Do police officers serve and protect the public?

Religions > Atheism > Do police officers serve and protect the public?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 19 of 26

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	28 Jan 2005 04:31:24 AM
Object:	Do police officers serve and protect the public?

Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/
http://www.fear.org/
Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters
On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban Detroit
home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.
Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy and
ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.
In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.
Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children if
she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.
The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.
Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car with
her personal belongings.
As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed his
wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to protect
her from, and what they had agreed to do.
If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.
Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death. This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.
Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the
Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.
How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.
Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.
In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that if
this is the state of the law in this country the courts should require
that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we will
at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.
The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.
June 24, 2004
John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com
.

User: "Bama Brian"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 08:40:43 PM

Ravage wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:dvGdnR6EmeWUeWbcRVn-2w@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:9iRKd.4238$G31.4206@okepread05...
| >
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > news:lPudnalNfJbDR2bcRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:zDQKd.4236$G31.948@okepread05...
| > | >
| > | > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:MrqdnUTU8ZjyTWbcRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | > | news:_5QKd.4232$G31.3926@okepread05...
| > | > | >I don't impose laws, Scout - and neither do you.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > We as a society do.
| > | > |
| > | > | Then 'WE' need to make sure we don't allow such laws to be
enacted,
| > nor
| > | > call
| > | > | for such laws to be enacted, and oppose it when such laws are
| > proposed.
| > | > |
| > | > | You can push it off on "society" but that's just ignoring the
| > results
| > of
| > | > | individual actions that cummulativly result in such a mess.
| > | >
| > | > You're making the assumption, Scout that yours is the only "right"
| > | > opinion.
| > | > The people who enact such laws feel theirs are just as valid as
| > yours -
| > | > and
| > | > have gotten their representatives to see things their way.
| > |
| > | Yep, which is why the law is ignored. Pass a stupid law and I don't
care
| > how
| > | "right" you feel your point of view is, I shall ignore it if I find it
| > too
| > | objectionable to stand.
| >
| > No, the law isn't ignored.
|
| So no one ever breaks the law?
|
| > It is ignored by a segment of the population.
|
| First you say it's not ignored....then you admit it is.
|
| You need to make up your mind here.

Stop taking small snippettes and trying to make your argument, Scout.
Because a minority choose not to follow the law does not mean the law is
"ignored" by the general population.

|
| >> And when they are caught, they go to prison - and that screws their
whole
| > lives over - which should be all the proof you need that your harmless
| > drugs
| > aren't so harmless afterall.
|
| Ah, so the drugs screw up people's lives not because of the drugs, but
| because a bunch of self rightous people have decided that they should be
| able to screw of the lived of people who don't conform to their ideals of
| what is "proper"?

Is that your belief?

|
|
| >
| > |
| > | > "Those" people and their opinions are just as valid as yours.
| > |
| > | Yep, but when people ignore the law....don't ***** about it.
| >
| > I don't. I sent them to prison. By the same token - don't ***** when
you
| > get caught and lose contact with your family, lose your job, lose your
| > car,
| > etc.
|
| So I shouldn't get upset because of self rightous tyranny?
|
| Care to tell me what/when I should get upset due to infringement of my
| rights?

You don't have a "Right" to do drugs, Scout.

You may want to do drugs.

You may like to do drugs.

But doing drugs has never been established as one of the God given Rights
established under the Constitution.

If you must bring up the Constitution, here's what the Constitution says
about drugs: Nothing.
Here's what the Constitution says about police: Nothing.
It does however, say in the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Just FYI, Mr. LEO, just because it's not spelled out doesn't mean the
people don't have a right to it. Remember, it took Prohibition and a
Constitutional amendment to try and stop the sale of liquor to citizens
- an amendment which failed miserably. Is modern day Prohibition any
more successful?
The most appropriate statement is to be found in the Declaration of
Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
Life, Liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. And the right to abolish
governments which become destructive of those ends.
The Founding Fathers did not say how L, L, and the P of H were to be
accomplished. But you may note that no drug was made illegal until the
early 20th Century. Now it seems that our so-called law makers just
jump all over themselves to declare something new as a banned drug.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 07:27:54 AM

Bama Brian wrote:

Ravage wrote:

message

| > news:lPudnalNfJbDR2bcRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:zDQKd.4236$G31.948@okepread05...
| > | >
| > | > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > | > news:MrqdnUTU8ZjyTWbcRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | > | news:_5QKd.4232$G31.3926@okepread05...
| > | > | >I don't impose laws, Scout - and neither do you.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > We as a society do.
| > | > |
| > | > | Then 'WE' need to make sure we don't allow such laws to

enacted,
| > nor
| > | > call
| > | > | for such laws to be enacted, and oppose it when such laws

are

| > proposed.
| > | > |
| > | > | You can push it off on "society" but that's just ignoring

the

| > results
| > of
| > | > | individual actions that cummulativly result in such a

mess.

| > | >
| > | > You're making the assumption, Scout that yours is the only

"right"

| > | > opinion.
| > | > The people who enact such laws feel theirs are just as

valid as

| > yours -
| > | > and
| > | > have gotten their representatives to see things their way.
| > |
| > | Yep, which is why the law is ignored. Pass a stupid law and I

don't

care
| > how
| > | "right" you feel your point of view is, I shall ignore it if

I find it

Scout.

Because a minority choose not to follow the law does not mean the

law is

"ignored" by the general population.

|
| >> And when they are caught, they go to prison - and that screws

their

whole
| > lives over - which should be all the proof you need that your

harmless

| > drugs
| > aren't so harmless afterall.
|
| Ah, so the drugs screw up people's lives not because of the

drugs, but

| because a bunch of self rightous people have decided that they

should be

| able to screw of the lived of people who don't conform to their

ideals of

| what is "proper"?

Is that your belief?

|
|
| >
| > |
| > | > "Those" people and their opinions are just as valid as

yours.

| > |
| > | Yep, but when people ignore the law....don't ***** about it.
| >
| > I don't. I sent them to prison. By the same token - don't

***** when

you
| > get caught and lose contact with your family, lose your job,

lose your

| > car,
| > etc.
|
| So I shouldn't get upset because of self rightous tyranny?
|
| Care to tell me what/when I should get upset due to infringement

of my

| rights?

You don't have a "Right" to do drugs, Scout.

You may want to do drugs.

You may like to do drugs.

But doing drugs has never been established as one of the God given

Rights

established under the Constitution.

If you must bring up the Constitution, here's what the Constitution

says

about drugs: Nothing.

Here's what the Constitution says about police: Nothing.

It does however, say in the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just FYI, Mr. LEO, just because it's not spelled out doesn't mean the
people don't have a right to it. Remember, it took Prohibition and a
Constitutional amendment to try and stop the sale of liquor to

citizens

- an amendment which failed miserably. Is modern day Prohibition any
more successful?

The most appropriate statement is to be found in the Declaration of
Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable

Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the

governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles

and

organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely

effect their Safety and Happiness."

Life, Liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. And the right to abolish
governments which become destructive of those ends.

The Founding Fathers did not say how L, L, and the P of H were to be
accomplished. But you may note that no drug was made illegal until

the

early 20th Century. Now it seems that our so-called law makers just
jump all over themselves to declare something new as a banned drug.

Thing is, marijuana and opium weren't even new. The laws were enacted
for *racist* reasons and are even racist now. A person caught with a
certain amount of crack cocaine will get the same sentence as a person
caught with 100 times as much of the powered kind. They're both the
same drug, pharmacologically. Why is it racist? Because crack cocaine
has been a problem almost exclusively dealt with in black neighborhoods
and the lawmakers knew it when they wrote the laws. Is it any suprise
that many black neighborhoods have nearly a third of their males in
lockdown at any given time? The "War on Drugs" has devastated this
country and there's no way they can win it. It's beyond incompetence
of the State at this point. It's criminal and if justice were to be
done, we'd have some Nouremberg-style trials of top government
officials and LEOs for the lives they've destroyed.
.

User: "Frank Ney"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 02:29:53 AM

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:16:19 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser caused
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:

No, the law isn't ignored. It is ignored by a segment of the population.
And when they are caught, they go to prison - and that screws their whole
lives over - which should be all the proof you need that your harmless drugs
aren't so harmless afterall.

Since the only "harm" seems to be caused by your bully boys, removing the laws
removes the harm.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
--
Wanna see real terrorism? Just 'hole up' in a 'compound' somewhere
in rural Texas while publicly asserting your rights under the first ten
amendments to the Constitution. You'll have terrorists coming out of your *****.
United Airlines Must Die! http://www.dont-fly.com
Abuses by the BATF http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 03:31:55 PM

Ravage wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:lPudnalNfJbDR2bcRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:zDQKd.4236$G31.948@okepread05...
| >
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > news:MrqdnUTU8ZjyTWbcRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:_5QKd.4232$G31.3926@okepread05...
| > | >I don't impose laws, Scout - and neither do you.
| > | >
| > | > We as a society do.
| > |
| > | Then 'WE' need to make sure we don't allow such laws to be

enacted,

nor
| > call
| > | for such laws to be enacted, and oppose it when such laws are
proposed.
| > |
| > | You can push it off on "society" but that's just ignoring the

results

of
| > | individual actions that cummulativly result in such a mess.
| >
| > You're making the assumption, Scout that yours is the only

"right"

| > opinion.
| > The people who enact such laws feel theirs are just as valid as

yours -

| > and
| > have gotten their representatives to see things their way.
|
| Yep, which is why the law is ignored. Pass a stupid law and I don't

care

how
| "right" you feel your point of view is, I shall ignore it if I find

it too

| objectionable to stand.

No, the law isn't ignored. It is ignored by a segment of the

population.

And when they are caught, they go to prison - and that screws their

whole

lives over - which should be all the proof you need that your

harmless drugs

aren't so harmless afterall.

Just like being a Jew wasn't harmless in Nazi Germany. Look, if the
government wants to run on rule of force, don't expect anyone to really
respect it. Prisons are used when it's obvious the government doesn't
respect individual liberty. That's why our government will fall in
time. There's only so far one can push people before they push back.

|
| > "Those" people and their opinions are just as valid as yours.
|
| Yep, but when people ignore the law....don't ***** about it.

I don't. I sent them to prison. By the same token - don't *****

when you

get caught and lose contact with your family, lose your job, lose

your car,

etc.

IOW, you're not arguing morality so much as rule of force. If that's
the case, you're seeding more for anarchy than any libertarian is. In
this view, the strongest rule by force whereas the libertarian is
against any man dominating one another.

|
|
| > |
| > | > And in any group of people, there are goping to be some who

are

happy
| > with
| > | > the rules and some who are not. It is the nature of human

dynamics.

| > So
| > | > whose side should win?
| > |
| > | Those who aren't seeking to infringe upon the rights of others

without

ONLY

| person I can harm is myself.

Which is not only untrue - it is absolutely absurd.

Who is he hurting if he snorts up coke besides himself? And why do
cigarette smokers get exempted?

|
| > | >If you had your way, there would be any outcry from
| > | > the people who believe any drug use is bad.
| > |
| > | Fine. If they don't want to use drugs....then let them not take

drugs.

| > The
| > | rest of us will do similarly. I fail to see the problem with

that.

Make
| > up
| > | your own mind. As long as it doesn't harm or present a

creditable

threat
| > of
| > | harm to another or is forced upon those too young to make an

adult

| > decision,
| > | then I have no problems with any and/or all drug use.
| > |
| > | If you feel that you have an obligation to tell me what drugs I

may or

| > may
| > | not take for myself, then would you allow me to similarly

impose some

| > | standard that I personally determine is something you shouldn't

do,

| > | because....well...I don't like it?
| >
| > That's what living in a society with a bunch of other people is

all

about,
| > Scout.
|
| No, it's to establish protections for individual liberty against

those

that
| would oppress them. If I wanted to be subject to oppression of the
greatest
| then I wouldn't need society. Ugh, would rule and he would kill any

that

| contested his right to do whatever he wanted to you.

OK.

You name me a society where everyone has the right to do whatever he

pleases

whenever he pleases and we'll talk about it.

That's the problem. There's never been a free society in human history.
.

User: "Frank Clarke"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 01:01:34 PM

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote:
<zDQKd.4236$G31.948@okepread05>

No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.

