Oh, boy!

gitano · April 21, 2013, 09:05:33 AM

Organized crime, inner-city gangs, and other 'organized' criminals have lead this country to a militaristic police force. (THEY call THEMSELVES "paramilitary".) Given that "policemen" are, BY NATURE, "control freaks", it was a natural AND INEVITABLE progression to go from "Andy Griffith" to "SWAT Teams" in response to the urban "warfare" of inner cities.

That is PRECISELY WHY we have a constitution, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the Second Amendment to that Constitution.

Paul

JaDub · April 22, 2013, 08:58:40 AM

L.A. / California can pay for the `Save The G*y Baby Whales` campaign but unfortunately can`t `afford` to pay for their own liabilities. :huh:

Jamie.270 · April 23, 2013, 03:26:40 PM

I would embed this if I could, but I tried every HTML tag I could think of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Gb6i5DF9k

Even the press refers to the actions by the police as "terrifying."

So, tell me again who the terrorists are?

What happened to the country I grew up in?

drinksgin (deceased) · April 23, 2013, 03:50:39 PM

Jamie, remember the chorus in the song, "Railroad, steamboat, river and canal"?

gitano · April 23, 2013, 03:56:10 PM

This oughtta tighten your jaw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8r4MK3R4PI

Paul

davidlt89 · April 23, 2013, 04:47:09 PM

Quotethis oughtta tighten your jaw

.
Wow!!!

RatherBHuntin · April 23, 2013, 05:40:48 PM

4th Amendment doesn't seem to mean much does it? A simple "Is anyone here against your will" would have sufficed.

4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I saw this about the guy in Texas being disarmed because " a lady was nervous" call by someone who had no idea what was legal and what wasnt. That could have all been resolved by the dispatcher informing her no crime was being committed. Then overzealous cop who gets embarrassed because he doesn't know the law either. I wish the ACLU would be as energetic about enforcing the 2nd and 4th Amendment as they are about the 1st (when it suits their agenda). Hopefully the NRA comes to the rescue of this guy, and makes an example of the cop so that others get the point that they dont get to decide when we are allowed our rights under the constitution and God. They can't claim they felt their safety was in danger just because they see a gun, especially one that is holstered or slung.

thanks, there goes my blood pressure again.

gitano · April 23, 2013, 07:38:05 PM

It is not unreasonable for a cop to be "suspicious" of a person walking around with an AR-15 slung across their chest. Neither is it wrong for a cop to confront such a person, especially if a call from a "concerned citizen" is taken by the police dispatcher. Neither is it "wrong" for a cop to WISH to disarm someone they are interrogating, especially if when the cop can see a firearm in plain sight. HOWEVER...

This cop is a THUG. He was confrontational from the outset. According to the defendant, the cop "grabbed the gun, surprising me, and it was slung around my chest". Since the cop did not deny this statement, it is most certainly true. That was PROFOUNDLY STUPID for the cop to do, UNLESS his intentions were specifically TO PROVOKE.

The laws are different in every state, but in Alaska, you are required by law to "obey the instructions of a sworn Peace Officer". Period. There is no qualifier of "if the instructions are lawful". If they are NOT lawful and a "reasonable person" would not be in fear for their life in that situation, then you are obligated under the law to comply, and TAKE THE MATTER UP LATER, LEGALLY. IF on the other hand, a "reasonable person" would, in the same situation, be afraid for their life, you don't have to comply. HOWEVER, if you are confronted by a cop and you are in fear for your life, you are in serious trouble, and should do everything in your power to remove the danger. Pretty much, "you're on your own" in that circumstance. There IS going to be a trial, one way or the other.

This cop is a THUG. All he had to do was FROM A DISTANCE AND WITH HIS HAND ON HIS SIDEARM, "make contact". Were I in his shoes, I would have ASKED the man to give me his weapon. If he had refused or said he was "uncomfortable" doing that, I would have asked him to put it on the ground and walk away from it. If he had refused to do that, I would have called for back-up, if I hadn't already. In Alaska, it is a misdemeanor to be out of your house without identification, AND you MUST show that identification to a sworn Peace Officer if asked. I would have asked for the man's ID. I would have then "run him" to see if there were any outstanding warrants. In the mean time, "back-up" would have arrived. SOON, it would have been clear that the man WITH HIS SON IN TOW, was not a threat. The cops could have left without incident at that point.

This cop is a THUG, and he is EXACTLY WHY there is a 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. You will note in the video that NONE of the other cops are NEARLY as belligerent as the "sargeant". He made a VERY BAD initial decision, and in absolutely TYPICAL cop form, he exacerbated the initial bad move by following with more bad decisions and behavior.

This cop is a THUG, and he should be demoted and severely disciplined including suspension from access to a firearm until he has demonstrated the ability to behave appropriately AND LEGALLY when contacting the citizenry.

This KIND of stuff happens ALL THE TIME! It's been happening ALL MY LIFE! It is NOT "new". When I was a senior in high school, the local cops responded to a silent alarm at a camera store at about midnight. They arrived on scene with sirens blaring and lights flashing. Lots of people moved toward the scene. A JUNIOR IN HS was seen by the cops and told to "halt". He was out past his parent's curfew and didn't want to get in trouble with his parents, so he ran. Three cops shot him 11 times IN THE BACK - ACCIDENTALLY! NOTHING happened to those cops.

A California Highway Patrolman stopped a drunk driver on the freeway. The guy got out of his car and started running away from the cop. The cop chased him down and ACCIDENTALLY KICKED HIM TO DEATH! THE COP WAS COMPLETELY EXONERATED OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY!

A friend of mine and I were at a BIG Springtime event in Southern California called the "Strawberry Festival". There were about 150,000 people there. Hundreds of cops showed up suddenly with police dogs, and told every body that it was an "illegal gathering" (which it WAS NOT), and that they had 5 minutes to "leave". Move 150,000 people in 5 minutes. Yeah. Anyway, my friend and I were near the exit, so we left in a hurry. About two blocks from the place, we were confronted by two cops in a patrol car. The were VERY aggressive, and when they said something nasty to my friend, he responded in kind. They beat him so badly with their night-sticks that he was in the hospital for 5 days.

The list throughout my life goes on. Here's the irony. In order to work for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in the capacity I had, I had to attend the State Trooper's School, and was a "sworn Peace Officer" of the State of Alaska for 12 years. While I was never "a cop", I was involved in several criminal investigations and was the State's "expert witness" is several trials. THE POLICE WILL LIE IN A COURTROOM UNDER OATH ABOUT ANYTHING, AND THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS WILL BOTH SUBORN PERJURY AND "LOOK THE OTHER WAY" WHEN THEY KNOW A COP IS LYING UNDER OATH. I SAW THIS WITH MY OWN EYES MANY MORE TIMES THAN ONCE.

Ask me again why I am so "intense" about the 2nd amendment.

Paul

gitano · April 26, 2013, 07:29:48 AM

We had a "shooting incident" in Eagle River (a small town about 10 miles outside Anchorage), last night.

You'll never guess who the participants were: The shooter was a drug dealer, and the "victim" was a a guy trying to buy drugs. What a shock. I am quite certain that any ONE of all of the proposed gun control laws would have prevented the drug dealer from getting a gun and thereby prevented this "incident". And if you believe that, either you're an idiot or too stupid to be allowed to procreate.

I can't remember - but I could be 'dis-remembering' - a shooting in Anchorage in the past 10 years that wasn't either drug or gang related.

Paul

drinksgin (deceased) · April 26, 2013, 08:03:56 AM

I am sure everyone heard about the shooting on a Texas college campus, , actually 2 drug dealers having a business dispute about 2 blocks from the campus, however, it was allover the news as a college shooting.
Then when a nut slashed a bunch of people, actually on campus with what was later identified as an exacto knife, no one even questioned what the capacity of the knife's magazine/clip was, actually almost no one even reported the incident.
A double standard, nah!