Cops are such hereos

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But you still haven't addressed the issue. Suppose it was your house. Someone, without offering any corroboration, yells that they are police and that if you don't open the door in 20 seconds they're going to kick your door down.

What do you, as a gun owner, do? Just because they say they're police doesn't mean they're not lying and just want to rob you or worse.

I'd probably end up like Granny... but there'd be more yelling back and forth so that I could determine what the situation was.

So maybe it's not such a great idea to legally sanction the "20 second rule".

Show me where I said the rule was a good idea? I said that while it was legal, I didn't agree with the usage of it. The only places I see it being applicable is:

1. Risk of destruction of KNOWN evidence.
2. Officer safety if it is KNOWN that the person inside is heavily armed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[WeakMindedFool 0]

Quote

Tell me you're fucking joking? If this was your grandma you would want nothing less than a pound of flesh.

Oh, gee, I'm sorry, look at the bright side, there will be extra helpings for Thanksgiving. sorry???? WTF

What exactly do you think I'm saying that is getting you so excited? The, "Looks like the war on drugs has produced more collateral damage" was sarcasm...I usually don't have to explain it to poeple...I must have hit the wrong address...SORRY. What do you see as a good resolution to the situation? If you want to go after the cop on the street, your foolishly going after the symptom not the problem.
BUT...
If someone shoots at you, you shoot back. If you have never been shot at, great! But you have no basis to form an opinion.

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos

[masterrig 1]

I'd have to agree with you! Someone brought-up the subject of 'intel'. When the intel is not good, we tend to hear of the wrong doors getting kicked-in. The wrong doors will get kicked-in especially, when the bad guys give an incorrect address when booked for an offense. I know that because, that's what one of my ex neighbors did. We informed the cops, he was giving the wrong address and he was subsequently arrested on several drug charges.


Chuck

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

he was giving the wrong address and he was subsequently arrested on several drug charges.

Well, I guess it's okay to arrest him if he was using drugs.

The War on Drugs is treasonous, and creates "crime" where none existed before. It's really not much different than imprisoning someone for being Jewish.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

he was giving the wrong address and he was subsequently arrested on several drug charges.

Well, I guess it's okay to arrest him if he was using drugs.

The War on Drugs is treasonous, and creates "crime" where none existed before. It's really not much different than imprisoning someone for being Jewish.

Wah. Change the laws or expect consequences for your actions.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Wah. Change the laws or expect consequences for your actions.

You're right. There is nothing wrong with treason as long as it's legislated.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[matthewcline 0]

Explain how it is "treason"?

I do not see it as such.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Explain how it is "treason"?

I do not see it as such.

From the US Constitution (Article III, Section 3):

Quote

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them. . .

Seems pretty clear.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[matthewcline 0]

"The War on Drugs" is not actual "war" now is it?

Is it not just a bad title placed on the actual enforcement of current law?

Take away the mis-worded title and is it still treason to you? Or is it just inconveneint?

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

"The War on Drugs" is not actual "war" now is it?

Yes, it is. For example, we send SF troops to South American countries such as Columbia to reduce the incoming supply of cocaine. Do you think those troops just call the drug producers bad names?

We imprison people for drug use. We shoot people who defend themselves against the soldiers of the treasonous War On Drugs.

Our government uses propaganda which often consists of outright lies to perpetuate the War On Drugs.

How is it not a war?

Quote

Is it not just a bad title placed on the actual enforcement of current law?

A rose by any other name . . .

Quote

Take away the mis-worded title and is it still treason to you? Or is it just inconveneint?

Yes, it is still treason.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ExAFO 0]

Just toke your bong. The amateur activist schtick is rather tedious.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[matthewcline 0]

HOW?

All you offer is one liners, not actual case or a SCOTUS citing.

So far I have found lots to support he "War" on drugs but nothing to support your "treason" theory.

I have found a few articles (a lot from Denver for some reason) that are of people against the "war" on drugs, but because they want drugs legalized (not all for medical reasons either).

So, again, how is it LEGALLY "Treason"?

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Just toke your bong. The amateur activist schtick is rather tedious.

I'm truly sorry that you are blind to the injustice. Incidentally, nearly all successful activists are amateurs.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

HOW?

How what?

Quote

All you offer is one liners, not actual case or a SCOTUS citing.

So far I have found lots to support he "War" on drugs but nothing to support your "treason" theory.

Interesting that a US soldier considers the US Constitution to be "nothing." Are you sworn to protect that very document?

Quote

I have found a few articles (a lot from Denver for some reason) that are of people against the "war" on drugs, but because they want drugs legalized (not all for medical reasons either).

So, again, how is it LEGALLY "Treason"?

I suggest you read the Constitution. If you do not understand it afterward, try reading it again. There is a reason that the Founding Fathers saw fit to define ONE SINGLE crime in that document.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[matthewcline 0]

Nice twist on the use of the word "nothing".

Put the use of the word treason in current context and then get back to me on "HOW".

I asked you to show me some thing so I could understand why you feel the "war on drugs" is treason. The "war on drugs" is not against the law abiding Citizens of this country, but on the ones who choose to VIOLATE current National and State LAWS.
Laws that the Constitution gave the Congress and States the right to make.

Again HOW is the "War" treason?

Is it treason because some one thinks it is their "Right" to take drugs?

We had the same issue in the USA with Beer and Booze a while back and after a bit of rebelling there was new law.

Only this time the rebelling isn't working to change the laws fast enough for some. Additionally more citizens want drugs illegal than legal.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[GQ_jumper 4]

I don't think the age of the shooter is pertinent when someone is shooting at you.

Quote

Exactly, if someone is shooting at an officer it doesn't matter their age. and everyone knocking the cops for entering the house in the first place, well the fact of the matter is that mistakes happen but no one has any reason to fire on cops entering their house. I'll be the first one to pull the trigger on someone kicking down my door, but if I have a reason to believe its the Police they'll come into my house to find me on the groud with my hands stretched out so that there is no mix up. What were they supposed to do, say "ohits just a little old lady, she can shoot at us all she wants."

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[Amazon 7]

Quote

but if I have a reason to believe its the Police they'll come into my house to find me on the groud with my hands stretched out so that there is no mix up. What were they supposed to do, say "ohits just a little old lady, she can shoot at us all she wants."

See now that is the smartest reaction to living in a police state that I have seen yet.




Perhpas NOT breaking down peoples doors though.. especially on bad intel would be a far better solution.. Cops who are wired up on a hair trigger to kill anything that even APPEARS to be a threat to them is not what this country is supposed to be about.
( gee they used to do that all the time in the former Soviet Union and East Germany... dont like your neighbor... rat them out for being a counter-revolutionary to the KGB or the STASI)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Nice twist on the use of the word "nothing".

Put the use of the word treason in current context and then get back to me on "HOW".

You were the one who disregarded the Constitution as "nothing." Don't be upset with me.

There is no need to put treason in a current context, since the Founding Fathers defined treason in the Constitution. Evidently they wanted to make sure the definition remained fairly static.

Quote

I asked you to show me some thing so I could understand why you feel the "war on drugs" is treason. The "war on drugs" is not against the law abiding Citizens of this country, but on the ones who choose to VIOLATE current National and State LAWS.
Laws that the Constitution gave the Congress and States the right to make.

My position is that those very laws are treasonous. Can you show a case where the SCOTUS deliberated about and decided against such a defense? I'm not aware of any.

If the citizens are law abiding in every other way, the War On Drugs is a war against (otherwise) law abiding citizens. If Congress passes a law stating that Americans can no longer drive white cars, and the Executive Branch began to violently enforce the law, would you feel the same way?

Quote

Again HOW is the "War" treason?

Have you read the Constitution? Treason is clearly defined.

Quote

Is it treason because some one thinks it is their "Right" to take drugs?

Yes, for varying reasons. For example, shamen (contemporary and traditional) and Rastafari have their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion infringed by the War On Drugs. (Scroll down the page of the previous link to read the First Amendment.)

Others may simply desire an alternate consciousness without the dangers associated with alcohol.

Quote

We had the same issue in the USA with Beer and Booze a while back and after a bit of rebelling there was new law.

Only this time the rebelling isn't working to change the laws fast enough for some. Additionally more citizens want drugs illegal than legal.

Forgive me for having the desire to live in a free country.

Can you support your assertion that the majority of Americans want drugs to remain illegal?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[matthewcline 0]

I did not refer to the Constitution as "nothing", you put the inference there using my reply.

The founding fathers also gave the Congress and the President (and US the citizines) a way to add to the Constitution and make laws. These laws have held up in court, and thus it is illegal to use the drugs specified. Even if the drug law is the only being broken, your not a law abiding citizen.

Find a better analogy than "white cars" and your argument may have merit.

What I take from your stance;

You (or some one you know and care about) want to do drugs and not go to jail. To feel better about breaking the LAW you say the "war on drugs" is treason.

That is what I have learned from you.

"The authors were concerned about the definition of treason. They thought that it was used too broadly to define any dissenting opinions. Their new country would be much stricter about what treason was, and how one would be accused and convicted of it.