Sure they do:
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Let me translate that for you. It says "Just because we specifically mentioned
things like the right to peaceably assemble and the right to keep and bear arms,
this DOES NOT mean that we're exempting things like the right to use drugs."
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 03:24:35 PM

"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d5nnv09su4l1i04osl3u146t1illi13nrg@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:
| <zDQKd.4236$G31.948@okepread05>
|
| >No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
|
| Sure they do:
| Amendment IX (1791)
| The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed
| to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
|
|
| Let me translate that for you. It says "Just because we specifically
mentioned
| things like the right to peaceably assemble and the right to keep and bear
arms,
| this DOES NOT mean that we're exempting things like the right to use
drugs."
|
|
| (change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
That's wonderful, Frank. Unfortunately, it is a complete bastardization of
the real menaing as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
What it really means, in a nutshell, is that if the Constitution does not
specifically grant the Federal Government a power, then that power resides
with the States.
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 05:49:55 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oaTKd.4249$G31.2326@okepread05...

"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d5nnv09su4l1i04osl3u146t1illi13nrg@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:
| <zDQKd.4236$G31.948@okepread05>
|
| >No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
|
| Sure they do:
| Amendment IX (1791)
| The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed
| to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
|
|
| Let me translate that for you. It says "Just because we specifically
mentioned
| things like the right to peaceably assemble and the right to keep and
bear
arms,
| this DOES NOT mean that we're exempting things like the right to use
drugs."
|
|
| (change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)

That's wonderful, Frank. Unfortunately, it is a complete bastardization
of
the real menaing as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

What it really means, in a nutshell, is that if the Constitution does not
specifically grant the Federal Government a power, then that power resides
with the States.

or the people.
So where exactly is the federal power to regulate drugs listed in the
Constitution?
.

User: "Frank Clarke"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 09:41:19 PM

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:24:35 -0700, "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote:
<oaTKd.4249$G31.2326@okepread05>

That's wonderful, Frank. Unfortunately, it is a complete bastardization of
the real menaing as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

What it really means, in a nutshell, is that if the Constitution does not
specifically grant the Federal Government a power, then that power resides
with the States.

You're thinking of the 10th amendment. Your reading assignment for today is...
go back and read it again.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 09:18:12 AM

"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gplov0thfd16i5o67epg97rsiavrnh99ie@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:24:35 -0700, "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:
| <oaTKd.4249$G31.2326@okepread05>
|
| >That's wonderful, Frank. Unfortunately, it is a complete bastardization
of
| >the real menaing as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
| >
| >What it really means, in a nutshell, is that if the Constitution does not
| >specifically grant the Federal Government a power, then that power
resides
| >with the States.
|
| You're thinking of the 10th amendment. Your reading assignment for today
is...
| go back and read it again.
Let's see Frank.....
Of the two of us, which one's views and perceptions of the Constitution and
the interaction between the Federal Government and the States reflects the
reality of today? Which one of us believes he has the Constitutional
freedom to ingest whatever intoxicant he chooses? Of the two of us, whose
perception is reaffirmed by all three branches of Government - especially
the Judicial?
It would appear one of us needs to do some reading - that much is certain.
But perhaps you should focus on what the document really says - not what you
want it to say.
.

User: "Chas"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 07:22:03 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote

Of the two of us, which one's views and perceptions of the Constitution
and
the interaction between the Federal Government and the States reflects the
reality of today?

The one protesting the unConstitutional arrogation of power, or the toady
that goes along to get along?

Which one of us believes he has the Constitutional
freedom to ingest whatever intoxicant he chooses?

The one who read the repeal of Prohibition-
missed that, did you?

Of the two of us, whose
perception is reaffirmed by all three branches of Government - especially
the Judicial?

The judicial systems toady?
You remember the good old days of fag-bashing, don't you? or rousting
pornographers, or busting gambling, arresting people for owning too much
gold?
Lots of things were illegal for a long time until they had to pass
Constitutional muster.

It would appear one of us needs to do some reading - that much is certain.
But perhaps you should focus on what the document really says - not what
you
want it to say.

Yeah; I'll give that admonition the attention it deserves-
good plan.
Chas
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 09:33:02 AM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WU6Ld.4301$G31.780@okepread05...

The reality is that the Constitution exists.
I think what you are suggesting is that one of you wishes to adhere to the
Constitution, and one of you wishes to deny those laws. That is the
reality. Uphold the Constitution or not.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 03:54:01 PM

Ravage wrote:

"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d5nnv09su4l1i04osl3u146t1illi13nrg@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, "Ravage"

<ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>

construed
| to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
|
|
| Let me translate that for you. It says "Just because we

specifically

mentioned
| things like the right to peaceably assemble and the right to keep

and bear

arms,
| this DOES NOT mean that we're exempting things like the right to

use

drugs."
|
|
| (change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)

That's wonderful, Frank. Unfortunately, it is a complete

bastardization of

the real menaing as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Who cares what the Supreme Court says? Their decisions have been bad
for this country through it's history. Afterall, it helped start the
Civil War. Or do you think 9 antedeluvian judges have a right to
determine every aspect of your life?

What it really means, in a nutshell, is that if the Constitution does

not

specifically grant the Federal Government a power, then that power

resides

with the States.

Which of course, is overturned by the Feds when they impose nationwide
bans. Look at Alaska, thinking of legalizing marijuana. The Feds
won't let them.
Our Constitution is a noble document that our government treats as
toilet paper. They can't afford to treat it seriously.
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 04:15:38 PM

---snip---
| Who cares what the Supreme Court says? Their decisions have been bad
| for this country through it's history. Afterall, it helped start the
| Civil War. Or do you think 9 antedeluvian judges have a right to
| determine every aspect of your life?
Emphasis provided without response.
This pretty much makes the entire argument for me.
.

User: "Bama Brian"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 08:42:18 PM

Ravage wrote:

"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d5nnv09su4l1i04osl3u146t1illi13nrg@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:
| <zDQKd.4236$G31.948@okepread05>
|
| >No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
|
| Sure they do:
| Amendment IX (1791)
| The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed
| to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
|
|
| Let me translate that for you. It says "Just because we specifically
mentioned
| things like the right to peaceably assemble and the right to keep and bear
arms,
| this DOES NOT mean that we're exempting things like the right to use
drugs."
|
|
| (change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)

That's wonderful, Frank. Unfortunately, it is a complete bastardization of
the real menaing as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

What it really means, in a nutshell, is that if the Constitution does not
specifically grant the Federal Government a power, then that power resides
with the States.

No, it resides with the states - if it was first granted to the states
by the people - or to the people.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 09:14:08 AM

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eQXKd.2195$S3.389@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
| > news:d5nnv09su4l1i04osl3u146t1illi13nrg@4ax.com...
| > | On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, "Ravage"
<ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
| > wrote:
| > | <zDQKd.4236$G31.948@okepread05>
| > |
| > | >No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
| > |
| > | Sure they do:
| > | Amendment IX (1791)
| > | The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
| > construed
| > | to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
| > |
| > |
| > | Let me translate that for you. It says "Just because we specifically
| > mentioned
| > | things like the right to peaceably assemble and the right to keep and
bear
| > arms,
| > | this DOES NOT mean that we're exempting things like the right to use
| > drugs."
| > |
| > |
| > | (change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
| >
| > That's wonderful, Frank. Unfortunately, it is a complete bastardization
of
| > the real menaing as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
| >
| > What it really means, in a nutshell, is that if the Constitution does
not
| > specifically grant the Federal Government a power, then that power
resides
| > with the States.
|
| No, it resides with the states - if it was first granted to the states
| by the people - or to the people.
Um.....yup.
That's pretty much what I said.
.

User: "Frank Ney"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 02:26:00 AM

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser caused
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:

No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.

You don't have the "right" to prevent it.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
--
Government has four basic functions: Robbery, Rape, Slavery, Genocide.
The reason for this is that government, all government, is a criminal
enterprise. It has no legitimate purpose.
- Michael Bradshaw
http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2004/tle298-20041121-02.html
United Airlines Must Die! http://www.dont-fly.com
Abuses by the BATF http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 09:28:45 AM

"Frank Ney" <n4zhg@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f6pv0lb2oo28arassf0tueot0vivessvi@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser caused
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
|
| >No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
|
| You don't have the "right" to prevent it.
Sorry, Frank.
A whole bunch of elected people as well as law enforcement folks and Judges
think I do.
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 09:42:32 AM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:P27Ld.4306$G31.720@okepread05...

"Frank Ney" <n4zhg@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f6pv0lb2oo28arassf0tueot0vivessvi@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser
caused
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
|
| >No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
|
| You don't have the "right" to prevent it.

Sorry, Frank.

A whole bunch of elected people as well as law enforcement folks and
Judges
think I do.

Doesn't mean they are right. Your assertion is stupidity and being wrong is
acceptable as long as the "right people" agree with you.
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 10:29:49 AM

User: "Michael Price"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 09:33:33 AM

Ravage wrote:

"Frank Ney" <n4zhg@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f6pv0lb2oo28arassf0tueot0vivessvi@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser

caused

| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
|
| >No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
|
| You don't have the "right" to prevent it.

Sorry, Frank.

A whole bunch of elected people as well as law
enforcement folks and Judges think I do.

And that means you have the right? *****. If
they said you had the right to murder gays and blacks
and people who wore socks with sandals that wouldn't
give you the right to do that either.
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 10:29:02 AM

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	31 Jan 2005 08:14:38 AM

Ravage wrote:

"Frank Ney" <n4zhg@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f6pv0lb2oo28arassf0tueot0vivessvi@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser

caused

Judges

think I do.

Doesn't matter.
.

User: "Bama Brian"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 12:05:06 PM

Ravage wrote:

"Frank Ney" <n4zhg@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f6pv0lb2oo28arassf0tueot0vivessvi@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser caused
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
|
| >No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
|
| You don't have the "right" to prevent it.

Sorry, Frank.

A whole bunch of elected people as well as law enforcement folks and Judges
think I do.

BZZZT! Wrong! Thanks for playing, Ravage.
The law enforcement folks and judges have granted you NO rights. They
have granted you, from the people to the state, the power to enforce the
laws, no matter how wrong-headed the laws are.
Get it straight. The people have all the rights. The states have only
the powers and authorities that the people have granted to them.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 12:16:41 PM

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ml9Ld.4588$Ix.4040@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Frank Ney" <n4zhg@icqmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:6f6pv0lb2oo28arassf0tueot0vivessvi@4ax.com...
| > | On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:30:54 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser
caused
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
| > |
| > | >No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
| > |
| > | You don't have the "right" to prevent it.
| >
| > Sorry, Frank.
| >
| > A whole bunch of elected people as well as law enforcement folks and
Judges
| > think I do.
|
| BZZZT! Wrong! Thanks for playing, Ravage.
|
| The law enforcement folks and judges have granted you NO rights. They
| have granted you, from the people to the state, the power to enforce the
| laws, no matter how wrong-headed the laws are.
And the Judges interpret the laws and the police enforce them.
There is no wispy, altruistic, "truth" out there Brian.
It is whatever the Courts decide it is.
| Get it straight. The people have all the rights. The states have only
| the powers and authorities that the people have granted to them.
Then run on up to the front steps of the local police department and spark
up a doob, Brian.
Then tell the police officer he has no authority to arrest you because
you've decided to relieve him of that authority today.
Good luck.
Oh - and by the way - I would definately suggest you *not* try this stunt
once you get relocated to that mecca of enlightenment, Mexico.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 03:12:24 PM

Ravage wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:MrqdnUTU8ZjyTWbcRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:_5QKd.4232$G31.3926@okepread05...
| >I don't impose laws, Scout - and neither do you.
| >
| > We as a society do.
|
| Then 'WE' need to make sure we don't allow such laws to be enacted,

nor

call
| for such laws to be enacted, and oppose it when such laws are

proposed.

|
| You can push it off on "society" but that's just ignoring the

results of

| individual actions that cummulativly result in such a mess.

You're making the assumption, Scout that yours is the only "right"

opinion.

The people who enact such laws feel theirs are just as valid as yours

- and

have gotten their representatives to see things their way.

"Those" people and their opinions are just as valid as yours.

It's not their opinions people have issues with. As it goes, "Opinions
are like assholes and we all got one." It's when they impose their
beliefs on me when I do take issue. Do you believe Christianity should
be the State religion because the majority says so?

|
| > And in any group of people, there are goping to be some who are

happy

with
| > the rules and some who are not. It is the nature of human

dynamics. So

| > whose side should win?
|
| Those who aren't seeking to infringe upon the rights of others

without

| cause.

No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.

Just like nobody has the right to free speech when the government uses
rule of force.
Our government is quite similar to a street gang demanding tribute from
people on it's turf.
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 03:25:42 PM

<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107033143.993851.168380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > news:MrqdnUTU8ZjyTWbcRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:_5QKd.4232$G31.3926@okepread05...
| > | >I don't impose laws, Scout - and neither do you.
| > | >
| > | > We as a society do.
| > |
| > | Then 'WE' need to make sure we don't allow such laws to be enacted,
| nor
| > call
| > | for such laws to be enacted, and oppose it when such laws are
| proposed.
| > |
| > | You can push it off on "society" but that's just ignoring the
| results of
| > | individual actions that cummulativly result in such a mess.
| >
| > You're making the assumption, Scout that yours is the only "right"
| opinion.
| > The people who enact such laws feel theirs are just as valid as yours
| - and
| > have gotten their representatives to see things their way.
| >
| > "Those" people and their opinions are just as valid as yours.
| >
|
| It's not their opinions people have issues with. As it goes, "Opinions
| are like assholes and we all got one." It's when they impose their
| beliefs on me when I do take issue. Do you believe Christianity should
| be the State religion because the majority says so?
Do you believe mind altering drugs should be legal simply because a minority
wants them to be?
|
| > |
| > | > And in any group of people, there are goping to be some who are
| happy
| > with
| > | > the rules and some who are not. It is the nature of human
| dynamics. So
| > | > whose side should win?
| > |
| > | Those who aren't seeking to infringe upon the rights of others
| without
| > | cause.
| >
| > No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
| >
|
| Just like nobody has the right to free speech when the government uses
| rule of force.
|
| Our government is quite similar to a street gang demanding tribute from
| people on it's turf.
|
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 05:33:10 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sbTKd.4250$G31.4239@okepread05...

<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107033143.993851.168380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > news:MrqdnUTU8ZjyTWbcRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:_5QKd.4232$G31.3926@okepread05...
| > | >I don't impose laws, Scout - and neither do you.
| > | >
| > | > We as a society do.
| > |
| > | Then 'WE' need to make sure we don't allow such laws to be enacted,
| nor
| > call
| > | for such laws to be enacted, and oppose it when such laws are
| proposed.
| > |
| > | You can push it off on "society" but that's just ignoring the
| results of
| > | individual actions that cummulativly result in such a mess.
| >
| > You're making the assumption, Scout that yours is the only "right"
| opinion.
| > The people who enact such laws feel theirs are just as valid as yours
| - and
| > have gotten their representatives to see things their way.
| >
| > "Those" people and their opinions are just as valid as yours.
| >
|
| It's not their opinions people have issues with. As it goes, "Opinions
| are like assholes and we all got one." It's when they impose their
| beliefs on me when I do take issue. Do you believe Christianity should
| be the State religion because the majority says so?

Do you believe mind altering drugs should be legal simply because a
minority
wants them to be?

Yes, they should. Because those drugs only impact those that take them.
Drinking isn't a problem, but when they drive drunk and endanger people,
then the law can take exception with their actions. Same should be the case
with drugs. Wack yourself out as much as you like, but harm or pose a
reasonable immediate harm to others, and you go to jail. So tell me, who
exactly is the victim of my having these mind altering drugs. Do be specific
and explicite and tell me exactly who the victim is and what harm was done
to them against their will.

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 06:56:31 AM

Scout wrote:

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sbTKd.4250$G31.4239@okepread05...

<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107033143.993851.168380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

enacted,

| nor
| > call
| > | for such laws to be enacted, and oppose it when such laws are
| proposed.
| > |
| > | You can push it off on "society" but that's just ignoring the
| results of
| > | individual actions that cummulativly result in such a mess.
| >
| > You're making the assumption, Scout that yours is the only

"right"

| opinion.
| > The people who enact such laws feel theirs are just as valid as

yours

| - and
| > have gotten their representatives to see things their way.
| >
| > "Those" people and their opinions are just as valid as yours.
| >
|
| It's not their opinions people have issues with. As it goes,

"Opinions

| are like assholes and we all got one." It's when they impose

their

| beliefs on me when I do take issue. Do you believe Christianity

should

| be the State religion because the majority says so?

Do you believe mind altering drugs should be legal simply because a
minority
wants them to be?

Yes, they should. Because those drugs only impact those that take

them.

Drinking isn't a problem, but when they drive drunk and endanger

people,

then the law can take exception with their actions. Same should be

the case

with drugs. Wack yourself out as much as you like, but harm or pose a
reasonable immediate harm to others, and you go to jail. So tell me,

who

exactly is the victim of my having these mind altering drugs. Do be

specific

and explicite and tell me exactly who the victim is and what harm was

done

to them against their will.

"Society."

|
| > |
| > | > And in any group of people, there are goping to be some who

are

others

| without
| > | cause.
| >
| > No one has the "right" to do drugs, Scout.
| >
|
| Just like nobody has the right to free speech when the government

uses

| rule of force.
|
| Our government is quite similar to a street gang demanding

tribute from

| people on it's turf.
|

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 08:17:08 AM

<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107089791.695882.306090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Scout wrote:

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sbTKd.4250$G31.4239@okepread05...

<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107033143.993851.168380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

enacted,

"right"

| opinion.
| > The people who enact such laws feel theirs are just as valid as

yours

"Opinions

| are like assholes and we all got one." It's when they impose

their

| beliefs on me when I do take issue. Do you believe Christianity

should

| be the State religion because the majority says so?

Do you believe mind altering drugs should be legal simply because a

minority
wants them to be?

Yes, they should. Because those drugs only impact those that take

them.

Drinking isn't a problem, but when they drive drunk and endanger

people,

then the law can take exception with their actions. Same should be

the case

with drugs. Wack yourself out as much as you like, but harm or pose a

reasonable immediate harm to others, and you go to jail. So tell me,

who

exactly is the victim of my having these mind altering drugs. Do be

specific

and explicite and tell me exactly who the victim is and what harm was

done

to them against their will.

"Society."

And how is "society" the victim?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	31 Jan 2005 07:59:40 AM

Scout wrote:

<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107089791.695882.306090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Scout wrote:

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sbTKd.4250$G31.4239@okepread05...

<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107033143.993851.168380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

enacted,

| nor
| > call
| > | for such laws to be enacted, and oppose it when such laws

are

| proposed.
| > |
| > | You can push it off on "society" but that's just ignoring

the

| results of
| > | individual actions that cummulativly result in such a

mess.

| >
| > You're making the assumption, Scout that yours is the only

"right"

| opinion.
| > The people who enact such laws feel theirs are just as valid

yours

| - and
| > have gotten their representatives to see things their way.
| >
| > "Those" people and their opinions are just as valid as

yours.

| >
|
| It's not their opinions people have issues with. As it goes,

"Opinions

| are like assholes and we all got one." It's when they impose

their

| beliefs on me when I do take issue. Do you believe

Christianity

should

| be the State religion because the majority says so?

Do you believe mind altering drugs should be legal simply

because a

minority
wants them to be?

Yes, they should. Because those drugs only impact those that take

them.

Drinking isn't a problem, but when they drive drunk and endanger

people,

then the law can take exception with their actions. Same should be

the case

with drugs. Wack yourself out as much as you like, but harm or

pose a

reasonable immediate harm to others, and you go to jail. So tell

me,

who

exactly is the victim of my having these mind altering drugs. Do

specific

and explicite and tell me exactly who the victim is and what harm

was

done

to them against their will.

"Society."

And how is "society" the victim?

I dunno. I'm not one of the idiots who thinks this "drug war" is valid
for anything more than giving government power where it shouldn't. I
was just offering a possible "victim."
.

Page 19 of 26