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 8 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: "Chas"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	31 Jan 2005 08:11:14 PM

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

Until your state makes recreational drug use outside alcohol perfectly
legal - and then that law is challenged in the courts (which will,
inevitably happen), you are breaking the law if you do it. You don't have
the authority to interpret the law. You don't have the authority to rule
on
Constitutionality.

Neither is there any onus to abide by an unConstitutional law except for the
intimidation of the force of arms.
The history of jurisprudence is replete with unConstitutional laws
overturned by both judicial action, and legislation, and referendum.
An unConstitutional law has no moral suasion, only threat.

And if you do it, you will suffer the consequences of that act.

Yes; one cannot test the Constitutionality of the Law without standing-
scary stuff indeed, and can take *years* even if one wins.

Period.
End of discussion.

Well; for a moral imbecile in any case.
Others have a more responsible, if not idealistic, view of their civic duty
and obligations.
The arrogation of authority superordinate to our social contract is simply
unacceptable in itself- the subject matter is immaterial. The regulation of
freedoms is a very chancy thing under our agreement with one another, and
unless there is a compelling interest- a very high standard to meet- the
State simply doesn't have any authorities not specifically granted to them
in the Constitution.
End-runs using the Commerce Clause are just as offensive.

I do more each and every day to protect people's rights than you can even
imagine.

Geez; if you wanted to be popular, you should have joined the Fire
Department.
Quit posturing and mount a credible argument-
you're becoming kinda embarrassing.
no offense.
Chas
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	01 Feb 2005 04:53:05 AM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8NALd.6085$G31.4488@okepread05...

True, but so do the people. Just because the Courts say black is white,
doesn't make it so no matter how many times they say it. We can look at the
law and see it says black.
.

User: "Bama Brian"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	01 Feb 2005 12:18:48 PM

Ravage wrote:

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bavLd.5911$Ix.3463@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
| > news:8%iLd.5210$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.
|
| Actually, no. But then you don't know enough about anything but
| enforcing the law to make salient comments. Or maybe you can tell us
| why the 13th Amendment got passed?

The Courts interpret the law and rule on Constitutionality, Brian.

Regardless of what you may choose to think.

The bottom line:
Until your state makes recreational drug use outside alcohol perfectly
legal - and then that law is challenged in the courts (which will,
inevitably happen), you are breaking the law if you do it. You don't have
the authority to interpret the law. You don't have the authority to rule on
Constitutionality.

And if you do it, you will suffer the consequences of that act.

Period.

End of discussion.

|
| > | >
| > | > 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.
| >
| >
| Back pedal noted, Ravage. You're the one who claimed you do a lot to
| protect people's rights. It's obvious, given your attitude, that you do
| little or nothing to protect people's rights. Cuffing and stuffing has
| nothing to do with civil rights.

Let's see how I can put this as simply as possible for you, Brian......

I do more each and every day to protect people's rights than you can even
imagine. And I sure as hell don't do it by sitting on Usenet pretending to
be the all knowing, all powerful Oz with respect to Constitutional Law.

And it certainly would be refreshing if you would refrain as well.

How's that? Simple enough?

Have a nice day.

So don't bother you with facts; your mind is made up?
Awww, Ravage is mad at me! Him gonna tell my mommy about me if I don't
stop talking to him. Is him past time for his nappy?
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	02 Feb 2005 09:17:49 PM

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:cKPLd.6530$Ix.832@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
| > news:bavLd.5911$Ix.3463@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "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.
| > |
| > | Actually, no. But then you don't know enough about anything but
| > | enforcing the law to make salient comments. Or maybe you can tell us
| > | why the 13th Amendment got passed?
| >
| > The Courts interpret the law and rule on Constitutionality, Brian.
| >
| > Regardless of what you may choose to think.
| >
| > The bottom line:
| > Until your state makes recreational drug use outside alcohol perfectly
| > legal - and then that law is challenged in the courts (which will,
| > inevitably happen), you are breaking the law if you do it. You don't
have
| > the authority to interpret the law. You don't have the authority to
rule on
| > Constitutionality.
| >
| > And if you do it, you will suffer the consequences of that act.
| >
| > Period.
| >
| > End of discussion.
| >
| > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > 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.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | Back pedal noted, Ravage. You're the one who claimed you do a lot to
| > | protect people's rights. It's obvious, given your attitude, that you
do
| > | little or nothing to protect people's rights. Cuffing and stuffing
has
| > | nothing to do with civil rights.
| >
| > Let's see how I can put this as simply as possible for you, Brian......
| >
| > I do more each and every day to protect people's rights than you can
even
| > imagine. And I sure as hell don't do it by sitting on Usenet pretending
to
| > be the all knowing, all powerful Oz with respect to Constitutional Law.
| >
| > And it certainly would be refreshing if you would refrain as well.
| >
| > How's that? Simple enough?
| >
| > Have a nice day.
|
| So don't bother you with facts; your mind is made up?
|
| Awww, Ravage is mad at me! Him gonna tell my mommy about me if I don't
| stop talking to him. Is him past time for his nappy?
I'm not mad at all, Brian - however I am disappointed you've stooped to the
same level that the other people on your side of this debate (I have them
kill filed - frankly, I'm not into the whole one-liner debate thing) have
taken.
Can we agree to keep it on the up and up?
It isn't a question of whether my mind is made up, Brian. The facts are
irrefutable. It doesn't matter what you or I personally think. It only
matters how the courts interpret the law.
You can't deny that. You can't get out from under that truth.
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	02 Feb 2005 09:20:40 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:DHgMd.6369$G31.3238@okepread05...

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:cKPLd.6530$Ix.832@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
| > news:bavLd.5911$Ix.3463@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "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.
| > |
| > | Actually, no. But then you don't know enough about anything but
| > | enforcing the law to make salient comments. Or maybe you can tell
us
| > | why the 13th Amendment got passed?
| >
| > The Courts interpret the law and rule on Constitutionality, Brian.
| >
| > Regardless of what you may choose to think.
| >
| > The bottom line:
| > Until your state makes recreational drug use outside alcohol perfectly
| > legal - and then that law is challenged in the courts (which will,
| > inevitably happen), you are breaking the law if you do it. You don't
have
| > the authority to interpret the law. You don't have the authority to
rule on
| > Constitutionality.
| >
| > And if you do it, you will suffer the consequences of that act.
| >
| > Period.
| >
| > End of discussion.
| >
| > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > 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.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | Back pedal noted, Ravage. You're the one who claimed you do a lot
to
| > | protect people's rights. It's obvious, given your attitude, that
you
do
| > | little or nothing to protect people's rights. Cuffing and stuffing
has
| > | nothing to do with civil rights.
| >
| > Let's see how I can put this as simply as possible for you,
Brian......
| >
| > I do more each and every day to protect people's rights than you can
even
| > imagine. And I sure as hell don't do it by sitting on Usenet
pretending
to
| > be the all knowing, all powerful Oz with respect to Constitutional
Law.
| >
| > And it certainly would be refreshing if you would refrain as well.
| >
| > How's that? Simple enough?
| >
| > Have a nice day.
|
| So don't bother you with facts; your mind is made up?
|
| Awww, Ravage is mad at me! Him gonna tell my mommy about me if I don't
| stop talking to him. Is him past time for his nappy?

I'm not mad at all, Brian - however I am disappointed you've stooped to
the
same level that the other people on your side of this debate (I have them
kill filed - frankly, I'm not into the whole one-liner debate thing) have
taken.

Can we agree to keep it on the up and up?

It isn't a question of whether my mind is made up, Brian. The facts are
irrefutable.

Yea, they are.....so you chose to killfile those that present you with the
facts so that they don't interfere with your little fantasies.
The fact of the matter is that per the Constitution of the United States of
America, 9th Amendment, I do have a right to do drugs.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Second, the fact of the matter is that per the Constitution of the United
States of America, 10th Amendment, the federal government has NO power or
authority to interfere with anyone taking whatever drugs they chose.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.
Those are the irrefutable facts, but you'll never see them because you have
chose to deny, ignore, and killfile these facts.
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 08:20:12 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:btfLd.4362$G31.61@okepread05...

"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.

Getting a little hostile there, aren't we?
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 08:32:03 PM

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	31 Jan 2005 04:39:34 AM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:FMgLd.4371$G31.2754@okepread05...

I have, but your arguments show a certainly lack of adult reason.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	31 Jan 2005 08:46:56 AM

Ravage wrote:

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.

It won't be the first time somebody did this. Abe Lincoln ignored them
during the Civil War and GW Bush has pretty much ignored them now.
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 01:54:41 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pj9Ld.4321$G31.314@okepread05...

"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:s69Ld.4574$Ix.104@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Ravage wrote:
| > 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.

They aren't open to interpretation and they are true everywhere. Your
problem is you seem to feel that unless a government protects a right it
doesn't exist. Governments can no more grant rights than they can remove
them, at most all they can do is either protect the existing rights or
infringe them.

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

Based on the same principle. That the government is the servant of the
people. WE tell the government were to get off, not the other way around.

God does not give Man the Right to bear arms.

Then how is man able to bear arms?

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

Certainly did, otherwise no one could act in self defense.

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

Sure he did, and you would be very unhappy if we removed all the injectable
drugs.

| 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.

Ah, tyranny of the majority, one of the worst kinds.

|
| 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.

He didn't call you any names, but based on your attitudes his observations
ring true.

| 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?

SCOTUS seems to think so at times.
I, on the other hand, feel we have to be true to the language and intent.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	31 Jan 2005 08:38:48 AM

Scout wrote:

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pj9Ld.4321$G31.314@okepread05...

Bill as

| > recognizing those rights which are perceived an inalienable -

others

prefer
| > to think the Bill of Rights formally recognizes or "grants" the

rights

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.

They aren't open to interpretation and they are true everywhere. Your
problem is you seem to feel that unless a government protects a right

doesn't exist. Governments can no more grant rights than they can

remove

them, at most all they can do is either protect the existing rights

infringe them.

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

Based on the same principle. That the government is the servant of

the

people. WE tell the government were to get off, not the other way

around.

At least as written. But here's the thing: the men who wrote it didn't
believe it. Consider how Washington was going to go so far as use the
military against the people during the Whiskey Rebellion who's
greivance was the same as Washington's was against the British: no
taxation without representation. It was OK for Washington to rebel
against the British but not OK for whiskey distillers to rebel against
Washington. Proves Lord Acton's axiom true:
"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the
highest political end. - Liberty is the only object which benefits
all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition - The danger is not
that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to
govern. - Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely."
.

User: "Bert Hyman"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 06:40:41 PM

In news:r8TKd.4248$G31.1801@okepread05 "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:

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

Of course he does. So you you.

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.

You have a seriously incorrect view of how the US Constitition works.
Remember: Limited and enumerated powers.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 06:45:16 PM

"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EDBE1013373VeebleFetzer@news.mpls.visi.com...
| In news:r8TKd.4248$G31.1801@okepread05 "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
| wrote:
|
| > You don't have a "Right" to do drugs, Scout.
|
| Of course he does. So you you.
|
| >
| > 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.
|
| You have a seriously incorrect view of how the US Constitition works.
|
| Remember: Limited and enumerated powers.
That applies to the Federal Government, Bert.
Any power not specifically granted to the Fed belongs to the States. Which
is why pot in some states is a misdemeanor and in others, its a felony.
Besides, if you're right, why isn't pot absolutely legal in all states?
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 07:29:27 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:x6WKd.4266$G31.1672@okepread05...

"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EDBE1013373VeebleFetzer@news.mpls.visi.com...
| In news:r8TKd.4248$G31.1801@okepread05 "Ravage"
<ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
| wrote:
|
| > You don't have a "Right" to do drugs, Scout.
|
| Of course he does. So you you.
|
| >
| > 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.
|
| You have a seriously incorrect view of how the US Constitition works.
|
| Remember: Limited and enumerated powers.

That applies to the Federal Government, Bert.

The War on Drugs is a federal action backed by federal law.
.

User: "Two Bears"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	04 Feb 2005 06:40:09 PM

Scout wrote:
The War on Drugs is a federal action backed by federal law.
reply:
The "War on Drugs" is the most harmful scam ever perpetrated on the US
citizenry and their constitution. Even more harmful than the gubmit's
abrogation of the 2nd Amendment. And it was done by Republicans.
Two Bears
.

User: "Bert Hyman"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 06:51:57 PM

In news:x6WKd.4266$G31.1672@okepread05 "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:

Besides, if you're right, why isn't pot absolutely legal in all states?

