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 7 of 26

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

19
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 

25
 

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: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 09:32:49 AM
| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are correct, and
| those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
|
| I will simply note that I have established that I do have the right to
| ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO authority to regulate
| which drugs I chose to use.
And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
Enjoy your stay in prison. Don't drop your soap.
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 09:41:09 AM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...

| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are correct, and
| those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
|
| I will simply note that I have established that I do have the right to
| ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO authority to
regulate
| which drugs I chose to use.

And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.

The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are the supreme law of
the land?
However, just because such tyranny is accepted by SCOTUS doesn't mean it
isn't tyranny.
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 10:11:11 AM
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are correct, and
| > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > |
| > | I will simply note that I have established that I do have the right to
| > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO authority to
| > regulate
| > | which drugs I chose to use.
| >
| > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
|
| The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are the supreme law
of
| the land?
Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of arrogance before in
my life!
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you - unless
you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
|
| However, just because such tyranny is accepted by SCOTUS doesn't mean it
| isn't tyranny.
And just because you claim laws are unjust does not make them so.
|
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 12:24:32 PM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are correct,
and
| > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > |
| > | I will simply note that I have established that I do have the right
to
| > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO authority to
| > regulate
| > | which drugs I chose to use.
| >
| > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
|
| The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are the supreme
law
of
| the land?

Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of arrogance before
in
my life!

Then you clearly don't get out much

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you - unless
you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.

Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme
Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone able to read.

|
| However, just because such tyranny is accepted by SCOTUS doesn't mean it
| isn't tyranny.

And just because you claim laws are unjust does not make them so.

And likewise just because you claim they are just doesn't make them so. I
can show under the Constitution where such laws are not permitted. As the
supreme law of the law unless you can find something that allows such laws
(such as the Amendment that allowed prohibition) then it can be said those
laws are unjust.
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 06:33:15 PM
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:KZCdnYHNybj4u2DcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| > | >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are correct,
| > and
| > | > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > | > |
| > | > | I will simply note that I have established that I do have the
right
| > to
| > | > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO authority to
| > | > regulate
| > | > | which drugs I chose to use.
| > | >
| > | > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
| > |
| > | The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are the supreme
| > law
| > of
| > | the land?
| >
| > Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of arrogance before
| > in
| > my life!
|
| Then you clearly don't get out much
|
| > The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you - unless
| > you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
|
| Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution as the
Supreme
| Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone able to
read.
<ahem>
Well you'll have to forgive us if the rest of us don't snap to attention at
your beck and call. Maybe you'd feel more important if we got you some of
those military style shoulder boards Sadaam and Momar are so fond of.
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 08:16:48 PM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h1fLd.4356$G31.2130@okepread05...


"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:KZCdnYHNybj4u2DcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| > | >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are
correct,
| > and
| > | > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > | > |
| > | > | I will simply note that I have established that I do have the
right
| > to
| > | > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO authority
to
| > | > regulate
| > | > | which drugs I chose to use.
| > | >
| > | > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
| > |
| > | The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are the
supreme
| > law
| > of
| > | the land?
| >
| > Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of arrogance
before
| > in
| > my life!
|
| Then you clearly don't get out much
|
| > The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you - unless
| > you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
|
| Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution as the
Supreme
| Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone able to
read.

<ahem>

Well you'll have to forgive us if the rest of us don't snap to attention
at
your beck and call. Maybe you'd feel more important if we got you some of
those military style shoulder boards Sadaam and Momar are so fond of.

Your irrelevant response doesn't refute what I stated. No one is asking for
any of these things you stated, and when I suggested that the language of
the Constitution speaks for itself to anyone with the capability of reading
and you turned rather hostile. What's the matter? You think the
Constitution is something that needs to be filtered through the anointed
because the common man just doesn't understand the language?
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 08:28:05 PM
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:NuGdnUJMVM-LCGDcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:h1fLd.4356$G31.2130@okepread05...
| >
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > news:KZCdnYHNybj4u2DcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...
| > | > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | > | news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| > | > | >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are
| > correct,
| > | > and
| > | > | > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I will simply note that I have established that I do have the
| > right
| > | > to
| > | > | > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO authority
| > to
| > | > | > regulate
| > | > | > | which drugs I chose to use.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
| > | > |
| > | > | The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are the
| > supreme
| > | > law
| > | > of
| > | > | the land?
| > | >
| > | > Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of arrogance
| > before
| > | > in
| > | > my life!
| > |
| > | Then you clearly don't get out much
| > |
| > | > The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you -
unless
| > | > you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
| > |
| > | Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution as the
| > Supreme
| > | Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone able to
| > read.
| >
| > <ahem>
| >
| > Well you'll have to forgive us if the rest of us don't snap to attention
| > at
| > your beck and call. Maybe you'd feel more important if we got you some
of
| > those military style shoulder boards Sadaam and Momar are so fond of.
|
| Your irrelevant response doesn't refute what I stated. No one is asking
for
| any of these things you stated, and when I suggested that the language of
| the Constitution speaks for itself to anyone with the capability of
reading
| and you turned rather hostile. What's the matter? You think the
| Constitution is something that needs to be filtered through the anointed
| because the common man just doesn't understand the language?
I was placating you, Scout, like I would any child.
You don't have the right to interpret the Constitution - or any law for that
matter.
You aren't a Judge.
You aren't even a licensed attorney.
You may as well claim you have the credentials to interpret Canon Law as
well.
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 31 Jan 2005 04:37:20 AM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:XIgLd.4369$G31.1245@okepread05...


"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:NuGdnUJMVM-LCGDcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:h1fLd.4356$G31.2130@okepread05...
| >
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > news:KZCdnYHNybj4u2DcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...
| > | > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
message
| > | > news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | > | news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| > | > | >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are
| > correct,
| > | > and
| > | > | > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I will simply note that I have established that I do have
the
| > right
| > | > to
| > | > | > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO
authority
| > to
| > | > | > regulate
| > | > | > | which drugs I chose to use.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
| > | > |
| > | > | The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are the
| > supreme
| > | > law
| > | > of
| > | > | the land?
| > | >
| > | > Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of arrogance
| > before
| > | > in
| > | > my life!
| > |
| > | Then you clearly don't get out much
| > |
| > | > The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you -
unless
| > | > you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
| > |
| > | Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution as the
| > Supreme
| > | Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone able
to
| > read.
| >
| > <ahem>
| >
| > Well you'll have to forgive us if the rest of us don't snap to
attention
| > at
| > your beck and call. Maybe you'd feel more important if we got you
some
of
| > those military style shoulder boards Sadaam and Momar are so fond of.
|
| Your irrelevant response doesn't refute what I stated. No one is asking
for
| any of these things you stated, and when I suggested that the language
of
| the Constitution speaks for itself to anyone with the capability of
reading
| and you turned rather hostile. What's the matter? You think the
| Constitution is something that needs to be filtered through the anointed
| because the common man just doesn't understand the language?

I was placating you, Scout, like I would any child.

You don't have the right to interpret the Constitution - or any law for
that
matter.

You aren't a Judge.

You aren't even a licensed attorney.

You may as well claim you have the credentials to interpret Canon Law as
well.

There you have it folks. The law is only for the anointed, and not something
for the common man.
So tell me just what words in the law don't you understand?
Is that why you need someone to read it to you?
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 31 Jan 2005 06:27:06 AM
<kerplonk>
I guess I'm just not into explaining reality to kids....
.
User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 01 Feb 2005 04:44:41 AM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wupLd.6042$G31.3327@okepread05...

<kerplonk>

I guess I'm just not into explaining reality to kids....

Yes, and what is the reality he doesn't want to explain?
******restore
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:U-SdnTwgq-b6l2PcRVn-vA@adelphia.com...


"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:XIgLd.4369$G31.1245@okepread05...

I was placating you, Scout, like I would any child.

You don't have the right to interpret the Constitution - or any law for
that
matter.

You aren't a Judge.

You aren't even a licensed attorney.

You may as well claim you have the credentials to interpret Canon Law as
well.


There you have it folks. The law is only for the anointed, and not
something
for the common man.

So tell me just what words in the law don't you understand?

Is that why you need someone to read it to you?

