| 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: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
05 Feb 2005 08:09:53 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:acla01to7um67to4tql7fm44u99bhp3scb@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:15:47 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:72o901du6t7oo257incj0chslm6177oive@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 04:49:01 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:m7a801t7eb90msjjilkdk6tbf9t0nbt02v@4ax.com...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Inspector Crosetti wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
The court bases their decisions on their view of the constitution.
You're SOL...
Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in
opposition
to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win.
Cole, you stupid, ignorant *****. The supreme court DECIDES what the
Constitution means.
Wrong. They have no special power to decide the Constitutional meaning.
They
are as bound by the language of the Constitution as any of the rest of
the
federal government, and have no power to interpret another meaning for
that
language than you do to ignore the language of a contract you are a
party
of.
LOL Of course they do.
Ok. Quote the section of the Constitution that states this.
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish.
I see nothing about interpretation in there, particularly reinterpretation
contrary to the language of the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
05 Feb 2005 08:16:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:09:53 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:acla01to7um67to4tql7fm44u99bhp3scb@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:15:47 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:72o901du6t7oo257incj0chslm6177oive@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 04:49:01 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:m7a801t7eb90msjjilkdk6tbf9t0nbt02v@4ax.com...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Inspector Crosetti wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
The court bases their decisions on their view of the constitution.
You're SOL...
Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in
opposition
to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win.
Cole, you stupid, ignorant *****. The supreme court DECIDES what the
Constitution means.
Wrong. They have no special power to decide the Constitutional meaning.
They
are as bound by the language of the Constitution as any of the rest of
the
federal government, and have no power to interpret another meaning for
that
language than you do to ignore the language of a contract you are a
party
of.
LOL Of course they do.
Ok. Quote the section of the Constitution that states this.
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish.
I see nothing about interpretation in there, particularly reinterpretation
contrary to the language of the Constitution.
Then suppose you tell us all what the job of the SC is, Scout.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
05 Feb 2005 08:30:39 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:qeva01p10n0n3hltgpl4f18odlgskhf06p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:09:53 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:acla01to7um67to4tql7fm44u99bhp3scb@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:15:47 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:72o901du6t7oo257incj0chslm6177oive@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 04:49:01 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:m7a801t7eb90msjjilkdk6tbf9t0nbt02v@4ax.com...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Inspector Crosetti wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
The court bases their decisions on their view of the constitution.
You're SOL...
Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in
opposition
to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win.
Cole, you stupid, ignorant *****. The supreme court DECIDES what the
Constitution means.
Wrong. They have no special power to decide the Constitutional
meaning.
They
are as bound by the language of the Constitution as any of the rest of
the
federal government, and have no power to interpret another meaning for
that
language than you do to ignore the language of a contract you are a
party
of.
LOL Of course they do.
Ok. Quote the section of the Constitution that states this.
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish.
I see nothing about interpretation in there, particularly reinterpretation
contrary to the language of the Constitution.
Then suppose you tell us all what the job of the SC is, Scout.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States
shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a
state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different
states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of
different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign
states, citizens or subjects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
05 Feb 2005 08:32:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:30:39 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:qeva01p10n0n3hltgpl4f18odlgskhf06p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:09:53 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:acla01to7um67to4tql7fm44u99bhp3scb@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:15:47 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:72o901du6t7oo257incj0chslm6177oive@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 04:49:01 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:m7a801t7eb90msjjilkdk6tbf9t0nbt02v@4ax.com...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Inspector Crosetti wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
The court bases their decisions on their view of the constitution.
You're SOL...
Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in
opposition
to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win.
Cole, you stupid, ignorant *****. The supreme court DECIDES what the
Constitution means.
Wrong. They have no special power to decide the Constitutional
meaning.
They
are as bound by the language of the Constitution as any of the rest of
the
federal government, and have no power to interpret another meaning for
that
language than you do to ignore the language of a contract you are a
party
of.
LOL Of course they do.
Ok. Quote the section of the Constitution that states this.
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish.
I see nothing about interpretation in there, particularly reinterpretation
contrary to the language of the Constitution.
Then suppose you tell us all what the job of the SC is, Scout.
Section 2. The judicial power
The power to do what, exactly?
shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States
shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a
state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different
states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of
different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign
states, citizens or subjects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
05 Feb 2005 08:39:06 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:rd0b01p0t4ktefmkptrd1dqs68acuv6h8d@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:30:39 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:qeva01p10n0n3hltgpl4f18odlgskhf06p@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:09:53 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:acla01to7um67to4tql7fm44u99bhp3scb@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:15:47 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:72o901du6t7oo257incj0chslm6177oive@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 04:49:01 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:m7a801t7eb90msjjilkdk6tbf9t0nbt02v@4ax.com...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:51:05 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Inspector Crosetti wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:39:41 GMT, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearms11@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
The court bases their decisions on their view of the
constitution.