Simple: The world is full of busy-bodies who like nothing better than to
impose their bizarre world views on the rest of society. The US is no
different.
Which do you prefer: One large tyranny or 50 small tyrannies?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 06:59:15 PM

"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EDBFF833CADVeebleFetzer@news.mpls.visi.com...
| In news:x6WKd.4266$G31.1672@okepread05 "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
| wrote:
|
| > Besides, if you're right, why isn't pot absolutely legal in all states?
|
| Simple: The world is full of busy-bodies who like nothing better than to
| impose their bizarre world views on the rest of society. The US is no
| different.
|
| Which do you prefer: One large tyranny or 50 small tyrannies?
You do have options, you know?
You may choose to move away to your own little island, proclaim yourself
King, and smoke doobs while boffing cocanuts if that's what you like. But
if you want to live with us, ya gotta follow our rules - or risk going to
prison. Capiche?
.

User: "Bert Hyman"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	29 Jan 2005 07:41:18 PM

In news:EjWKd.4270$G31.4086@okepread05 "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:

"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EDBFF833CADVeebleFetzer@news.mpls.visi.com...
| In news:x6WKd.4266$G31.1672@okepread05 "Ravage"
| <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote:
|
| > Besides, if you're right, why isn't pot absolutely legal in all
| > states?
|
| Simple: The world is full of busy-bodies who like nothing better than
| to impose their bizarre world views on the rest of society. The US is
| no different.
|
| Which do you prefer: One large tyranny or 50 small tyrannies?

You do have options, you know?

You may choose to move away to your own little island, proclaim yourself
King, and smoke doobs while boffing cocanuts if that's what you like.
But if you want to live with us, ya gotta follow our rules - or risk
going to prison. Capiche?

How appropriate: adopting the persona of a Mafia thug to put your point
across.
I'd rather just have the Constitution applied as it was written.
As Hamilton said in Federalist 84:
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less
applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is
merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the
nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every
species of personal and private concerns."
In other words, it's no business of the state.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 09:12:14 AM

"Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EDC849FCBEVeebleFetzer@209.98.13.60...
| In news:EjWKd.4270$G31.4086@okepread05 "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
| wrote:
|
| >
| > "Bert Hyman" <bert@visi.com> wrote in message
| > news:Xns95EDBFF833CADVeebleFetzer@news.mpls.visi.com...
| >| In news:x6WKd.4266$G31.1672@okepread05 "Ravage"
| >| <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote:
| >|
| >| > Besides, if you're right, why isn't pot absolutely legal in all
| >| > states?
| >|
| >| Simple: The world is full of busy-bodies who like nothing better than
| >| to impose their bizarre world views on the rest of society. The US is
| >| no different.
| >|
| >| Which do you prefer: One large tyranny or 50 small tyrannies?
| >
| > You do have options, you know?
| >
| > You may choose to move away to your own little island, proclaim yourself
| > King, and smoke doobs while boffing cocanuts if that's what you like.
| > But if you want to live with us, ya gotta follow our rules - or risk
| > going to prison. Capiche?
|
| How appropriate: adopting the persona of a Mafia thug to put your point
| across.
|
| I'd rather just have the Constitution applied as it was written.
|
| As Hamilton said in Federalist 84:
|
| "But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less
| applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is
| merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the
| nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every
| species of personal and private concerns."
|
| In other words, it's no business of the state.
"The State" is the people, Bert.
And "The People" have made it illegal to consume, distribute, or traffic in
illegal drugs.
Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads? You have
no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your escapist
behaior?
.

User: "Chas"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 06:55:17 PM

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

"The State" is the people, Bert.

Nope; it is the trusted representatives of the People, and operates at their
Pleasure.

And "The People" have made it illegal to consume, distribute, or traffic
in
illegal drugs.

Well, no; that's not true either.
In fact, when given the option to actually make their Voice known, they've
overwhelmingly chosen to liberalize the choice- however couched the instant
question- very few exceptions to that.

Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads?

Because simple repetition of that assertion doesn't make it true.
That's why 'Fraud' doesn't have a statute of limitations- no telling when
you figure out you been snookered.

You have
no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your
escapist
behaior?

Actually, you do. That, again, is your liberty interest, and you have the
choices available to the sovereign. Lots of laws have been overturned as
unConstitutional- simple legislation doesn't guarantee Constitutionality.
Chas
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 07:05:07 PM

"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IumdnUKaE91pHGDcRVn-gg@comcast.com...
| "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote
| > "The State" is the people, Bert.
|
| Nope; it is the trusted representatives of the People, and operates at
their
| Pleasure.
That is the people, Chas. And frankly, I'm growing tired of this childish
splitting of hairs with you guys. If this is the best you can come up with,
then I don't think we need to worry about the dopers taking us over any time
soon.
.

User: "Chas"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 07:14:59 PM

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

......And frankly, I'm growing tired of this childish
splitting of hairs with you guys.

Then don't get involved in an examination of contract law.

.....If this is the best you can come up with,
then I don't think we need to worry about the dopers taking us over any
time
soon.

Yeah; Dawg Nose you're in trouble if they find out about that 2nd Amendment
thing though.
Chas
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 08:21:11 PM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cvfLd.4363$G31.1771@okepread05...

No, if it were the people, then I and every other person would be holding
elected office.
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 09:31:19 AM

"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kP6Ld.4299$G31.32@okepread05...

No, the federal government has. These drugs laws have never been ratified by
referinoum to the people, so the people are not the ones that made it
illegal. Further I note the federal government has NO such legitimate power
to regulate these items.

Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads?

That tyranny takes many forms? I understand that, nor am I a druggy. I would
touch that stuff if you gave it to me, but I do recognize and acknowledge
that others may wish to exercise their right in this.

You have
no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your
escapist
behaior?

Really? Better go back and read the Constitution again. Specifically....
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.
We do have such a right, and the federal government or "the people" if you
prefer have NO legitimate power to interfere with the exercise of this
right.
.

User: "Bert Hyman"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	30 Jan 2005 12:19:53 PM

In news:kP6Ld.4299$G31.32@okepread05 "Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
wrote:

Hey! That's funny!
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
.

User: "Frank Ney"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	04 Feb 2005 06:07:14 AM

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser caused
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:

Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads? You have
no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your escapist
behaior?

Why is it so hard for you jack-booted thugs to get this through your heads?
You have no Constitutional authority to declare what chemicals or plants
are legal for human use.
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: "Inspector Crosetti"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	04 Feb 2005 09:03:45 AM

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney <n4zhg@icqmail.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser caused
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:

Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads? You have
no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your escapist
behaior?

The highest court in the USA says we do.
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	04 Feb 2005 05:10:32 PM

"Inspector Crosetti" <InspCrosetti@msn.com> wrote in message
news:42038f38.7931406@news-server.socal.rr.com...

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney <n4zhg@icqmail.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser caused
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:

Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads? You
have
no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your
escapist
behaior?

The highest court in the USA says we do.

The supreme law in the land says you do not.
Now which of these is the law, and which is the voice of tyranny?
.

User: "Cole Firearms Inc."
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	04 Feb 2005 12:39:41 PM

Inspector Crosetti wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney <n4zhg@icqmail.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser caused
"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:

Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads? You have
no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your escapist
behaior?

The highest court in the USA says we do.

Constitution says you don't.
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
.

User: "Ravage"
Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public?	05 Feb 2005 02:38:52 AM

"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4203C16D.4000507@sbcglobal.net...
| Inspector Crosetti wrote:
| > On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:07:14 -0500, Frank Ney <n4zhg@icqmail.com>
| > wrote:
| >
| >
| >>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:12:14 -0700, an orbiting mind control laser
caused
| >>"Ravage" <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net> to write:
| >>
| >>
| >>>Why is it so hard for you druggies to get this through your heads? You
have
| >>>no Constitutional Right to override the will of the people for your
escapist
| >>>behaior?
| >>
| >>Why is it so hard for you jack-booted thugs to get this through your
heads?
| >>You have no Constitutional authority to declare what chemicals or plants
| >>are legal for human use.
| >>Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
| >
| >
| > The highest court in the USA says we do.
|
| Constitution says you don't.
Where?
And where have the people who are paid to interpret the Constitution come
out on your side of this decision?
.

Page 8 of 26