****end
Seems ravage is the one that can't deal with reality, but then I already
suspected that.
.



User: ""

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 31 Jan 2005 09:02:36 AM
Ravage wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:NuGdnUJMVM-LCGDcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:h1fLd.4356$G31.2130@okepread05...
| >
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > news:KZCdnYHNybj4u2DcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...
| > | > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > | > news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | > | news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| > | > | >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights

are

| > correct,
| > | > and
| > | > | > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I will simply note that I have established that I do

have the

| > right
| > | > to
| > | > | > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO

authority

| > to
| > | > | > regulate
| > | > | > | which drugs I chose to use.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
| > | > |
| > | > | The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are

the

| > supreme
| > | > law
| > | > of
| > | > | the land?
| > | >
| > | > Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of

arrogance

| > before
| > | > in
| > | > my life!
| > |
| > | Then you clearly don't get out much
| > |
| > | > The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you

-

unless
| > | > you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
| > |
| > | Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution

as the

| > Supreme
| > | Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone

able to

| > read.
| >
| > <ahem>
| >
| > Well you'll have to forgive us if the rest of us don't snap to

attention

| > at
| > your beck and call. Maybe you'd feel more important if we got

you some

of
| > those military style shoulder boards Sadaam and Momar are so fond

of.

|
| Your irrelevant response doesn't refute what I stated. No one is

asking

for
| any of these things you stated, and when I suggested that the

language of

| the Constitution speaks for itself to anyone with the capability of
reading
| and you turned rather hostile. What's the matter? You think the
| Constitution is something that needs to be filtered through the

anointed

| because the common man just doesn't understand the language?

I was placating you, Scout, like I would any child.

You don't have the right to interpret the Constitution - or any law

for that

matter.

Bold statement with no substance. If he can read and has a brain, he
has a right to analyze anything written he so wishes. Are you really
that scared of people having their own opinions?

You aren't a Judge.

You aren't even a licensed attorney.

That's why the US Constitution was written in plain English. It was
written so *anybody* who can read would be able to understand it. The
Founding Fathers rejected the idea of making the law so complex that
only an antideluvian locked up in an ivory tower could discern it's
meaning.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 31 Jan 2005 10:05:28 AM
Ravage wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:NuGdnUJMVM-LCGDcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:h1fLd.4356$G31.2130@okepread05...
| >
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > news:KZCdnYHNybj4u2DcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...
| > | > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > | > news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | > | news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| > | > | >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights

are

| > correct,
| > | > and
| > | > | > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I will simply note that I have established that I do

have the

| > right
| > | > to
| > | > | > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO

authority

| > to
| > | > | > regulate
| > | > | > | which drugs I chose to use.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
| > | > |
| > | > | The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are

the

| > supreme
| > | > law
| > | > of
| > | > | the land?
| > | >
| > | > Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of

arrogance

| > before
| > | > in
| > | > my life!
| > |
| > | Then you clearly don't get out much
| > |
| > | > The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you

-

unless
| > | > you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
| > |
| > | Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution

as the

| > Supreme
| > | Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone

able to

| > read.
| >
| > <ahem>
| >
| > Well you'll have to forgive us if the rest of us don't snap to

attention

| > at
| > your beck and call. Maybe you'd feel more important if we got

you some

of
| > those military style shoulder boards Sadaam and Momar are so fond

of.

|
| Your irrelevant response doesn't refute what I stated. No one is

asking

for
| any of these things you stated, and when I suggested that the

language of

| the Constitution speaks for itself to anyone with the capability of
reading
| and you turned rather hostile. What's the matter? You think the
| Constitution is something that needs to be filtered through the

anointed

| because the common man just doesn't understand the language?

I was placating you, Scout, like I would any child.

You don't have the right to interpret the Constitution - or any law

for that

matter.

Bold statement with no substance. If he can read and has a brain, he
has a right to analyze anything written he so wishes. Are you really
that scared of people having their own opinions?

You aren't a Judge.

You aren't even a licensed attorney.

That's why the US Constitution was written in plain English. It was
written so *anybody* who can read would be able to understand it. The
Founding Fathers rejected the idea of making the law so complex that
only an antideluvian locked up in an ivory tower could discern it's
meaning.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 31 Jan 2005 09:06:08 AM
Ravage wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:NuGdnUJMVM-LCGDcRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:h1fLd.4356$G31.2130@okepread05...
| >
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > news:KZCdnYHNybj4u2DcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...
| > | > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > | > news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | > | news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| > | > | >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights

are

| > correct,
| > | > and
| > | > | > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I will simply note that I have established that I do

have the

| > right
| > | > to
| > | > | > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO

authority

| > to
| > | > | > regulate
| > | > | > | which drugs I chose to use.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
| > | > |
| > | > | The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are

the

| > supreme
| > | > law
| > | > of
| > | > | the land?
| > | >
| > | > Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of

arrogance

| > before
| > | > in
| > | > my life!
| > |
| > | Then you clearly don't get out much
| > |
| > | > The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you

-

unless
| > | > you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
| > |
| > | Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution

as the

| > Supreme
| > | Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone

able to

| > read.
| >
| > <ahem>
| >
| > Well you'll have to forgive us if the rest of us don't snap to

attention

| > at
| > your beck and call. Maybe you'd feel more important if we got

you some

of
| > those military style shoulder boards Sadaam and Momar are so fond

of.

|
| Your irrelevant response doesn't refute what I stated. No one is

asking

for
| any of these things you stated, and when I suggested that the

language of

| the Constitution speaks for itself to anyone with the capability of
reading
| and you turned rather hostile. What's the matter? You think the
| Constitution is something that needs to be filtered through the

anointed

| because the common man just doesn't understand the language?

I was placating you, Scout, like I would any child.

You don't have the right to interpret the Constitution - or any law

for that

matter.

You aren't a Judge.

You aren't even a licensed attorney.

Thing is, the US Constitution was put into plain English for that exact
reason. It was written so *anybody* could understand it. The Founding
Fathers rejected the idea of making the law so complex that only an
antideluvian in an ivory tower can discern it's meaning.
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 31 Jan 2005 08:54:22 AM
Scout wrote:

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h1fLd.4356$G31.2130@okepread05...


"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:KZCdnYHNybj4u2DcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| > | >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are
correct,
| > and
| > | > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > | > |
| > | > | I will simply note that I have established that I do have

the

right
| > to
| > | > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO

authority

to
| > | > regulate
| > | > | which drugs I chose to use.
| > | >
| > | > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
| > |
| > | The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are the
supreme
| > law
| > of
| > | the land?
| >
| > Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of

arrogance

before
| > in
| > my life!
|
| Then you clearly don't get out much
|
| > The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you -

unless

| > you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
|
| Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution as

the

Supreme
| Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone

able to

read.

<ahem>

Well you'll have to forgive us if the rest of us don't snap to

attention

at
your beck and call. Maybe you'd feel more important if we got you

some of

those military style shoulder boards Sadaam and Momar are so fond

of.


Your irrelevant response doesn't refute what I stated. No one is

asking for

any of these things you stated, and when I suggested that the

language of

the Constitution speaks for itself to anyone with the capability of

reading

and you turned rather hostile. What's the matter? You think the
Constitution is something that needs to be filtered through the

anointed

because the common man just doesn't understand the language?

Basically, the plain-English words of the USC has to be interpreted by
the annoited if they are to break it. Don't get it, do you? No
government can live up to it's principles long if it's to do the job it
does: using people up like resources. Our lives mean nothing to the
State outside of what we can do for it.
What is quite curious (and ironic) about Ravage's ideas is that he's
against welfare but doesn't hate the idea of mass incarceration.
Putting people in prisons *is* a form of welfare. It costs the
taxpayers billions yearly to pay for their living expenses. And if
it's going to incarcerate people en masse, it better damn well pay it.
Either get rid of mass incarceration (which any friend of liberty does)
or stop bitching about welfare.
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 31 Jan 2005 08:42:22 AM
Ravage wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:KZCdnYHNybj4u2DcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
|
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| news:BG7Ld.4309$G31.1250@okepread05...
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in

message

| > news:PISdnSn0p7KHnWDcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:C67Ld.4307$G31.3101@okepread05...
| > | >| Yep, and the ones that think the BOR recognizes rights are

correct,

| > and
| > | > | those that assert the BOR grants rights are wrong.
| > | > |
| > | > | I will simply note that I have established that I do have

the

right
| > to
| > | > | ingest drugs, and that the federal government has NO

authority to

| > | > regulate
| > | > | which drugs I chose to use.
| > | >
| > | > And the entire Supreme Court says you're wrong, Scout.
| > |
| > | The Constitution says I'm not. Now which one of these are the

supreme

| > law
| > of
| > | the land?
| >
| > Wow! I don't think I've ever encountered this level of arrogance

before

| > in
| > my life!
|
| Then you clearly don't get out much
|
| > The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Scout, not you -

unless

| > you're really Sandra Day O'Conner in drag.
|
| Sorry, but I have as much right to interpret the Constitution as

the

Supreme
| Court does. The language of the Constitution speaks to anyone able

to

read.

<ahem>

Well you'll have to forgive us if the rest of us don't snap to

attention at

your beck and call. Maybe you'd feel more important if we got you

some of

those military style shoulder boards Sadaam and Momar are so fond of.

Are you a troller? If anything, Libertarians are against the military
mindset so appealing it to them is, if anything, nothing short of
moronic.
If you're serious, your argument has disintegrated.
.






User: "Bama Brian"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 11:49:12 AM
Ravage wrote:

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:h5YKd.3452$Ix.1488@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > news:mpCdnY1Y8IFxvWHcRVn-qg@adelphia.com...
| > |
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | news:r8TKd.4248$G31.1801@okepread05...
| > | >
| > | > "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.
| > |
| > | Ok, I'll accept this revisionism of your statement.
| >
| > To hell with revision. The law isn't ignored - not by the majority nor
by
| > law enforcement. Quit trying to squirm out.
| >
| > | However, I know of laws
| > | that are regularly ignored by the general population because they are
| > | nonsense. Other laws are regularly ignored because people find them
too
| > | limiting, objectionable, or offensive.
| >
| > Well drug laws apparently don't fall into any of those categories.
| >
| > |
| > | After all, the whole point of this was the drug laws, and if those
aren't
| > an
| > | example of laws regularly ignored by the general population....then
why
| > are
| > | we having such a problem with illegal drugs?????
| >
| > Who knows? I'm not an expert on why anyone would want to shove ***** in
| > their veins. But I suspect it has something to do with people who have
| > become addicted to something. Think that might have something to do
with
| > why it is illegal?
| >
| > |
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | >> 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?
| > |
| > | I said it, didn't I?
| >
| > Then maybe you should spend less time in Usenet fantasy land and more
time
| > with people who have done drugs, let the drug cost them everything in
life,
| > and will tell you the horror isn't make believe.
| >
| > "Drug use" is more than a couple of kids sitting around smoking a joint,
| > Scout.
| >
| > |
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > "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.
| > |
| > | Amendment IX
| > |
| > | The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
| > | construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
| >
| > That has nothing to do with whether or not the States have the right to
make
| > drugs illegal, Scout. I suggest you stop buying all the idiotic hype
you've
| > been reading on the pro-druggie blogs.
| >
| > |
| > |
| > | > 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.
| > |
| > | Free hint: The Constitution did not establish rights.
| >
| > Right back at ya:
| > The "Bill of Rights" are amendments to the Constitution of the United
States
| > of America - and therefore, part of the Constitution.
| >
| > You like your crow pie hot or cold?
|
| You like black feathers, Ravage?
|
| The Bill of Rights enumerates things that the government must NOT do to
| the citizens. No constitution in this country grants rights; they only
| recognize them.

Typical doublespeak. "Grant", "Recognize" - in terms of this discussion
mean precisely the same thing. Some prefer to to think of the Bill as
recognizing those rights which are perceived an inalienable - others prefer
to think the Bill of Rights formally recognizes or "grants" the rights that
all citizens of the nation are entitled to.

What's the meaning of 'is', Brian?

Sorry, Ravage, but I don't split hairs with the Constitution. Bills of
Rights in the various federal and state constitutions are quite clear in
that they enumerate inalienable rights which the governments must not
touch. They do NOT grant the rights; the rights are inalienable in the
citizens and are God-given. Obviously you didn't read the Declaration
of Independence extract I posted earlier - or if you did, you disagree
with it.
It is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We
do not have a king who grants his subjects certain freedoms.
That you would say such a thing tells me something about you; that you'd
be happier in a totalitarian regime where the citizens do what they're
told, and when they're told. And certainly you'd be one of the
"tellers", wouldn't you?
Do some study, Ravage. You'd be surprised at what schools don't teach,
even in civics or history classes.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 12:02:59 PM
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:s69Ld.4574$Ix.104@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
| > news:h5YKd.3452$Ix.1488@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:mpCdnY1Y8IFxvWHcRVn-qg@adelphia.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | > | news:r8TKd.4248$G31.1801@okepread05...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
message
| > | > | > news:dvGdnR6EmeWUeWbcRVn-2w@adelphia.com...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:9iRKd.4238$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.
| > | > |
| > | > | Ok, I'll accept this revisionism of your statement.
| > | >
| > | > To hell with revision. The law isn't ignored - not by the majority
nor
| > by
| > | > law enforcement. Quit trying to squirm out.
| > | >
| > | > | However, I know of laws
| > | > | that are regularly ignored by the general population because they
are
| > | > | nonsense. Other laws are regularly ignored because people find
them
| > too
| > | > | limiting, objectionable, or offensive.
| > | >
| > | > Well drug laws apparently don't fall into any of those categories.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | After all, the whole point of this was the drug laws, and if those
| > aren't
| > | > an
| > | > | example of laws regularly ignored by the general
population....then
| > why
| > | > are
| > | > | we having such a problem with illegal drugs?????
| > | >
| > | > Who knows? I'm not an expert on why anyone would want to shove *****
in
| > | > their veins. But I suspect it has something to do with people who
have
| > | > become addicted to something. Think that might have something to do
| > with
| > | > why it is illegal?
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >> 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?
| > | > |
| > | > | I said it, didn't I?
| > | >
| > | > Then maybe you should spend less time in Usenet fantasy land and
more
| > time
| > | > with people who have done drugs, let the drug cost them everything
in
| > life,
| > | > and will tell you the horror isn't make believe.
| > | >
| > | > "Drug use" is more than a couple of kids sitting around smoking a
joint,
| > | > Scout.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > "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.
| > | > |
| > | > | Amendment IX
| > | > |
| > | > | The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be
| > | > | construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
| > | >
| > | > That has nothing to do with whether or not the States have the right
to
| > make
| > | > drugs illegal, Scout. I suggest you stop buying all the idiotic
hype
| > you've
| > | > been reading on the pro-druggie blogs.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > 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.
| > | > |
| > | > | Free hint: The Constitution did not establish rights.
| > | >
| > | > Right back at ya:
| > | > The "Bill of Rights" are amendments to the Constitution of the
United
| > States
| > | > of America - and therefore, part of the Constitution.
| > | >
| > | > You like your crow pie hot or cold?
| > |
| > | You like black feathers, Ravage?
| > |
| > | The Bill of Rights enumerates things that the government must NOT do
to
| > | the citizens. No constitution in this country grants rights; they
only
| > | recognize them.
| >
| > Typical doublespeak. "Grant", "Recognize" - in terms of this discussion
| > mean precisely the same thing. Some prefer to to think of the Bill as
| > recognizing those rights which are perceived an inalienable - others
prefer
| > to think the Bill of Rights formally recognizes or "grants" the rights
that
| > all citizens of the nation are entitled to.
| >
| > What's the meaning of 'is', Brian?
|
| Sorry, Ravage, but I don't split hairs with the Constitution. Bills of
| Rights in the various federal and state constitutions are quite clear in
| that they enumerate inalienable rights which the governments must not
| touch. They do NOT grant the rights; the rights are inalienable in the
| citizens and are God-given. Obviously you didn't read the Declaration
| of Independence extract I posted earlier - or if you did, you disagree
| with it.
If they are inalienable in the citizens and are God given, then they would
not be open to interpretation and would be true everywhere.
Neither case is true.
You are trying to mix the Bill of Rights with the Declaration of
Independance - two entirely seperate documents.
God does not give Man the Right to bear arms.
God did not give some Men the right to own other Men.
And God did not give anyone the Right to shoot dope.
|
| It is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We
| do not have a king who grants his subjects certain freedoms.
And the minority is stuck with the laws passed, ratified, and interpreted by
the majority.
|
| That you would say such a thing tells me something about you; that you'd
| be happier in a totalitarian regime where the citizens do what they're
| told, and when they're told. And certainly you'd be one of the
| "tellers", wouldn't you?
I was wondering when this would degenerate into name calling. I'm just
surprised it took this long.
|
| Do some study, Ravage. You'd be surprised at what schools don't teach,
| even in civics or history classes.
If I study will that give me the right to interpret the laws and rules in
any way I find convenient, rather than what the true intent is/was?
.
User: "Chas"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 06:44:45 PM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote

If they are inalienable in the citizens and are God given, then they would
not be open to interpretation and would be true everywhere.

They're not open to interpretation; they are true everywhere; getting
thieves, thugs, despots and their toadies to recognize them as a moral
imperative generally takes force of arms.
Maintaining them is by common assent, and the only necessity for arms is
against an assault on that contract by another moral imbecile.
Remember in any question, the default position is 'Liberty'. The opposition
to Liberty is the 'compelling interest of the State', and that should be a
very high bar to hurdle if one cares to restrict the Liberty of millions
because of the Libertinage of the few.

You are trying to mix the Bill of Rights with the Declaration of
Independance - two entirely seperate documents.

Ummm; not quite.
The DoI is the statement of standing, capacity, judge, venue and model of
law.
It grants charter to us to form a government by Constitution.
The BoR simply sets down some of the implications of those Rights soas not
to give government an out for arrogating to itself the authority to infringe
upon them.

God does not give Man the Right to bear arms.

Sure He Did; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Inherent in 'Life' is the means to defend it; as with 'Liberty', and in aid
of the PoH.

God did not give some Men the right to own other Men.

So 'heredity', as a justification for slavery was abolished- you'll notice
that they retained it as punishment for crimes.

And God did not give anyone the Right to shoot dope.

Sure He Did- that's what 'Liberty' and the 'Pursuit of Happiness' implies;
the option of going to Hell in a Handbasket of Your Own Construction.
If a woman can kill a pregnancy, why can't the sperminator shoot dope with
his homosexual domestic partner in their polyamorous union while he watches?
There's enough Choice to go around, Officer.

And the minority is stuck with the laws passed, ratified, and interpreted
by
the majority.

Actually, they're encouraged to gather together, reach a free consensus by
debate and petition the Government for redress of grievance-
that's right at the beginning of the Document, you can't miss it.
Chas
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 07:03:02 PM
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jt6dnQh6Jtvm4mDcRVn-hg@comcast.com...
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote
| > If they are inalienable in the citizens and are God given, then they
would
| > not be open to interpretation and would be true everywhere.
|
| They're not open to interpretation; they are true everywhere
Great! I'll let the Supreme Court know we won't be needing the third branch
of Government anymore.
You know what, Chas?
You guys are either uneducated, or just plain naive if you really believe
all your tripe.
.
User: "Chas"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 07:12:10 PM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote

You guys are either uneducated, or just plain naive if you really believe
all your tripe.

Always interesting when the toadies defend their acquiescence to oppression
by claiming some 'sophistication', and attacking idealism as 'naive'.
Did you ever take the Service Oath? 'to protect and defend the Constitution
against all enemies foreign and domestic'? Were you ever relieved of that
Oath?
Do you not measure your own conduct against that standard?
Chas
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 08:31:37 PM
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oNSdnRfddax0GGDcRVn-vw@comcast.com...
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote
| > You guys are either uneducated, or just plain naive if you really
believe
| > all your tripe.
|
| Always interesting when the toadies defend their acquiescence to
oppression
| by claiming some 'sophistication', and attacking idealism as 'naive'.
| Did you ever take the Service Oath? 'to protect and defend the
Constitution
| against all enemies foreign and domestic'? Were you ever relieved of that
| Oath?
| Do you not measure your own conduct against that standard?
I don't believe that enforcing the laws of the land - as they are written by
lawmakers, signed by the executive branch, and interpreted by the Judicial
is violating anyone's Constitutional Rights, Chas.
Especially when were talking about a man's god given right to get fucked up?
Are you kidding me??????????!!!!!!!!????????
I'd hazard a guess to say that I've done one hell of a lot more to protect
people's Constitutional Rights than you ever have, Sport. Believe it.
.
User: "Chas"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 08:51:48 PM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote

I don't believe that enforcing the laws of the land - as they are written
by
lawmakers, signed by the executive branch, and interpreted by the Judicial
is violating anyone's Constitutional Rights, Chas.

More's the pity.
Without men of conscience in the public trust, I fear for the Republic.

I'd hazard a guess to say that I've done one hell of a lot more to protect
people's Constitutional Rights than you ever have, Sport. Believe it.

And more to hazard them as well, I'd wager.
Chas
.
User: "Sam"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 09:01:47 PM
Chas wrote:

More's the pity.
Without men of conscience in the public trust, I fear for the Republic.

the jedi will protect us
--
Sam
.


User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 31 Jan 2005 04:38:40 AM
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fMgLd.4370$G31.2783@okepread05...