You're SOL...
Everyone has an opinion, If the supreme court's opinion is in
opposition
to the Constitution, then the Constitution will always win.
Cole, you stupid, ignorant *****. The supreme court DECIDES what
the
Constitution means.
Wrong. They have no special power to decide the Constitutional
meaning.
They
are as bound by the language of the Constitution as any of the rest
of
the
federal government, and have no power to interpret another meaning
for
that
language than you do to ignore the language of a contract you are a
party
of.
LOL Of course they do.
Ok. Quote the section of the Constitution that states this.
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish.
I see nothing about interpretation in there, particularly
reinterpretation
contrary to the language of the Constitution.
Then suppose you tell us all what the job of the SC is, Scout.
Section 2. The judicial power
The power to do what, exactly?
To judge.
shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and
treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases
affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of
admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States
shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a
state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different
states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of
different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and
foreign
states, citizens or subjects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 08:03:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:39:06 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:rd0b01p0t4ktefmkptrd1dqs68acuv6h8d@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:30:39 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:qeva01p10n0n3hltgpl4f18odlgskhf06p@4ax.com...
I see nothing about interpretation in there, particularly
reinterpretation
contrary to the language of the Constitution.
Then suppose you tell us all what the job of the SC is, Scout.
Section 2. The judicial power
The power to do what, exactly?
To judge.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 03:22:39 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:dt8c015f0neabesdstc7pdhbcnsqrporvv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:39:06 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:rd0b01p0t4ktefmkptrd1dqs68acuv6h8d@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:30:39 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:qeva01p10n0n3hltgpl4f18odlgskhf06p@4ax.com...
I see nothing about interpretation in there, particularly
reinterpretation
contrary to the language of the Constitution.
Then suppose you tell us all what the job of the SC is, Scout.
Section 2. The judicial power
The power to do what, exactly?
To judge.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
I didn't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Inspector Crosetti" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 03:40:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:39:06 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
The power to do what, exactly?
To judge.
And just what is it you think they judge?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 04:04:54 PM |
|
|
"Inspector Crosetti" <InspCrosetti@msn.com> wrote in message
news:42068f32.3850656@news-server.socal.rr.com...
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:39:06 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
The power to do what, exactly?
To judge.
And just what is it you think they judge?
See Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution of the United States of
America. It says what they can judge, and I note the Constitution itself,
it's language or meaning, is NOT included.
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They have no
authority OVER the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 05:04:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They have no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean. Give some examples, if possible. Perhaps this
is all just a big misunderstanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 05:23:09 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:mi8d01h7sa4t1ns9c75enmflq2rcbutr5p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They have
no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean.
It's simple. According to the Constitution, they only have power over cases
that arise UNDER the Constitution. They have no power in cases OVER the
Constitution. Hence, they have NO authority to alter, change, modify or
"interpret" the meaning of the Constitution to mean anything other than what
it's language plainly states.
.
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 05:55:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:23:09 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:mi8d01h7sa4t1ns9c75enmflq2rcbutr5p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They have
no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean.
It's simple. According to the Constitution, they only have power over cases
that arise UNDER the Constitution. They have no power in cases OVER the
Constitution. Hence, they have NO authority to alter, change, modify or
"interpret" the meaning of the Constitution to mean anything other than what
it's language plainly states.
I see where you're confused.
Maybe you should try thinking of the laws we live under every day as
an "interface" between us and the Constitution.
The laws adhere to the Constitution or they don't. The court makes
these decisions. You don't. If they interpret the first amendment to
mean you can burn a flag, why, your right to burn a flag is protected.
Whether YOU think that's what it means or not doesn't really mean
*****. You following? See where the interpretation comes into play?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 07:17:28 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:adbd0112kp529jleet19ehrnod4porq5sp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:23:09 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:mi8d01h7sa4t1ns9c75enmflq2rcbutr5p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They
have
no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean.
It's simple. According to the Constitution, they only have power over
cases
that arise UNDER the Constitution. They have no power in cases OVER the
Constitution. Hence, they have NO authority to alter, change, modify or
"interpret" the meaning of the Constitution to mean anything other than
what
it's language plainly states.
I see where you're confused.
Maybe you should try thinking of the laws we live under every day as
an "interface" between us and the Constitution.
The laws adhere to the Constitution or they don't. The court makes
these decisions.
Wrong. The language of the Constitution determines this. If the Courts say
something that is Unconstitutional doesn't violate the Constitution, that
doesn't make the law Constitutional, it only makes the courts wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 07:00:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:17:28 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:adbd0112kp529jleet19ehrnod4porq5sp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:23:09 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:mi8d01h7sa4t1ns9c75enmflq2rcbutr5p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They
have
no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean.
It's simple. According to the Constitution, they only have power over
cases
that arise UNDER the Constitution. They have no power in cases OVER the
Constitution. Hence, they have NO authority to alter, change, modify or
"interpret" the meaning of the Constitution to mean anything other than
what
it's language plainly states.
I see where you're confused.
Maybe you should try thinking of the laws we live under every day as
an "interface" between us and the Constitution.
The laws adhere to the Constitution or they don't. The court makes
these decisions.
Wrong. The language of the Constitution determines this.
No, it doesn't. The language of the Constitution just sits there and
does nothing.
If the Courts say
something that is Unconstitutional
According to who? You?
doesn't violate the Constitution, that
doesn't make the law Constitutional, it only makes the courts wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 06:59:14 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:3hpe01tle6f24eflgfcukbg4s3q0hf83ff@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:17:28 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:adbd0112kp529jleet19ehrnod4porq5sp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:23:09 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:mi8d01h7sa4t1ns9c75enmflq2rcbutr5p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They
have
no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean.
It's simple. According to the Constitution, they only have power over
cases
that arise UNDER the Constitution. They have no power in cases OVER the
Constitution. Hence, they have NO authority to alter, change, modify or
"interpret" the meaning of the Constitution to mean anything other than
what
it's language plainly states.
I see where you're confused.
Maybe you should try thinking of the laws we live under every day as
an "interface" between us and the Constitution.
The laws adhere to the Constitution or they don't. The court makes
these decisions.
Wrong. The language of the Constitution determines this.
No, it doesn't. The language of the Constitution just sits there and
does nothing.
Only for you. Others who can read and understand are moved by the language
of the Constitution.
If the Courts say
something that is Unconstitutional
According to who? You?
The language of the Constitution. Something you are unable to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 07:02:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:59:14 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:3hpe01tle6f24eflgfcukbg4s3q0hf83ff@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:17:28 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:adbd0112kp529jleet19ehrnod4porq5sp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:23:09 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:mi8d01h7sa4t1ns9c75enmflq2rcbutr5p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They
have
no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean.
It's simple. According to the Constitution, they only have power over
cases
that arise UNDER the Constitution. They have no power in cases OVER the
Constitution. Hence, they have NO authority to alter, change, modify or
"interpret" the meaning of the Constitution to mean anything other than
what
it's language plainly states.
I see where you're confused.
Maybe you should try thinking of the laws we live under every day as
an "interface" between us and the Constitution.
The laws adhere to the Constitution or they don't. The court makes
these decisions.
Wrong. The language of the Constitution determines this.
No, it doesn't. The language of the Constitution just sits there and
does nothing.
Only for you. Others who can read and understand are moved by the language
of the Constitution.
LOL
If the Courts say
something that is Unconstitutional
According to who? You?
The language of the Constitution. Something you are unable to understand.
ROFL. According to the language? More like according to the court.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 11:56:25 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:adbd0112kp529jleet19ehrnod4porq5sp@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:23:09 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:mi8d01h7sa4t1ns9c75enmflq2rcbutr5p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They
have
no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean.
It's simple. According to the Constitution, they only have power over
cases
that arise UNDER the Constitution. They have no power in cases OVER the
Constitution. Hence, they have NO authority to alter, change, modify or
"interpret" the meaning of the Constitution to mean anything other than
what
it's language plainly states.
I see where you're confused.
Maybe you should try thinking of the laws we live under every day as
an "interface" between us and the Constitution.
The laws adhere to the Constitution or they don't. The court makes
these decisions.
Wrong. The language of the Constitution determines this. If the Courts say
something that is Unconstitutional doesn't violate the Constitution, that
doesn't make the law Constitutional, it only makes the courts wrong.
In whose opinion? Yours or the side that agrees with the Court?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Inspector Crosetti" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 06:11:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 15:04:14 -0800, You Know Who
<vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They have no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean. Give some examples, if possible. Perhaps this
is all just a big misunderstanding.
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has power
over desisions he agrees with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 07:18:18 PM |
|
|
"Inspector Crosetti" <InspCrosetti@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4206b21d.12790062@news-server.socal.rr.com...
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 15:04:14 -0800, You Know Who
<vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:04:54 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
They only have power over cases arising UNDER the Constitution. They have
no
authority OVER the Constitution.
Explain what you mean. Give some examples, if possible. Perhaps this
is all just a big misunderstanding.
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has power
over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when those comply with the
language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Inspector Crosetti" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
06 Feb 2005 09:27:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has power
over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when those comply with the
language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it so.
Oh yes it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 04:17:25 AM |
|
|
"Inspector Crosetti" <InspCrosetti@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4206e0ac.24708593@news-server.socal.rr.com...
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has power
over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when those comply with
the
language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it so.
Oh yes it does.
There you have it folks. The Constitution means nothing. It stands for
nothing. It's language means nothing. Instead we are ruled by a panel of 9
and we have replaced the arbitrary rule of law by the whims of a monarch to
the arbitrary rule of law by the whims of a panel of judges.
This is the fundamental flaw in your thinking, and which results in your
inability to do or be anything more than a kiss ***** lackey.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodard R. Springstube" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 12:30:28 AM |
|
|
(Inspector Crosetti) wrote in
news:4206e0ac.24708593@news-server.socal.rr.com:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only
has power over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when
those comply with the language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it
so.
Oh yes it does.
Then, we are not a nation of laws, but have become, instead, a
nation governed by the whims of nine judges. Under your
notion, the court could "reinterpret" the constitution to
allow punishments like breaking on the wheel, disembowlment,
pouring molten lead down the throat, etc. and that would be
constitutional merely because the supreme court says it is.
Have you never considered that the court, itself, can violate
the meaning and spirit of the constitution with its opinions?
They are humans, not gods, and, as humans, just as prone to
error as anybody else.
Of course, it would make it easier for cops if the supremes
would rule that the rack, thumbscrews, red-hot pinchers, etc.
were legitimate means of questioning suspects. You would get
about 100% confessions, even from the innocent. But, I guess
that you don't give a damn about sending the innocent to
prison or the death chamber. You just want to be able to
tyrannize other people under color of law.
Your comments fit the profile of a rogue cop.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 12:01:27 PM |
|
|
Inspector Crosetti wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has power
over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when those comply with the
language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it so.
Oh yes it does.
No, it doesn't. It would be a bad decision by the Court. Now, shades
of gray would be more along the lines the Court would rule. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Villanes" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 12:14:26 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:27:58 GMT, (Inspector
Crosetti) wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has power
over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when those comply with the
language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it so.
Oh yes it does.
Inspector, do you find it interesting (read sad) that some folks just
don't understand the role of the judicial branch of government as
opposed to the legislative and administrative branches?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 04:19:39 AM |
|
|
<Clayton Villanes> wrote in message
news:0m1e011s0de1c4ivqa6cnrd7jrn20usj2p@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:27:58 GMT, (Inspector
Crosetti) wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has power
over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when those comply with
the
language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it so.
Oh yes it does.
Inspector, do you find it interesting (read sad) that some folks just
don't understand the role of the judicial branch of government as
opposed to the legislative and administrative branches?
Do you find it interesting (read sad) that some people feel that the
judicial branch of government can ignore, deny, modify, change, and/or
discard at whim the protections, conditions, language, meaning, and
restraints of the Constitution of the United States?
For a person who claims to be an ex-officer of the military, his oath to
protect and defend the Constitution seems to have been only lip service.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Inspector Crosetti" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 01:10:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:14:26 -0800, Clayton Villanes wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:27:58 GMT, (Inspector
Crosetti) wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has power
over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when those comply with the
language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it so.
Oh yes it does.
Inspector, do you find it interesting (read sad) that some folks just
don't understand the role of the judicial branch of government as
opposed to the legislative and administrative branches?
I find it amusing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 01:20:35 AM |
|
|
Inspector Crosetti wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:14:26 -0800, Clayton Villanes wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:27:58 GMT, (Inspector
Crosetti) wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has
power
over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when those
comply with the
language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it so.
Oh yes it does.
Inspector, do you find it interesting (read sad) that some folks
just
don't understand the role of the judicial branch of government as
opposed to the legislative and administrative branches?
I find it amusing.
Glad you do. Jews at Austwitz didn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 12:00:16 PM |
|
|
Rump Ranger wrote:
Inspector Crosetti wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 22:14:26 -0800, Clayton Villanes wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:27:58 GMT, (Inspector
Crosetti) wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:18:18 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Its really simple, in his simple little mind, the SC only has
power
over desisions he agrees with.
Wrong. The SC can only produce legitimate rulings when those
comply with the
language of the law.
Just because the SC says black is white, doesn't make it so.
Oh yes it does.
Inspector, do you find it interesting (read sad) that some folks
just
don't understand the role of the judicial branch of government as
opposed to the legislative and administrative branches?
I find it amusing.
Glad you do. Jews at Austwitz didn't.
They were affected by our USSC and Constitution? ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Inspector Crosetti" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 03:54:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:00:16 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Glad you do. Jews at Austwitz didn't.
They were affected by our USSC and Constitution? ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
When all else fails, they resort to calling the cops Nazis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
08 Feb 2005 10:54:02 AM |
|
|
Inspector Crosetti wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:00:16 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Glad you do. Jews at Austwitz didn't.
They were affected by our USSC and Constitution? ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
When all else fails, they resort to calling the cops Nazis.
A few of them are. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