Treason, then, is defined only as going to war against the USA, or aiding the enemies of the USA. To be convicted, the accused must confess to treason, or be accused by two direct witnesses of the treason.

The authors were also concerned that the person convicted of treason be the only one to suffer for the treasonous acts. The Constitution explicitly that there may be no "corruption of blood," or that the children and relatives of the traitor not be considered traitorous simply by relation; the "no forfeiture" clause basically means that once the traitor dies, "payment" for the crime ends."

From your link. It is the "War on Drugs", not the USA, to be literal.
Additionally did not the Reagon Adminastration, and each one there after, delclare a "Was on drugs", thus making any one who supports the drugs and the drug pushers treasunous?

Treason
treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war Source: NMW

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I did not refer to the Constitution as "nothing", you put the inference there using my reply.

Did you read my post before you replied? If so, you saw that I used the Constitution to support my assertion. You then claimed I had used "nothing" to support my assertion. How else can that be interpreted, except that you consider the Constitution to be "nothing?"

Quote

The founding fathers also gave the Congress and the President (and US the citiznes) a way to add to the Constitution and make laws.

Agreed. Care to show me the amendment where the definition of treason was changed?

Quote

These laws have held up in court, and thus it is illegal to use the drugs specified.

Have a link to the case where the treason defense was used and defeated? If it hasn't been argued, it hasn't been deliberated.

Quote

Even if the drug law is the only being broken, you're not a law abiding citizen.

Find a better analogy than "white cars" and your argument may have merit.

Both the drug laws and the hypothetical white car law produce victimless crime. The analogy works well for that purpose, which is the only purpose intended with it.

Quote

What I take from your stance;

You (or some one you know and care about) want to do drugs and not go to jail. To feel better about breaking the LAW you say the "war on drugs" is treason.

That is what I have learned from you.

A better summation would be that I have read the US Constitution dozens of times, at least, and noticed a discrepancy between Article III, Section 3 and the War On Drugs, as well as between the First Amendment and the War On Drugs.

Forgive me for having enough pride in the Constitution to speak out about such an injustice. It's all part of my master plan to someday live in a free country. Hopefully I won't have to emigrate from the US to realize that dream.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[justinb138 0]

Quote

You (or some one you know and care about) want to do drugs and not go to jail.

Please do not assume that because someone supports legalization of drugs that they are a user themselves.

I've never touched illegal drugs and I am for legalization of them (some of them anyway) simply because the war on drugs does only two things:

1. Wastes unimaginable amounts of taxpayer money.

2. Results in the imprisonment of people who have caused no harm against anyone other than themselves, if any harm is done at all.

[matthewcline 0]

The treason plea doesn't fit.
Of course you wont see a court case where treason was the defense, again, it doesn't fit.

Victimless crime? Debatable at least, but I would say there are plenty of victims when it comes to the use of illegal drugs.

I am glad your reading the Constitution, a dozen times is a good start. In the last year alone I have read it that many times ( it is posted in one of our offices so I see it daily). I also sat in several classes concerning the Constitution and Constitutional Law over the last 20+ years.

I really feel your reaching with the treason argument. But best of luck with it. You may be successful and change the Law as it stands now.

(reading the link you provided I do not see your interpretations as accurate)

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[matthewcline 0]

So you too think illegal drugs are a "Victimless" crime?

IMO any one who is supporting the use of illegal drugs is not looking close enough to what is happening. Look at the folks who mug, rob and steal to make funds for a "rock". How about the innocents shot and killed when to rival drug "lords" shoot it out with each other.

Maybe you have been lucky enough not to see this first hand. I hope so.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The treason plea doesn't fit.
Of course you wont see a court case where treason was the defense, again, it doesn't fit.

Incorrect and illogical. If the defense is used and defeated, you can make that claim, but not until then.

Quote

Victimless crime? Debatable at least, but I would say there are plenty of victims when it comes to the use of illegal drugs.

Far, far fewer than those who are victims of the War On Drugs. The laws are more dangerous than the crimes.

[matthewcline 0]

OK, as far as religion. If it was ONLY for religion I would see your point as valid. But sadly it isn't.

A Shamen uses small amounts of peyote, RAW cocoa leaves, etc. Not refined, packaged and sold at huge mark up on the street corner.

A Rasta who is practicing would again have my help in a Religious defense, not the one carrying 20 kilos to a dance party.

I would think that if the Treason argument would work it would have been tried. Maybe Criminal Defense Attorneys are smarter than us and figured it wouldn't work?

And again I do not see it as a war on its citizens. The Constitution allows for these laws, it also allows for us to vote the politicians out and to change the laws.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!