Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tucson SWAT Team Defends Shooting Iraq Vet 60 Times
abcnews.go.com ^ | 20 May, 2011 | ELLEN TUMPOSKY

Posted on 05/23/2011 4:37:47 AM PDT by marktwain

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-215 next last
To: marktwain

Have any of the other house been raided?


141 posted on 05/23/2011 11:26:18 AM PDT by razorback-bert (Some days it's not worth chewing through the straps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judges Gone Wild
I suppose that you could learn what I have.To Wit: The police are no longer the friend of the law abiding citizen. On second thought, maybe they are still the friend of the law abiding citizen, but, in their eyes, there is no such animal as a law abiding citizen. There are only criminals that have not been caught yet. And By golly, we are going to put them in their place.

Other than Plant City cops, I stay as far away from the police as I can.

142 posted on 05/23/2011 11:28:15 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

“Since, most places, the threat comes from cops, that’d be the smart move.”

You don’t honestly believe that do you? Seriously, when I have to be the voice of reason, things are really screwed up.


143 posted on 05/23/2011 11:31:10 AM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If his widow hunted down and returned the favor to each and every SWAT member and police chief involved I would want to be on her jury.


144 posted on 05/23/2011 11:35:41 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead
You earlier said that "There is nothing wrong with "the war on drugs" that can't be fixed by stripping out the unconstituional BS put in by scum*** politicians.

Asking again:

Do you think it is constitutional for fedgov to impose national drug prohibition via the Commerce Clause? Or, do you think that authority should be left to the states under the Tenth Amendment?

145 posted on 05/23/2011 11:49:24 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
...Marine drill sergeant.

Drill Instructor.
Drill Sergeant is Army, and the two should never be confused.

146 posted on 05/23/2011 11:59:41 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

“band together for protection”

This is a defensive, not an offensive statement.


147 posted on 05/23/2011 12:10:08 PM PDT by Grunthor (CAIN/BACHMANN or BACHMANN/CAIN. Either way Obommunism is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

You call yourself a voice of reason and espouse this blatant attack on the American people by our own GOVERNMENT? Then when folks decide enough’s enough, you’re surprised? Boy, howdy, you’re a peach, bless your little heart!


148 posted on 05/23/2011 12:13:13 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

“Do you think it is constitutional for fedgov to impose national drug prohibition via the Commerce Clause? Or, do you think that authority should be left to the states under the Tenth Amendment?”

I am a fan of states rights and the 10th ammendment and would like to see it enforced more vigorously. Regarding the Commerce clause, I have long complained about its abuse by the feds to justify govt meddling in all aspects of life. In case of drug laws, the commerce clause might be considered relevant since drugs are illegally transported for sale across state lines. Can’t say that I’ve thought about it enough to give a firm answer.


149 posted on 05/23/2011 12:14:29 PM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

“band together for protection”
“This is a defensive, not an offensive statement.”

How do you envision this “banding together for protection” against the badge wearing thugs will work? For example, the cops get a warrant against your neighbor who you think is a good guy but who has been selling drugs for years. They roll up in the middle of the night and kick his door in. He calls his band for help and grabs his rifle. What do you do? Assume the cops are an assasination squad, grab your guns and rush to help? See any potential problems here?


150 posted on 05/23/2011 12:25:05 PM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead; weston; TSgt

OK, since you three are the duty WOsD cheerleaders, let’s have a history lesson.

The Declaration of Independence is the legal authority which founded this nation. It has a great deal of import on all which has followed. If you read it through, you see that the Founders had had much the same sort of thing as we suffer under the war on some drugs. Their oppressor was also their government, the government of George III and his Parliament. So I KNOW they would find this modern tyranny as offensive as they did his.

They put in an item about government with and by the “consent of the governed.” What did they mean? It seems pretty simple: You gave your INFORMED CONSENT to the acts of government, for they were done in your name and on your behalf. HOWEVER, you cannot give consent to government to do ANYTHING that YOU may not justly do. In the current instance, YOU cannot justly beat down your neighbor’s door and kill him for resisting, just because you think he might be using a substance of which you disapprove. Therefore, you cannot PROPERLY have anyone else doing so FOR YOU. It’s just that simple.

Can you possibly justify these raids (or anything even close to them) in light of the DoI? If so, please explain WHY. If not, then HOW do you justify this travesty?


151 posted on 05/23/2011 12:26:33 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

“You call yourself a voice of reason and espouse this blatant attack on the American people by our own GOVERNMENT?”

I’m the voice of reason because I can tell the difference between a screw up by the police and a blatant attack on the American people. I can also tell the difference between a group of overzealous local donut eaters with machine guns and a police state.


152 posted on 05/23/2011 12:31:41 PM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead; dcwusmc

Ditto what Hacklehead said.


153 posted on 05/23/2011 12:34:29 PM PDT by TSgt ("Some folks just need killin'" - Sling Blade (2006))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

No problem there at all. ANYONE who tries kicking in doors in the middle of the night deserves every bad thing that might happen to them! There is NO EXCUSE for such behavior, EVER. That you approve of such things speaks volumes about you, NONE of it good.


154 posted on 05/23/2011 12:34:51 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

Oh I see potential problems; 1. Know your neighbors. I do.

2. You “roll up inthe middle of the night in my neighborhood and start kicking in doors, you better be screaming “police, we have a warrant” at the top of your lungs or else something really tragic might happen.


155 posted on 05/23/2011 12:35:37 PM PDT by Grunthor (CAIN/BACHMANN or BACHMANN/CAIN. Either way Obommunism is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead
I am a fan of states rights and the 10th ammendment and would like to see it enforced more vigorously.

Except when it comes to your pet issue.

Regarding the Commerce clause, I have long complained about its abuse by the feds to justify govt meddling in all aspects of life.

Except when it comes to your pet issue.

In case of drug laws, the commerce clause might be considered relevant since drugs are illegally transported for sale across state lines.

The reach of the Wickard Commerce Clause goes beyond that. Fedgov imposes prohibition on all levels of government, and on the people in their private lives. As Justice Thomas said in Raich:

If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Can't say that I've thought about it enough to give a firm answer.

Yet you are willing to advocate for a fedgov policy that you're not sure is constitutional. That's known as having contempt for the Constitution.

156 posted on 05/23/2011 12:36:44 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead; TSgt

Now you wanna try your hand at responding to post 151? Not that I accept your premise in this response, as there is NO WAY to justify it, but y’all just keep on trying to defend the indefensible, like good statist lackeys.


157 posted on 05/23/2011 12:41:08 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: TSgt
According your understanding of the original Constitution, do you think it is constitutional for fedgov to impose national drug prohibition via the Commerce Clause? Or, do you think authority over intrastate drug policy should be left to the states under the Tenth Amendment?
158 posted on 05/23/2011 12:44:25 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle; MindBender26
>Whatever happened to being presumed innocent?
>
Well, according to MindBender26 it's ok because you can prove your innocence or sue for illegal practices by the LEO in court.
159 posted on 05/23/2011 12:49:51 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 60 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

ANYONE who tries kicking in doors in the middle of the night deserves every bad thing that might happen to them!

OMG we might actually agree. Masked men kicking in doors in the middle of the night is asking for a shotgun blast to the face, especially if it belongs to an innocent man who has no reason to expect the cops. Likewise the cops are expecting to encounter an armed criminal, not an innocent homeowner. That’s when someone gets killed.

“There is NO EXCUSE for such behavior, EVER. That you approve of such things speaks volumes about you, NONE of it good.”

Its obvious I neither approve or excuse such behavior, and the fact that you are willing to smear someone with such lies speaks volumes about you, as does the paranoid delusions and violent rhetoric.


160 posted on 05/23/2011 12:52:34 PM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-215 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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