Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
Maybe you understand why I throw up in my mouth a little whenever Primus uses words like "us", "we", "friend", "brother"....Primus is as much a part of "we" as Dianne Feinstein.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Roadblocks to catch a murderer, cooperate with being searched or not.
- Thread starter ron73440
- Start date
Maybe you understand why I throw up in my mouth a little whenever Primus uses words like "us", "we", "friend", "brother"....Primus is as much a part of "we" as Dianne Feinstein.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Do they know that they have no cover there?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Case law is not "common law", especially when it does the opposite of common law and rules in favor of the liberty stripping state and it's costumed agents.
Also the constitution is the law for government if its not in there judges do not have the authority to "invent" it. You do see the slippery slope that was created by allowing judges to do that right?
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
Now now. There you go with the negative waves. With that many highly trained super heroes loosed in an armed free for all version of "Cannonball Run", we should be grateful, grateful I tell you, that they didn't exterminate the whole community. We could have just as easily watched on TV as they burned house by house down, shooting the occupants as they fled like rats from a sinking ship, until they found someone that matched the description of the "perp". See, this is where all that training pays off. They can discern terrorist tactics like a 6'-2", 270 pound black man disguising himself as two hispanic women AND a 150 pound white guy within moments of each other, in different parts of the state. That's what you want forcing themselves into your house among your family.
eye95
Well-known member
The much-vaunted "common law" IS, repeat IS, nothing more than case law. Sure, most of the time when folks say "common law," they are referring to common law settled by English jurisprudence long before the Founding. However, that raises the question: At what point in time did common law get locked in to your liking? Remember, common law was still in practice under the tyranny of the English kings.
Just because some law was developed by common law does not mean it is good or pro-Liberty. Just because a more recent precedent or legislation changes common law does not mean it is bad or anti-Liberty.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Just because some law was developed by common law does not mean it is good or pro-Liberty. Just because a more recent precedent or legislation changes common law does not mean it is bad or anti-Liberty.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Primus
Regular Member
"Under common law, all citizens, including the highest-ranking officials of the government, are subject to the same set of laws, and the exercise of government power is limited by those laws. The judiciary may review legislation, but only to determine whether it conforms to constitutional requirements."
"The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of common law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+law
"The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of common law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+law
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
I don't share your humor [or anything else, for that matter] regarding what those people went through.
Imagining what that woman had to have been thinking while she clutched her dog, facing those unaccountable make believe mercenaries, "lol", nor "laughs" comes to mind. I don't understand the person that could find humor in that. Nor will I try to.
I do believe in Karma:
Primus
Regular Member
Trust me no humor in her or any of the situations. Only humor in your poetic posts. You have a way with words. I find humor directly in you and how you represent the incidents.
Instead of saying "cop arrested someone" you'll somehow put "masked superhero costumes agent with superpowers violently saves the neighborhood by kidnapping a citizen with their fear filled willingness"
You can never just speak. You always embellish and slander.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
eye95
Well-known member
He does just that!
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Oh really? Let's look back at his post which started this whole rabbit chase. Hmm. All he said is, literally, "like this?" Perhaps you meant that the text in the pictures was embellishment or slander. Lets see... The first picture just quotes the fourth amendment. Hopefully you don't think that one is embellishment or slander. Let's look at the second. Hmm, the second seems to be pretty to-the-point and factual to me. "This video shows Boston police ordering homeowners out of their homes at gunpoint, without a warrant."
So, tell us Primus and eye95, which part of this post is embellishment and/or slander?
Primus
Regular Member
This is just ONE of his posts in this thread. And every thread has them he posts in.
Discern terrorist threats like a big black man who is really two Hispanic women?? Wtf?
Burn your house down and shoot you like rats??
Really?
I either laugh AT these posts or I ignore them.
He may have some kernel of a point on truth in that post maybe. But you can't see it under the lame jokes and bashing.
"Highly trained super heroes armed version of "cannon ball run" .....
Think he meant police. But instead of saying police he needs 12 words to bash and try and be funny.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
So you were laughing at his future post? I'm not a ******* idiot, primus.
Primus
Regular Member
? That is the post I responded with "lol your good for a laugh at least" to.
In fact... I quoted that post and stated that. Scroll up.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Everyone else is talking about your original "lol." IMO as long as you weren't laughing at the events that took place in Boston, and you say you weren't, perhaps it's time to move on and get back on topic
eye95
Well-known member
And another thread bites the dust.
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
Remember Skippy. You set the guidelines.
And actually, all you're doing is bitching and whining. I paint pictures with words you don't like to see, and certainly don't want others to see.
Second time now Skippy: What is your problem with my post of people depicted being controlled by armed government agents, their homes invaded without warrant by people sworn to uphold the constitution, not seek ways to overcome it?
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Yep it is isn't just "case law". Especially when it rules in favor of the state.
ron73440
Regular Member
So the only one who would cooperate is a cop?
I'm not surprised though, with this group a lot more people seem to think like I do.
If this poll was put to a more general audience I'm afraid of what their answers would be.
I hadn't made the connection to the Boston searches (my wife agrees with me on the wrongness of that), but it is a very similar tactic.
"We don't know where they are, so we have to look everywhere. Constitution doesn't matter until we find them, but after that you get your rights back, we promise."*
*not an actual quote, just a summary of their attitude
I'm not surprised though, with this group a lot more people seem to think like I do.
If this poll was put to a more general audience I'm afraid of what their answers would be.
I hadn't made the connection to the Boston searches (my wife agrees with me on the wrongness of that), but it is a very similar tactic.
"We don't know where they are, so we have to look everywhere. Constitution doesn't matter until we find them, but after that you get your rights back, we promise."*
*not an actual quote, just a summary of their attitude
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
I referenced the atrocities at Watertown, Massachusetts because I believe that represents an actual situation that realistically portrayed the mentality we would be faced in the hypothetical situation you used in your original post. The violations that were tested and got away with there, I predict, will set the tone and level of intimidation and force we will see when we do encounter checkpoints and other police state like confrontations.
I think the objector to me using Watertown as an example would like us to look at the situation differently, the violations possibly as valiant and noble, and an example of how a "good citizen" should respond to government agents.
Basically, I canned their best propaganda and as a result, there is some red ass going on.
Last edited: