Posted on 02/14/2013 6:21:43 AM PST by KeyLargo
Edited on 02/14/2013 9:25:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
>> You would be incorrect.
>
> Show me the cases in law supporting your contention.
That’s left as an exercise for you, the reader.
I gave you the citation of the highest law applicable: the State’s own Constitution.
>> So, you see, there are multiple reasons that someone in the situation my mother was in would be lawfully justified in driving the police-officer off (possibly including deadly force). So, being lawfully justified, would be no lawbreaker.
>
> Then why didn’t she come out of the house firing, or better yet shooting discreetly from inside the house
Obviously it would have been different if he did have a warrant, no?
IOW, she was acting responsibly, investigating the situation, and not jumping to conclusions.
Citations need to be supported by case law.
Obviously it would have been different if he did have a warrant, no?
Why? Was she a suspect?
The questions are, did Dorner have justification for firing at LEOs? Did the LEOs have justification for using deadly force in apprehending Dorner?
http://blog.grantham.edu/blog/bid/106755/Top-5-Jobs-for-Former-Military-Service-Members
military.com posted the top 5 most popular jobs for ex-military personnel.
1. Information Technology Specialist
2. Police Officer
Police officers, like military members, must possess qualities of loyalty and discipline while serving their community. Many of the physical tools military personnel acquired in training would also translate effectively into areas of law enforcement.
>> I gave you the citation
>
> Citations need to be supported by case law.
Alright, howabout this: I’m feeling lazy and don’t want to look up f—ing cases; moreover, I don’t have an annotated Constitution here.
(Furthermore, the idea that case law supersedes Constitutional law is ridiculous: it reduces our Constitution to the product of the Judiciary’s playing the children’s game of ‘Telephone’ with what it says instead of, you know, what it actually says.)
>> Obviously it would have been different if he did have a warrant, no?
>
> Why?
Because the warrant is the authorization to actually perform a search, obviously.
[To search w/o warrant is to search w/o authority.]
> Was she a suspect?
Irrelevant.
And that discipline is really shown off in incidents like the newspaper delivery and surfer, right?
Many of the physical tools military personnel acquired in training would also translate effectively into areas of law enforcement.
If you're talking about "Law Enforcement" -- which translates, in practice, to "I'm just following orders" -- then yes.
If you're talking about "Peace Officers" whose job it is to keep the peace, then no.
The reason is simple:
"There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
--Commander William Adama (Battlestar Glaactica, "Water")
Lame excuse. Corroboration is expected.
Because the warrant is the authorization to actually perform a search, obviously.
What exactly was being searched? Does an LEO have to get a search warrant to enter, search or cross private property in pursuit of a fleeing suspect/fugitive?
McVeigh, Hassan, Manning, Dorner......and you claim to be former military. Do you see where you have put yourself?
Battlestar Glaactica
Really? Fantasy world?
>> Because the warrant is the authorization to actually perform a search, obviously.
>
> What exactly was being searched? Does an LEO have to get a search warrant to enter, search or cross private property in pursuit of a fleeing suspect/fugitive?
Not applicable in the scenario given, even if such was the case. Besides which the officer didn’t even say that he was in pursuit.
>> I’m feeling lazy and don’t want to look up
>
> Lame excuse.
It’s the truth.
> Corroboration is expected.
Ok, here, read the constitution for yourself:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Fnl-SqDl-QAJ:sos.state.nm.us/pdf/2007nmconst.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgdGEgykJ-5XTBWpWG_h8XmNdIH7KByGwifLObXafp0OUWf2NKsNRrrR8ZQ1Ey9wFQPLpcnpivzqEXX4M-LqBxf8koQYl9Nxp-TdjtRcTGeMF3wVUI7ri61FTRg3fLsQeAfTsn3&sig=AHIEtbT_TVrD7d6kmgTUJ76y0o1bhqIWKw
Again, I do not ascribe to the theory that case law is needed to tell one what the Constitution means. Such a theory is repugnant to the Constitution itself, which says:
Art II, Sec. 2. [Popular sovereignty.]
All political power is vested in and de-
rived from the people: all government of
right originates with the people, is founded
upon their will and is instituted solely for
their good.
If it were the case that the case-law determined what the constitution meant then the actual people enacting the Constitution are not vesting power to the courts through the Constitution, but instead the Constitution through the courts. (This is a basic principle of authority.)
Apparently they mean to you that you can't trust any mil or ex-mil.
OTOH, apparently the behavior of the police in southern California means that we should all trust every action of any cop implicitly unless they are actually caught shooting at anything that moves in a pickup truck, and even then we should still trust their departments in any incendiary action they take.
… those with disdain for fantasy also have disdain for responsible living in reality — for it is by the measure of our own “what if” that we operate.
Or if you perfer CS Lewis:
“At all ages, if [fantasy and myth] is used well by the author and meets the right reader, it has the same power: to generalize while remaining concrete, to present in palpable form not concepts or even experiences but whole classes of experience, and to throw off irrelevancies. Bat at its best it can do more; it can give us experiences we have never had and thus, instead of 'commenting on life,' can add to it.”
― C.S. Lewis
>> that discipline is really shown off in incidents like the newspaper delivery and surfer, right?
>
> McVeigh, Hassan, Manning, Dorner......and you claim to be former military. Do you see where you have put yourself?
Yes; and do you see where you’ve now put the police?
[Post 596] — Many former military personnel are police officers.
[Post 604] — military.com posted the top 5 most popular jobs for ex-military personnel. […] 2. Police Officer
So why should the general population trust a group who is, by your own unfortunate implications, inundated with terrorists?
The officer isn't obligated to inform you.
read the constitution I do not ascribe to the theory that case law is needed to tell one what the Constitution means.
That isn't case law corroborating your contentions. I'm not playing your juvenile game. I disagree with many of the laws we have to abide by, but that doesn't make me immune to them. For example; I'm anti-abortion. Abortion is now legal according to the USSC. Does the fact that I disagree give me license or justification to take the lives of those involved?
The US Constitution is being constantly interpreted and challenged. It always will be as long as there are people on this earth. Why do we even need a Constitution and laws? Because people by their very nature are selfish, violent, wicked, evil and dishonest.
No, but I hope I drove home my point. Isn't that exactly what all of you criminal apologists were inferring about the cops?
See, the broad brush you so easily used to smear the police with can also smear the military. Get it?
Or if you perfer CS Lewis:
I'd much prefer you'd spend your valuable time posting case law to support your contentions.
Ah, so anyone with a badge can run roughshod over your property and not inform you... right.
Guess that whole Magna Carta thing is an old, dead document and not, you know, part of the common law.
>> read the constitution I do not ascribe to the theory that case law is needed to tell one what the Constitution means.
>
> That isn’t case law corroborating your contentions. I’m not playing your juvenile game. I disagree with many of the laws we have to abide by, but that doesn’t make me immune to them. For example; I’m anti-abortion. Abortion is now legal according to the USSC.
There’s your problem. By what authority does the USSC have to prohibit the states themselves prohibiting abortion? Especially when, by the 14th Amendment, one could argue they are constrained to prohibit such activity as abortion (being murder), and by the 10th Amendment the States [or people thereof] are free to enact such anti-abortion laws as they see fit while the federal government is prohibited from interfering therein or altering such law. The answer is that they do not legitimately have that power, the enaction of such laws are not prohibited by the US Constitution.
Interestingly the justification given was a “right to privacy” — well what’s happened to privacy in one’s home? On one’s person? When one travels? — The 4th is regularly spit upon by “Law Enforcement” and the Judiciary alike (remember the IN supreme court saying the State of IN “no longer recognizes the right to resist UNLAWFUL police intrusion”).
> Does the fact that I disagree give me license or justification to take the lives of those involved?
I find it interesting you jump directly to taking their lives.
> The US Constitution is being constantly interpreted and challenged. It always will be as long as there are people on this earth. Why do we even need a Constitution and laws? Because people by their very nature are selfish, violent, wicked, evil and dishonest.
And these all apply to the government.
Funny, I recognized that posts ago.
Really? OMG, another libtard drama queen.
There’s your problem
No, it is a problem for everyone who disagrees with USSC decisions.
what authority does the USSC have to prohibit the states themselves prohibiting abortion?
Careful, those states rights that you are so infatuated with could also decide to prohibit the right to own certain or all firearms, as some cities have done.
I find it interesting you jump directly to taking their lives.
Isn't the Dorner killing what has precipitated the whole discussion? Isn't abortion killing?
Why should I?
I'm not a lawyer*, I'm a philosopher, writer, and programmer.
*Law interests me, though I am uninterested in furthering an industry which flat-out says one cannot challenge plainly contra-constitutional 'laws'/statutes without breaking said statute and thereby forcing one to fight from the position of weakness of implicitly acknowledging the authority of the illegitimate 'law'.
Source: Experience, and more experience.
Not if you're going with Constitutionalism.
Most of the states have a separate "right to keep and bear arms" section in their own Constitution which tend to be more explicit than the 2nd amendment (i.e. "now law shall", "shall not be denied" & "shall not be questioned"). Moreover most states also have a "the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of THIS STATE shall be the supreme law of the land" or similar which would incorporate the 2nd Amendment.
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.