personal responsibility.

I have no problems in general with police officers that execute their duties of law enforcement. I beg you to find where I have otherwise stated I have.



What tactics? Police have to do what they can to keep the crazies in line. If you have a problem with police then maybe you should rethink your lifestyle. People need to accept personal responsibility for the choices they make. So long as you do what the police tell you to do then you will have no problems with them.


Then I ask you: If a police officer comes knocking; nay, breaking down your door; doesn't produce a warrant and seizes your personal effects -- are you obligated to obey the "unlawful" orders at that point? According to you, we must just acquiesce and accept the commands barked at us without even questioning.


Obviously anyone who is paranoid and thinks the police are out to get them shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon.


I see you equate the 2nd Amendment to "assault weapon(s)". Or even just self-defense. Should that same person be able to keep a set of quality kitchen knives in their home? What about a bat? Both could be just as deadly and in some cases, much more gruesome. Where do you draw the line?

Or are you saying that we, as freemen, shouldn't have the "personal responsibility" (as you keep advocating) to maintain our own protection?


No I am just using common sense. Obviously a document that is over 200 years old is outdated and needs to be replaced.


Completely replaced? What parts are outdated?



The government would be well within reason to deny some permits. Some people who want to spread paranoia or propaganda against the government would be against the better good of society.


Your true colors are revealed here. Should we bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts? How about we take away the restriction we have bound to Government regarding Free Press. I mean, we need Government to go out and get those crazies that are rambling on about paranoia and government sedition! Congress should be able to pass legislation that limits our speech right?


Society as a whole needs to be protected against the mental cases. We have enough problems without a bunch of crazies coming along claiming the government is out to get them. Society has evolved. There are not a bunch of Nazis out to get people. We need to be civilized.


Nazis? Where do you get this stuff from? You think society has evolved so much? Have you been to inner-city areas? Areas where heavy restriction on owning a gun is placed upon private law-abiding citizens? Who do you think commits more crimes with a gun? A criminal who cares not about the law or you or I that respects the law?

I will agree with one aspect -- we do need to be civilized but you cannot have Government force civility.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
What do you have against the police? It is their job to protect the citizens. If you are living a life where you have to defend yourself frequently then maybe you should rethink the people you hang out with. Accept some personal responsibility for the company you keep.


You make a contradicting statement -- saying on one had we must rely upon the police to protect us -- then saying we must accept some personal responsibility.

I have no problems in general with police officers that execute their duties of law enforcement. I beg you to find where I have otherwise stated I have.


You do not trust the police to protect you from crime. That is where the paranoia shows.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
What tactics? Police have to do what they can to keep the crazies in line. If you have a problem with police then maybe you should rethink your lifestyle. People need to accept personal responsibility for the choices they make. So long as you do what the police tell you to do then you will have no problems with them.


Then I ask you: If a police officer comes knocking; nay, breaking down your door; doesn't produce a warrant and seizes your personal effects -- are you obligated to obey the "unlawful" orders at that point? According to you, we must just acquiesce and accept the commands barked at us without even questioning.


Why should the police need a warrant? If you weren't up to something then the police wouldn't have been called to your home in the first place. The police are far too busy to target innocent people.




Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuzaObviously anyone who is paranoid and thinks the police are out to get them shouldn't be allowed to have an assault weapon.


I see you equate the 2nd Amendment to "assault weapon(s)". Or even just self-defense. Should that same person be able to keep a set of quality kitchen knives in their home? What about a bat? Both could be just as deadly and in some cases, much more gruesome. Where do you draw the line?

Or are you saying that we, as freemen, shouldn't have the "personal responsibility" (as you keep advocating) to maintain our own protection?


It is people's job to obey the law. No one has a reason to have firearms in the home. If something happens then call the police. The only reason to have a gun is to kill someone with it.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuzaNo I am just using common sense. Obviously a document that is over 200 years old is outdated and needs to be replaced.


Completely replaced? What parts are outdated?


Most of the constitution needs to be rewritten to reflect current times. Much of it should be stricken entirely.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuzaThe government would be well within reason to deny some permits. Some people who want to spread paranoia or propaganda against the government would be against the better good of society.


Your true colors are revealed here. Should we bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts? How about we take away the restriction we have bound to Government regarding Free Press. I mean, we need Government to go out and get those crazies that are rambling on about paranoia and government sedition! Congress should be able to pass legislation that limits our speech right?


People should not have the right to spread fear and propaganda with their speech. Anyone spouting negativity has something obviously mentally off about them and should be taken for at least observation. If they don't see that they have a problem then they should be kept for treatment until they have a more positive outlook and are no longer a threat to society.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by lady_mezuzaSociety as a whole needs to be protected against the mental cases. We have enough problems without a bunch of crazies coming along claiming the government is out to get them. Society has evolved. There are not a bunch of Nazis out to get people. We need to be civilized.


Nazis? Where do you get this stuff from? You think society has evolved so much? Have you been to inner-city areas? Areas where heavy restriction on owning a gun is placed upon private law-abiding citizens? Who do you think commits more crimes with a gun? A criminal who cares not about the law or you or I that respects the law?

I will agree with one aspect -- we do need to be civilized but you cannot have Government force civility.


If guns were completely banned then it will be easier for the cops to do their jobs and spot the criminals.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by lady_mezuza
 



Why should the police need a warrant? If you weren't up to something then the police wouldn't have been called to your home in the first place. The police are far too busy to target innocent people.


That's a bit far fetched.

"Warrantless" intrusions have at least two possible consequences.

One would be reaction without thought and could lead to mistakes.

Another would be opening the door to home invasions by groups
that appear to be police.

As it is, the police can act on probable cause, which many times is justified.

Warrantless intrusions may not be fully investigated after the fact.



edit on Mar-11-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by lady_mezuza
You do not trust the police to protect you from crime. That is where the paranoia shows.


The role of protection is quite a newer concept in terms of Law enforcement. A police officer's duties are to enforce the Law and ensure peace. If during such duty they are able to protect someone then by all means -- just as I would hope each and everyone of us would engage in such an act. But this isn't paranoia.

I noticed you decided not to even bother with your contradiction. You say we need the police and only the police to protect us -- then call for personal responsibility.


Originally posted by lady_mezuza
Why should the police need a warrant?


Is this why you want to scrap most of the Constitution? That pesky 4th Amendment gets in the way with your line of thinking.


If you weren't up to something then the police wouldn't have been called to your home in the first place. The police are far too busy to target innocent people.


So you are saying that each and every time that police have engaged in their duties have always sought the Court to obtain a warrant? That they don't blur the lines and "get the job done"?



Originally posted by lady_mezuza
It is people's job to obey the law. No one has a reason to have firearms in the home. If something happens then call the police. The only reason to have a gun is to kill someone with it.


So we cannot protect ourselves? It is Government's duty? Although "to kill someone" is one of the functions of a firearm, it isn't the sole reason. It is deterrence. You either live in a very secluded bubble and neighborhood where there is absolutely no crime, none -- or are a strong advocate of the Marxist mentality. To think that we must rely upon others for our own protection goes against the Laws of Nature and our Natural Right of Self-Preservation.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Most of the constitution needs to be rewritten to reflect current times. Much of it should be stricken entirely.


Such as? What needs to change? Explain. We can so far establish that the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments -- according to your words -- need to be stricken out. What else? The 9th and 10th?


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
People should not have the right to spread fear and propaganda with their speech.


Who decides if its fear and/or propaganda? The Government? You advocate some scary stuff.


Anyone spouting negativity has something obviously mentally off about them and should be taken for at least observation.


Either you are now just having fun or seriously are an advocate for complete Government rule.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by lady_mezuza
 



Why should the police need a warrant? If you weren't up to something then the police wouldn't have been called to your home in the first place. The police are far too busy to target innocent people.


That's a bit far fetched.

"Warrantless" intrusions have at least two possible consequences.

One would be reaction without thought and could lead to mistakes.

Another would be opening the door to home invasions by groups
that appear to be police.

As it is, the police can act on probable cause, which many times is justified.

Warrantless intrusions may not be fully investigated after the fact.



Groups that appear to be police? Talk about far fetched. Either way, if you think the uniformed police busting through your door are not real then you could ask to see their badges and verify their identities. If you still think they are not real then you could call 911 and talk about it with them.

Having police come into your home is hardly an intrusion. Maybe if people were more social with the police then they wouldn't be so paranoid. No one who doesn't have something to hide should mind the police visiting their home.





top topics
 
59
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join