"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oNSdnRfddax0GGDcRVn-vw@comcast.com...
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote
| > You guys are either uneducated, or just plain naive if you really
believe
| > all your tripe.
|
| Always interesting when the toadies defend their acquiescence to
oppression
| by claiming some 'sophistication', and attacking idealism as 'naive'.
| Did you ever take the Service Oath? 'to protect and defend the
Constitution
| against all enemies foreign and domestic'? Were you ever relieved of
that
| Oath?
| Do you not measure your own conduct against that standard?

I don't believe that enforcing the laws of the land - as they are written
by
lawmakers, signed by the executive branch, and interpreted by the Judicial
is violating anyone's Constitutional Rights, Chas.

It is when the interpration isn't what was written by the lawmakers.

Especially when were talking about a man's god given right to get fucked
up?

Yep, 9th Amendment.
Further the federal government has no authority to regulate this. 10th
Amendment.
.

User: "Bama Brian"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 30 Jan 2005 11:04:04 PM
Ravage wrote:

"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:oNSdnRfddax0GGDcRVn-vw@comcast.com...
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote
| > You guys are either uneducated, or just plain naive if you really
believe
| > all your tripe.
|
| Always interesting when the toadies defend their acquiescence to
oppression
| by claiming some 'sophistication', and attacking idealism as 'naive'.
| Did you ever take the Service Oath? 'to protect and defend the
Constitution
| against all enemies foreign and domestic'? Were you ever relieved of that
| Oath?
| Do you not measure your own conduct against that standard?

I don't believe that enforcing the laws of the land - as they are written by
lawmakers, signed by the executive branch, and interpreted by the Judicial
is violating anyone's Constitutional Rights, Chas.

Really? And what constitutional law was George Wallace enforcing when
he stood at the door of the school with the Alabama National Guard
behind him and refused entry to black students?
BECAUSE IT'S A LAW DOESN'T MEAN IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL !


Especially when were talking about a man's god given right to get fucked up?

Are you kidding me??????????!!!!!!!!????????

I'd hazard a guess to say that I've done one hell of a lot more to protect
people's Constitutional Rights than you ever have, Sport. Believe it.

You're a cop, right, Ravage? Do cite what you've done "for the rights
of the people".
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
User: "Ravage"

Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? 31 Jan 2005 06:32:05 AM
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8%iLd.5210$Ix.5088@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:oNSdnRfddax0GGDcRVn-vw@comcast.com...
| > | "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote
| > | > You guys are either uneducated, or just plain naive if you really
| > believe
| > | > all your tripe.
| > |
| > | Always interesting when the toadies defend their acquiescence to
| > oppression
| > | by claiming some 'sophistication', and attacking idealism as 'naive'.
| > | Did you ever take the Service Oath? 'to protect and defend the
| > Constitution
| > | against all enemies foreign and domestic'? Were you ever relieved of
that
| > | Oath?
| > | Do you not measure your own conduct against that standard?
| >
| > I don't believe that enforcing the laws of the land - as they are
written by
| > lawmakers, signed by the executive branch, and interpreted by the
Judicial
| > is violating anyone's Constitutional Rights, Chas.
|
| Really? And what constitutional law was George Wallace enforcing when
| he stood at the door of the school with the Alabama National Guard
| behind him and refused entry to black students?
|
| BECAUSE IT'S A LAW DOESN'T MEAN IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL !
IT IS UNTIL A COURT REVIEWS IT AND DETERMINES THAT IT IS NOT!
There's a whole bunch of Mexicans out here where I live that thought a new
law we passed prohibiting anyone from collecting Government sponsored
services unless they could prove their citizenship was unconstitutional.
Several courts reviewed it and guess what?
They decided it is!
So just because a couple og jagoffs decide they don't think something is
constitutional DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!
It must be reviewed by the courts.
| >
| > Especially when were talking about a man's god given right to get fucked
up?
| >
| > Are you kidding me??????????!!!!!!!!????????
| >
| > I'd hazard a guess to say that I've done one hell of a lot more to
protect
| > people's Constitutional Rights than you ever have, Sport. Believe it.
|
| You're a cop, right, Ravage? Do cite what you've done "for the rights
| of the people".
Go to hell, Brian. Tell us what you've done - aside from wasting time on
usenet trying to convince people they have a Constitutional Mandate to smoke
weed.
.
User: