Posted on 09/27/2007 6:23:25 PM PDT by Ken H
No retreat, no surrender.
If he does not prevail, you may be the next person caught in this web.
What will YOU do then?
Be glad he is available to take on this challenge and offer him whatever support he needs.
Best regards,
So you start by posting an insulting message - which you comically botched.
1. Yes
Thanks for saying outright that you would try to blend back into the herd, if such danger reared its ugly head.
3.They have guns. Lots of them. They are awake 24/7. They have the leuuuu on their side.
You flat out said there is criminal behavior on the part of several police officers:
"Those Missouri cops are dangerous. They have made threats."
So no, they don't have the law on their side, if what you accuse them of is true.
4. Think what you will, call all the names you want. It's not YOU that is facing such horrendous danger over such a trivial matter.
Allow me to suggest a theme song for you: Brave Sir Robin
BTW why are you dodging my question from post #97?
The answer was obviously "yes", as evidenced by the 2 questions I asked in a follow up post.
Oh, puh-leeze! I've seen similar posts on this forum between FReepers.
Yep, we let anyone join -- including those who feel it necessary to present their side of the event after the fact. He has added nothing, nada, zilch to this forum other than defending himself in those few threads that concerned him.
The thread was pulled because you and your buddies chose to flame the few of us who came to present another viewpoint. Your idea of debate is arguing amongst yourselves just how bad the cops are, and name-calling anyone who disagrees. Yet you have the cojones to post words like "1st amendment" and "free speech".
All hat and no cattle.
Feel free to flame away (do you know any different?) -- I'm long gone from this thread and will not be looking back.
“Think what you will, call all the names you want. It’s not YOU that is facing such horrendous danger over such a trivial matter.”
Well that might be why we are not on the same page. To me, my Constitutional Rights are not a ‘trivial matter’.
Glad to see you’re gone from this thread.
Your mission, Rob, should you decide to accept it, is to find where your Law and Order emphasis fits within the Free Republic founding principles. When Law is demphasized and Order is the primary & excluding focus, we have fascism. You can easily find fascism as one of the things we are against when you look at the founding principles.
If you do not find your emphasis supported in the founding principles of this website, you might want to re-examine your own flaming and how that puts you vis-a-vis the definition of provocateur.
I’ve now also discovered that I’ll need a truck to go along with the gun. ;-)
***LOL! Isn’t that one of the terms in the “how to tell if you’re a redneck” comedy routine?
leuuuu
***What’s that? Law Enforcement Union of some kind?
Rawcat: Wont do Brett a bit of good if they give him a ride to Ft Marcy Park though.
Copernicus: If he does not prevail, you may be the next person caught in this web. What will YOU do then?
***Good answer. What Brett is doing can be viewed as unselfish behavior in a fight for constitutional rights.
To me, my Constitutional Rights are not a ‘trivial matter’.
***Bump that.
Brett needs to make peace, and find better interests to pursue.
***Note that the bold that you put on “F ind B etter I nterests” does not survive the cut & paste process, and what you might really be saying can get lost in translation. If you’re suggesting that Brett needs to get in touch with the FBI, I think that is a reasonable suggestion. These cops have made death threats; they are stalking him; he is basically in danger.
One of the technical problems here is that he had to lie to the officer when he was asked about the camera and he had to say it was uploaded to a secure server or something like that. Now that this information is out in public, these bad cops will know that when they disable his hard drive in the trunk, they got him.
The fact that he was called in to talk to investigators and their focus was on how he was backing up the information should be a HUGH warning sign. In the very least, Brett needs to install a secondary backup system that is not publicly known.
I believe he said that he had done just that recently since this incident.
Good work on getting past the dodge.
Yes Sir.
Don’t call me “sir”, I work for a livin’.
Full disclosure: I’m stealing that line from a movie, I don’t have a military background where one would typically hear that line from a Sergeant or whatever.
I just checked under your names to see if there were any new threads..surprise. Will read now to catch up...
Posted on Sun, Sep. 30, 2007
-snip-
While he might have his fans, Darrow's name has been transformed into a short-handed warning for police.
"Stay on your toes. We don't know how many other Brett Darrows there are out there," the St. George police chief has said.
Darrow said he became motivated after a March 2005 encounter with an off-duty police officer. Before that night, Darrow, who was 17 at the time, had never been in serious trouble.
According to a police report, an off-duty officer claimed Darrow was driving recklessly, so he followed the teen as he pulled into a lot.
Darrow said the man yelled at him, while pressing a gun to his head and claiming to be a cop. The stranger wearing a uniform or carrying a badge. Darrow admits he swung a metal baton at the man.
"He told me if I hit him again he'd blow my brains out," Darrow recalled. Darrow fled home in his car, and was arrested and charged with a weapons felony and third-degree assault. But the grand jury chose not to indict him after listening to him recount what happened.
The officer left the force the next month.
"It was an eye-opener," Darrow said. "It really did change me."
Darrow said he wanted protection from the police. He found it in the form of a $500 video camera, which he installed inside his car.
On Sept. 7, Darrow videotaped the now famous exchange with St. George police Sgt. James Kuehnlein.
-snip-
The next day, Darrow uploaded the video to the Web, calling it "Cop Gone Wild." Since then, the video has been viewed more than 500,000 times online.
Last Friday, Kuehnlein was fired. Prosecutors now are investigating.
-snip-
Cardhu, excellent plan to write the letters w/carbon copies...and if you are keeping a ping list, I too would like to be added.
Ken et. al.,
So, the st louis police are involved, we now have a 'screen capture' of the original threat,his address was posted for all to 'know', money turns up missing on September 17--(wonder why), in a previous event another cop didn't show up to a court date because he was afraid of the video evidence against him (wonder what that was all about) and a neighbor is now a witness as well. The 'police chief' tells everyone to stay on their toes (so much for expected courteousy, respect and abiding by the law) and they are ticked off because their dirty little secrets are exposed.
What is the status...any comments from the atty general, or other 'high ranking' official yet?
This young man has a God given right to be concerned as well as take action to protect/prevent future events, and anyone who says otherwise must have the heart of a stone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.