Man aged 107 killed *** ***** by police in his bedroom

[bushwacker]

I completely agree with you that most problems should be dealt with WITHOUT the presence of a peace officer. If we cannot solve minor differences with each other then I have a dim outlook for the future of the Human race. However, you imply that ALL peace officers are out to get you, which is COMPLETELY false! We can most certainly be helpful in numerous situations.

You seem to forget that there are those of us that became peace officers because we were witnessing a change that we did not like! I did not like watching the peace officer turn into a law enforcement officer with military hardware. I did not like watching peace officers infringing on other people's rights. I did not like hearing about peace officers killing elderly individuals that have been on this rock for over a century! So instead of bashing and complaining I decided to do something about it! You can complain all you want, but unless you actively pursue change it will NOT come! If the good guys replace all of the bad guys in the profession then we will no longer have to hear about such nonsense! You cannot change anything by setting on the side-lines complaining! Get involved and actively pursue the change that you would like to see.

it's called guilty by association, don't know your age , but cops use to charge us citizens with that ,welcome to the club ,don't cry you'll get use to it

 

[HP995]

LEO are above criticism.

 

[Grapeshot]

of course they had a reason look , the dude is 107 he is due to kick off anytime so if they are going to show him who the boss is then they best take this opportunity cause he may die soon and escape the lesson to be learned and u know how the fuzz hates escapees ,besides the shooter was probably at the range shooting at the old man target so they were professional about it(just check the poll cards) and didn't send in just some slacker, he was probably best qualified for the job ...could have been a pregnant woman or a kid.. out come probably would have been the same,they got targets for those too . I noticed the statement, most people go on their experiences with cops and not just anti cop bigots ...humm how do anti cop bigots exist? usually by experiences, but he's right about some constitutional areas have popped up in the last few years, but isn't the whole nation suppose to be constitutional? the thought should be, what happened to the massive areas that are not constitutional and who enforces legislation that caused constitutional areas to be lost anyway? ...really... would non opencarry/Anti-2A areas exist if it wasn't for the badge ?

Think you are putting the cart before the horse. Anti OC/RKBA doesn't exist because of the police.

 

[marshaul]

Think you are putting the cart before the horse. Anti OC/RKBA doesn't exist because of the police.

No, but modern law enforcement is the means by which victimless crimes are prosecuted.

Prior to the invention of "police", crime required a victim. Now, the state is the aggrieved party, and the police are its tentacles, ensuring widespread enforcement of non-crime laws.

 

[Grapeshot]

No, but modern law enforcement is the means by which victimless crimes are prosecuted.

Prior to the invention of "police", crime required a victim. Now, the state is the aggrieved party, and the police are its tentacles, ensuring widespread enforcement of non-crime laws.

Nah - put the blame where it belongs on the legislatures.

 

[marshaul]

Nah - put the blame where it belongs on the legislatures.

Can't I blame both? :lol:

But seriously, a system of victim-initiated justice, combined with strong juries (grand and petit), essentially strips the legislature of all power, except that which substantially the entire country would grant them. The formulation of modern policing was an integral part of empowering the legislature, and enables the many to legally impose on the few.

Police and legislatures feed of each other.

If what I'm saying sounds purely rhetorical, consider the immense (and undue) influence of police unions and lobbies, and the gross conflict of interest engendered thereby.

For instance, the whole time I lived in California, I don't recall a single instance of the police lobby opposing a law, unless the further restrictions it imposed were on the police themselves. No matter what the issue, the police could be counted on to lobby in favor of further restrictions on the people, whether banal or tyrannical, moral or immoral – so long as it provided an opportunity to arrest and prosecute someone else, the police could be counted to support it.

 

[Grapeshot]

Can't I blame both? :lol:

But seriously, a system of victim-initiated justice, combined with strong juries (grand and petit), essentially strips the legislature of all power, except that which substantially the entire country would grant them. The formulation of modern policing was an integral part of empowering the legislature, and enables the many to legally impose on the few.

Police and legislatures feed of each other.

The Ouroboros syndrome.


.

 

[77zach]

Nah - put the blame where it belongs on the legislatures.

Oh, my venom is greatest for them. But I don't subscribe to the Nuremberg defense either.

 

[77zach]

Can't I blame both? :lol:

But seriously, a system of victim-initiated justice, combined with strong juries (grand and petit), essentially strips the legislature of all power, except that which substantially the entire country would grant them. The formulation of modern policing was an integral part of empowering the legislature, and enables the many to legally impose on the few.

Police and legislatures feed of each other.

If what I'm saying sounds purely rhetorical, consider the immense (and undue) influence of police unions and lobbies, and the gross conflict of interest engendered thereby.

For instance, the whole time I lived in California, I don't recall a single instance of the police lobby opposing a law, unless the further restrictions it imposed were on the police themselves. No matter what the issue, the police could be counted on to lobby in favor of further restrictions on the people, whether banal or tyrannical, moral or immoral – so long as it provided an opportunity to arrest and prosecute someone else, the police could be counted to support it.

+10

 

[Citizen]

No, but modern law enforcement is the means by which victimless crimes are prosecuted.

Prior to the invention of "police", crime required a victim. Now, the state is the aggrieved party, and the police are its tentacles, ensuring widespread enforcement of non-crime laws.

That is an important point I had not recognized.

We know that in colonial times and the early republic that many prosecutions were done by citizens themselves, the state employed prosecutor only stepping in for the most serious crimes. So, without a victim of say, fraud, assault, theft, etc., there wouldn't be a prosecution because there was no victim to prosecute it.

A very interesting point: in that era, a victim of say, theft, would obtain and execute himself a search warrant. At that time, a searcher who lacked probable cause was liable to double damages. In some areas, a magistrate who issued a warrant that lacked probable cause was liable to triple damages. Enter police who get qualified immunity and the so-called good faith exception, qualified immunity being based on sovereign immunity, a derivative of the political lie that the king can do no wrong. Of course, what sovereign immunity lie is really covering up is the fact there is nobody above the king to enforce the law on him. He's got all the swords. Police enjoy derivatives of a privilege (based on raw power for violence) held by kings.

Thanks for pointing out the connection between victimless crimes and police, Marshaul.

 

[OC for ME]

Nah - put the blame where it belongs on the legislatures.

The legislature does not enforce laws, or mis-enforce laws, cops do. I blame the state, all three branches.

 

[Citizen]

ReasonContinuation of insult tactics
[The deleted post between #51 and #52

Hmmm. Very interesting.

He deleted a post that was an indirect insult requiring the reader to stretch the language a bit to get an insult out of it. He was able to "recognize" an insult therein. But, he himself, a few days ago, made an indirect insult toward forum member Donkey. Basically, somebody put up a picture of a donkey, and this same moderator quoted the photo, adding a remark to the effect that it was sometimes hard to tell which end of the donkey was the member. Basically he called Donkey an ass. Looks like a little bit of hypocrisy to me. Although, I am sure he will be along shortly to explain how it really wasn't.

And, even more interesting, when deleting the post above, the moderator also somehow deleted a non-insult question against himself regarding why he would try to shift blame for victimless crimes to the legislature away from Marshaul's attribution to police. The moderator also deleted the next question about himself, asking if there was some pro-police bias involved in his counter-argument against Marshaul. Now, why would a moderator delete clearly non-insulting questions about himself that might be a little difficult to defend against?



And, notice the little black-PR thrown into the deletion notice. "Contintuation" of insult tactics. Hmmmmm. Very interesting.

 

[Grapeshot]

Hmmm. Very interesting.

He deleted a post that was an indirect insult requiring the reader to stretch the language a bit to get an insult out of it. He was able to "recognize" an insult therein. But, he himself, a few days ago, made an indirect insult toward forum member Donkey. Basically, somebody put up a picture of a donkey, and this same moderator quoted the photo, adding a remark to the effect that it was sometimes hard to tell which end of the donkey was the member. Basically he called Donkey an ass. Looks like a little bit of hypocrisy to me. Although, I am sure he will be along shortly to explain how it really wasn't.

And, even more interesting, when deleting the post above, the moderator also somehow deleted a non-insult question against himself regarding why he would try to shift blame for victimless crimes to the legislature away from Marshaul's attribution to police. The moderator also deleted the next question about himself, asking if there was some pro-police bias involved in his counter-argument against Marshaul. Now, why would a moderator delete clearly non-insulting questions about himself that might be a little difficult to defend against?

And, notice the little black-PR thrown into the deletion notice. "Contintuation" of insult tactics. Hmmmmm. Very interesting.

When the truth doesn't support your case, resort to fabrication/distortion. Your post is still there and is hardly indirect.

Presuming that you have the character to follow the rules, you know how to report dissatisfaction with moderation.

You have made it quite clear what your agenda is and how you will conduct yourself.

 

[davidmcbeth]

The legislature does not enforce laws, or mis-enforce laws, cops do. I blame the state, all three branches.

Interestingly, most capitol police are under the legislature ... just a tid bit of info

 

[bushwacker]

Think you are putting the cart before the horse. Anti OC/RKBA doesn't exist because of the police.

ok ...so why do you not open carry your handgun in new York,texas,florida,cali,ilinoise, is it because of some legislator is sitting at the capital making laws that prohibit you or , because some badge may put you in jail , ..there may be but I have never heard of a legislator arresting anyone for breaking constitutional opposing laws,but can we say that about the badge?....looks like to me that the badge is the horse that pushes what is in the cart

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Think you are putting the cart before the horse. Anti OC/RKBA doesn't exist because of the police.

ok ...so why do you not open carry your handgun in new York,texas,florida,cali,ilinoise, is it because of some legislator is sitting at the capital making laws that prohibit you or , because some badge may put you in jail , ..there may be but I have never heard of a legislator arresting anyone for breaking constitutional opposing laws,but can we say that about the badge?....looks like to me that the badge is the horse that pushes what is in the cart

That is the same mentality that blames the umpire (rule enforcer/policeman) for calling the base runner out when the player leaves the designated base path. The umpire did not create the rule.

The legislature makes the rules/laws and placed them in the cart/on the books and charges LEA/LEO with enforcing those laws, making them 2nd in the level of things. LEOs don't "put you in jail"; they perfect the charge that you have violated the legislature's generated laws. The courts determine if the evidence is sufficient to warrant punishment including possible jail time.

Accepted phrases, sayings, idioms and expressions in the English language.
Putting the cart before the horse reverses the accepted or logical order of things in which the thing that should come second is put first.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/put-the-cart-before-the-horse.html

If you don't like a law, change it the OCDO way: "Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."

Meanwhile, don't go off half cocked and shoot the messenger

 

[davidmcbeth]

That is the same mentality that blames the umpire (rule enforcer/policeman) for calling the base runner out when the player leaves the designated base path. The umpire did not create the rule.

Its a good loyal fan that does this hahaha Out? He was safe!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOVti4yQZws

 

[77zach]

Ve ver juz followink orderzz!

Is cool with Grapeshot

 

[Logan 5]

I've been paying attention to this subject since it happened. The article referenced to doesn't tell much.
From what I know, via the media...
1. That was Monroe's home.
Even though an 80 year old woman is alleging that he was her roomie for only a month neighbors have known him to be living there for decades.

2. The two people he pointed a gun at had been asked to leave but refused.
People that don't live there can trespass and refuse to leave and you can't do anything about it?

3. The two people were trying to convince Monroe to leave.
They were allegedly moving him to a new place, and even though it's his home, asking them to leave wasn't enough.

Ok guys, you're in your home. You ask two people that do not reside there to leave and they refuse.
What would you do?

Come on, it's the old man's home. They should have left him alone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...old-man-dies-in-confrontation-with-swat-team/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/08/107-year-old-man-killed-by-swat-team-in-arkansas/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/08/justice/arkansas-107-year-old-man-death/index.html
http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...with-swat-team/d/story/kkkFVXIO3ka96artV2rZ6A
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlo...shooting-death-of-107-year-old-pine-bluff-man
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Up...man-killed-in-gun-battle-with-SWAT-team-video
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...man-says-cops-had-no-choice-but-to-shoot?lite

 

[KBCraig]

We're not likely to learn much. A local judge ordered all records sealed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/monroe-isadore-shooting_n_3923136.html