Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feral Cops: They Shot The Dog! Again!(SWAT Team Rampage)
JohnJacobH RKBA Commentary ^ | 05/06/2010 | JohnJacobH RKBA Commentary

Posted on 05/06/2010 6:42:17 PM PDT by Copernicus

Watch this video at your peril. You will rethink every good thought you ever had about Modern Compliance Enforcement Officers (MCEO).

Yes, they shot the dog. Again and again and again. As the crackshots they invariably are, it took four rounds to com

(Excerpt) Read more at johnjacobh.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Pets/Animals; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; beserkcop; copkillers; donutwatch; goodriddance; maddogs; swat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last
To: microgood

You seem to have missed my question to you. You mean you would not shoot a dog that is attacking yourself or your child?


61 posted on 05/07/2010 11:54:04 AM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
I agree, you don't think.

My neighbor died huffing PAM - spray grease - thru a washcloth. My cousin passed out sniffing the gas can in the boat.

Shall we criminalize household chemicals & petroleum products? How about the weeds & mushrooms in your yard?

Is it your idea that if we can just eradicate pot, coke, heroin, meth, etc. that the problem is solved? Dream on!

62 posted on 05/07/2010 12:18:48 PM PDT by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da
Is it your idea that if we can just eradicate pot, coke, heroin, meth, etc. that the problem is solved? Dream on!

Is it your idea that if we can just legalize the selling of pot, coke, heroin, meth, etc. at the local 7-11 that the problem is solved? Dream on!

63 posted on 05/07/2010 12:22:46 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Awk! A parrot!

Bye-bye birdie!

64 posted on 05/07/2010 12:34:32 PM PDT by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
You seem to have missed my question to you. You mean you would not shoot a dog that is attacking yourself or your child?

You asked me if I would put that 78 year old guy in jail and I said Nope. The answer to your second question is yes I would shoot an attacking dog.

What I would not do is kick someone's door down, go into their house and kill their dog, which is there to protect the owner. That would be evil and cruel and in that case the dog is an innocent victim.

Look, if the police want our respect, they need to stay away from the cruel and heartless stuff. But maybe they would rather we fear them or look down at them as evil monsters. The cops in this video were evil monsters and they belong in a cage. These guys are more dangerous than drug dealers and a bigger threat to society.
65 posted on 05/07/2010 12:38:47 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

>>If I were going to plant some drugs on someone it would be someone with a prior history
>
>This guy was a professional criminal. No need to plant anything on him.

When the state makes everything one can do illegal does the word/term ‘criminal’ mean anything?

Let me illustrate; my home state of New Mexico has, in it’s State Constitution, the following:
[Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

Yet there is a State Statute forbidding the presence of firearms on University premises. See: http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll/nmsa1978/9b0/efc5/f17d/f1a5?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Now, given the above information; would I be a criminal if I were to take my Glock on campus open-carry? Would I be breaking any law? Why or why not?


66 posted on 05/07/2010 1:11:13 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor. A criminal is One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.


67 posted on 05/07/2010 1:38:50 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

>A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress as a felony or misdemeanor. A criminal is One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

I gave you an example of such a classified wrongdoing; the carrying of firearms on Universities is a misdemeanor according to state statute 30-7-2.4. However, the State Constitution prohibits laws abridging the right to keep and bear arms.

I ask you again; would I be a criminal if I were to open-carry my glock at the university? Why or why not?


68 posted on 05/07/2010 1:52:37 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

>>You are looking at this wrong. An innocent animal should not be punished for the crimes of his owner. Any cruel sadistic subhuman that shoots an innocent dog should go to prison.
>
>You mean you would not shoot a dog that is attacking your self or your child?

You are incorrect; that is self-defense, NOT a punishment for a crime. {That an attacker may lose his life is not a ‘punisment’ but would be better classified as a ‘risk.’}


69 posted on 05/07/2010 1:56:15 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You did not give full details. I am not an expert on NM laws but it appears that if you were walking down the sidewalk on campus not IAW the listed exceptions, NM law would consider you a criminal, you would probably be stopped and depending on the officer escorted off campus or arrested. Then you could go to court and possibly take it to the state supreme court to decide if the law is constitutional.


70 posted on 05/07/2010 1:57:43 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

>You did not give full details.

I did; I gave you the portion of the State Constitution as well as a link to the state statute.

>I am not an expert on NM laws but it appears that if you were walking down the sidewalk on campus not IAW the listed exceptions, NM law would consider you a criminal, you would probably be stopped and depending on the officer escorted off campus or arrested.

Why? The text of 30=7=2.4 notwithstanding, the state Constitution says “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense [...]” Or is there something mystical that makes basic logic and reading comprehension inapplicable?

The phrase “NO LAW,” in a sentence that has no exceptions, is absolute, correct? Or, are you advocating the position that just because a great many people believe a lie that makes the lie true?

>Then you could go to court and possibly take it to the state supreme court to decide if the law is constitutional.

I’m very tempted to do so.


71 posted on 05/07/2010 2:04:19 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
did; I gave you the portion of the State Constitution as well as a link to the state statute.

No. You didn't say if you were in your car or out of your car. You didn't say if you were involved in a university or military approved function. But I filled in the blanks as I thought you would have. By the last sentence (I am tempted to do so) it could mean that you have been charged or are considering giving cause to be arrested to challenge the law in court. Whichever, I am sure that there are several state or local gun groups that have positions on these issues and can give you advice and/or support. These types of 'laws' have recently been under assault in many states though out the country and I would be supprised if NM was an exception.

72 posted on 05/07/2010 2:12:13 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I am not an expert on NM laws but it appears that if you were walking down the sidewalk on campus not IAW the listed exceptions, NM law would consider you a criminal, you would probably be stopped and depending on the officer escorted off campus or arrested.

Why?

Because campus policeman are instructed to enforce the laws, not decide whether the law is constitutional.

73 posted on 05/07/2010 2:14:35 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Or, are you advocating the position that just because a great many people believe a lie that makes the lie true?

No. I am advocating that if a law is on the books, be prepared to suffer the consequences if you violate the law.

74 posted on 05/07/2010 2:15:51 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

>I am not an expert on NM laws but it appears that if you were walking down the sidewalk on campus not IAW the listed exceptions, NM law would consider you a criminal, you would probably be stopped and depending on the officer escorted off campus or arrested.
>
>>Why?
>
>Because campus policeman are instructed to enforce the laws, not decide whether the law is constitutional.

So then the Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land and the police have no obligation to enforce that?

Honestly that’s pretty damn screwed up; the civil equivalent of Nurmburg’s “I was following orders” defense seems to have many adherents.


75 posted on 05/07/2010 2:38:07 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
"So you'll take a movie line about the Army and turn it into a disparaging remark about cops..."

Sure. You want to trust every cop you see as the guy who is going "to protect and serve" you? Continue living with your head in the sand if you wish.

"...How often do you bad-mouth the military?"

How often to you miss the meaning of an obvious statement?

I served in the military, so you know where you can shove your pathetic attempt to equate my post with somehow disparaging soldiers.

Have a nice day.

76 posted on 05/08/2010 2:25:03 AM PDT by smedley64 (Sun Tzu trumps Alinsky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: smedley64
Well since we're exchanging resumes, I've been a cop for seven years and I leave for Army Basic/OCS in a couple months.

And I think saying "Have a nice day" means the same thing in the military as it does in law enforcement. So right back at ya.

77 posted on 05/08/2010 7:31:34 AM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
Glad to see Joe still hosting my "hand signals". Unfortuately, still relevant even though I made it back in the late 90s.


78 posted on 05/12/2010 7:00:29 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson