EBSB52

How about accountability for cops that kill. I know, just on the cheerleader flaot and have fun, but if it were your wife, son or anyone you care about you would be living in Tillamook.

You ever help any cops burglarize houses? Know of any felonies committed by your colleagues? I know, I'll just let it all go and allow the gov to manipulate the people with teh people by giving them guns, badges and immunity. Let's make Kent State look like a picnic. Dissent is the cornerstone of Americana says the ACLU; what does the GOP say? Fewer freedoms and less open dissent? I know.

Do you want every defendant's address made public knowledge? Obviously being found not guilty in a trial doesn't mean a person is innocent, but should they all be treated like serial sex offenders? Or do you just want this ex-cop to suffer more? (did the child die? if not, who was the second life?) I read a study similar to the one you describe, but it studied gangsters like Al Capone and his ilk, not gangbangers like the local crips and bloods. Have you got a good place to look for te source? (I didn't find it online) As for the "cap" comment, well, when you have to deal with the scum of the earth you have to learn to communicate with them. Sometimes your English or Spanish blurs to include their trash. You do realize that most murderers are cowards, and would very much prefer to come on someone from behind than stand and face them like a man, right? Your hatred for all cops is showing again. He is responsible for her death, which technically makes him a killer, but he is not a murderer. He is guilty of making a poor choice in a split second decision. In most instances, law enforcement hiring will remove such a person from the applicant pool, and if not the poor choice tends not to cost anything remmotely near a human life. In this instance, it did. He was tried in court and not convicted. He was considered by the city and fired. Not everyone agrees with both of those points, but the system performed as designed. It's not perfect, but I've yet to find a better one. You're kidding, right? Do you want every defendant's address made public knowledge? Obviously being found not guilty in a trial doesn't mean a person is innocent, but should they all be treated like serial sex offenders? Actually in Maricopa county everyone's info is public knowledge. In fact, you can even fond it on the internet very easily, but not for our murdering friend. As for him being innocent or not, he's as dirty as crap and the citizens of this county know it. Even man y cops are against this toilet fodder. Also, there is a standing suit against several cops by Lovelace (the cop) for allegedly lying about his actions. Now that the city has or will shortly make it official that he is fired, that clears the way for him to continue his lawsuit: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/civil/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2004-092518 As for being treated like a serial sex offender, sex offenders are listed in the net after the 1st offense if it is serious enough, so the serial part is unneccessary. As for public record, yes, we should all be under the purview of public record: 1. Charles Barkley - http://www.maricopa.gov/Assessor/ParcelApplication/Detail.aspx?ID=174-28-026 2. Dan Majerle - http://www.maricopa.gov/Assessor/ParcelApplication/Detail.aspx?ID=174-36-152 3. Dirty murdering cop Lovelace - http://www.maricopa.gov/Assessor/ParcelApplication/Default.aspx (Nothing on the Assessor's page - let's try the recorder's page...) http://recorder.maricopa.gov/recdocdata/GetRecDataPgDn.asp?rec=0&nm=Lovelace%20daniel%20&sar=UnOfficial&bid=&bdt=1/1/1983&edt=5/10/2005&cde=&set=250&lnk=1&bsw=TRUE&basket_id=&shopper_Id=&usr_Email= Looky there, no recording number. Ya, credible celebrities are public record, murderers are not. We can keep this banter of whether cops get HUGE immunity or not, but I think my points have been proven time and time again. Or do you just want this ex-cop to suffer more? Well, ironically, just like his license plate reads, "JUSTICE;" how about a little? All I want is for him and all cops to be treated like everyone else. Suffer, prevail, whatever's fair. The community knows what a slimeball this guy is, hence he can't go anywhere w/o being noticed. Remember, I spoke with dirty murderer 3 days before his last hit. (did the child die? if not, who was the second life?) No, the child just lost his mom forever. His first killing was the son of a doctor, a 19-year old U of A college kid. The ego was chasing a stolen truck, told to stand off by dispatch, continued chasing this truck thru several intersections until impact with the kid. I've spoken to the father, Dr. Downing. Not that it neccessarily matters, but these were 2 quality people that were killed due to the elites desire to give immunity to cops for the sake of loyalty. I read a study similar to the one you describe, but it studied gangsters like Al Capone and his ilk, not gangbangers like the local crips and bloods. Have you got a good place to look for te source? (I didn't find it online) I'll research; it's been a while. As for the "cap" comment, well, when you have to deal with the scum of the earth you have to learn to communicate with them. Sometimes your English or Spanish blurs to include their trash. I know what you're saying, but this clown had time to think about his statements - hell, he was at the board hearing so he should have been rehearsed. You do realize that most murderers are cowards, and would very much prefer to come on someone from behind than stand and face them like a man, right? I dunno, hate to generalize. My point was that he makes the assumption that no one would be brave enough to approach his face and do whatever. His ego is sooo huge, such a small penis. Your hatred for all cops is showing again. Those are your words. Your love of all cops, regardless of body count, even defenseless women-killers, is also showing in bold font. Either way, the Ad Hominem isn't constructive to the fact or the argument. He is responsible for her death, which technically makes him a killer, but he is not a murderer. Murder 2nd degree = intentional killing. Chasing a person that is of no danger to you and shooting them in the back is intentional kiling. He is guilty of making a poor choice in a split second decision. Please, one more lump of sugar. In most instances, law enforcement hiring will remove such a person from the applicant pool, and if not the poor choice tends not to cost anything remmotely near a human life. Uh, I disagree. I think depts look for egos like this. He was tried in court and not convicted. SO was OJ.....OJ really didn't do it either, right? It's not perfect, but I've yet to find a better one. Have you looked? You're kidding, right? Gangbangers, not defending them at all, but they do have standards and they would not kill unarmed women that are driving kids around for the most part. Hell, you know the deal if you hurt a mother or child and go to prison - yes, they have standards.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0507sat3-07.html He has been unable to get a job other than cleaning grease from kitchen hoods and landscaping, he said. Some people have declined his services, he said, for fear neighbors would recognize him while he mowed their lawn. Seriously. Hell, the recorders office even went to the trouble of omitting his address. Kind of ironic since other serious criminals get labeled and have their addresses posted; he gets hidden-out. I know, he isn;t a criminal because he wasn't convicted.... I guess that means OJ didn't kill those people either..... "In the back of your mind you wonder if someone's going to cap you in the back of the head," he said during the hearing. This statement made by the guy with a body count of 2 brings two issues to me: 1. Some people, even psychologists will correlate the mentality between cops and gangsters; this goes to support that. What kind of language is it for a cop to say, "cap" when referring to shooting? That is gang-bangerese all the way. 2. Why in the back of the head, trash? See, his ego is so huge that he thinks someone would lurk around and smoke him in a cowardly way instead of walking up to his face. He also thinks he's a scary guy and people would be afraid to face him. Sorry murderer, being a coward and blowing away defenseless mothers by shooting them in the back with infants in the car is reserved for you and only you - even gangbangers have standards. Go infest some other town, you pushy piece of trash.

He has problems with gender identity. Gender identity has nothing to do with sexuality, other than the equpiment might get in the way. He is confused about his choice. Wait, I thought the consensus was that it isn't a choice. The right-wing wants to make it a choice to increase the stigma associated with it. My GF's brother, who committed suicide 6 months b4 I met her due to AIDS related issues, grew up in conservative nutjob Prescott, Arizona in the 60's. Prescott was sooooo conservative thena nd even now that there is no way there was any open homosexual coaching and no other homosexuals were known. He was inclined to be gay from an early age and tried to date girls without success. He wasn't a flamboyant gay, which is the "choice" aspect of being gay. He was one of the many gays that you would never know about in public, even if you worked next to him. SO my question is, how did he become gay in the 60's and early 70's when the media didn't refer to the concept of being gay? Who was his coach? Where did he get this idea if not genetic? That's one case study, but I think the onus of proving "choice" rests primarily on the other side of the argument given all the ridicule a person goes through even today, let alone 30, 40 or more years ago.

Alright, who broke EBAY?

Bahahahahaha..... Kinda reflects the fact that we're an empire, as stated in the first post to this thread....

OK, as much as I do identify the US as being Fasist, and it has yet to be even challenged here, let alone refuted, that isn't the issue. The issue here is the 2nd and I did post a reply to you that you failed to address - I'll repost it, it's very short. I hope you answer it. Let me start by saying that as much as we disagree on, we both agree that citizens should be able to own, bear, and otherwise have, "gun rights." The differences we might have is how we get to that consideration. You want to assume that the Constitution is adhered to as it should be, and disregard the 'living Constitution.' I realize that the written Constitution is just fodder to be thrown about when justifying past actions. I don't like it being used that way, but I'm not willing to live in fantasy. I beg you to show me any of the sustantive Bill of Rights Amendments (1,2, 4, 5, 6, 8) that is actually adgered to verbatim. What is free speech, non-establishment of a stste religion, unreasonable search/seizure, right to counsel, cruel and unusual punishment? Those are so broad that there are as many definitions as there are definers. The machine will do what it wants and throw you a Constitutional bone when pressed. Now we have the 2nd. The worst words that were written within the 2nd was, "well regulated." That gives all kinds of interpretational license to the powers that want to revoke guns, both lefties and righties. Also, the powers that be could easily say the 2nd was written at a time when we didn't have a standing army, hence it becomes moot. Guys like you, right as you may or maynot be can continue to intelligently disect the 2nd like a high school frog, but the maggots that run this country (into the ground) may tell you otherwise and dare you to defy them. In spirit and heart I back you, in reality I fear as you do that gun rights will go the way of the 4th, 8th and other goodies. From that, I ask the following questions: 1. You want strict interpretations of the Const, so what other Const Amends are interpreted strictly? Unreasonable search and seizure? What's that? Well regulated - what's that? “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” 2. “….being necessary to the security of a free state,…” With a standing army now and not then, what is now necessary? 3. ”…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” What is it to be not infringed? That means we can own tanks? If not, we are being infringed. Look, Kennedy, I’m as passionate about gun ownership as you, I just realize that they will pull the plug when they want, hire lots of cops to kill anyone that won’t voluntarily turn over guns and make you and me look like nut-jobs, ala the Branch Dividians. Argue the essence of gun ownership, but the 2nd is no longer applicable, especially with the words, “well regulated.”

Great thoughts and observations. I was unaware that the 2nd had no punctuation; never noticed. The 2nd is big to me too, but legal scholars will tell you that the 4th and 14th are the most important Amendments. Of course that is subjective as women would feel the 19th is and African-Americans might say the 13th..... drunks the 21st!!! The 1st is wayyyy overstated, the 2nd far too broad and subjetcive.

I'd wager I can find things that would get you banned for a good long while, at least. And I've been banned, I just can't figure out why you haven't..... oh wait, yes I can. Either way, it wouldn't change my life one bit, so I don't really care that you'll never be banned. As for Kallend, as a person with a BS from a major university and working on a second, if any of us could fathom the work and time required to become a PhD as Kallend is, I think your statement would be retracted.

Thank you.

"blood running in the streets," "return to the wild west," blah blah blah Any more predictions that we've all heard and all seen disproven over and over again? Maybe next you'll tell us it's for the children? Well, I guess the difference is that the legislature has faith in people and you don't. Personally, I prefer a government that trusts me. Hey, Kennedy's back! Thankfully double-standards allow you to hang around with all of your personal attacks and gross sarcasm. "blood running in the streets," "return to the wild west," blah blah blah No where in here did I become as lay as to write anything about the afformentioned statements you posted. Well, I guess the difference is that the legislature has faith in people and you don't. Personally, I prefer a government that trusts me. I don't see where trust has any place in this argument or even in the legislative intent. You make broad sweeping assumptions about what the Florida legislature was thinking when they wrote this.... any backing to that? As for govs trusting, I don't think they trust or distrust, just react like machines. And they have decided to react with this premediation per this legislation.

"You're a poor act for imitaitng a senile old wretch, professor - or have you actually forgotten that this has been explained to you several times?" Maybe the greenies haven't seen this yet, but can we get some moderation in here please? I don't mind throwing stones, but let's have rules that are equal.

So murder 1 is the same as possession of marijuana...... wow

I guess that depends on to what the finished law applies or whether "such force" refers to the defence of the home bit or the no duty to retreat bit. eh? The presumption is that the intruder is there to commit violence not that they're there illegally. The wording above (assuming that accurately reflects the law... which would in its self be surprising) says: "a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home..." [so that is who it apply to – people who trespass (ish)] "...is there to cause death or great bodily harm" [this bit is the presumption – that they are there to cause death or great bodily harm]. Showing that they were a licensee/invitee would simply mean they are not the subject of the clause and that it therefore does not apply to them – an equally good way to get out of it but not really rebutting the presumption. What I'm wondering about is how the presumption in the clause may be rebutted (if at all... though one would assume a presumption can be rebutted or it wouldn't be worded so). So say you came downstairs and found someone who fell within the meaning of a "criminal who had forcibly intruded into your home" but they were simply a little old lady who had a been attacked and was seeking shelter from a maniac outside... would that (or some other odd circumstances) rebut the presumption that they were there to cause death or great bodily harm and thus cause the person who shoots them to be guilty of a crime? That's why I'm interested in what would rebut the presumption. Is it the objective facts of the situation, subjective facts, reasonable facts known to the home owner, reasonable facts to an officious bystander, facts which ought to have been known under the circumstances?? That's where the battle ground of this law is going to be if the legislature don't sort things out before the bill is enacted. Right, it requires the assessment of a hairy situation in milliseconds - people wil die because of this that shouldn't otherwise.

I think it's a great idea. But I bet there are some here that wouldn't and feel passionate about it. Agreed. There would always be the people against it whining - "But what if they were little felonies"? It sounds as if misdemeanor assault could be defended against, so I don't see the need for a felony to be committed. But by calling people that might be against this law we really know very little about and that hasn't been tested, I think calling opponents to your opinion, "whiners" is a good idea. I see a positive aspect to it, but it will be abused and create a vigilante constituency.

According to my justice teachers, the term, "outlaw" meant that a person is outside the protection of the law, hence the, "wanted dead or alive" posters. This antiquated concept has long ben abolished - leave it to the Bush's to revitalize it. These new laws will be pushed and tested and promote an attitude of standing your ground in arguments and people will feel more justified to resort to violoence and cry self-defense at the drop of a hat. SO this will create criminality. This law is too broad and subjective and even if used in good faith it requires split-second decision making by lay people.

The second was intended to cover military arms of the "average" infantry soldier. In 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, Thomas Jefferson described the militia: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service." Today, at the very least, that would mean M16s and M4s. Yes, I believe the second amendment applies to select fire and full auto firearms. Obviously, this also precludes any kind of magazine ban, as soldiers use 30 rounds mags in their rifles. It also should prevent any kind of ban on semi-automatic handguns, including Glocks, 1911s, and Berettas. Also, according to Miller, other military arms, such as bolt action rifles and common military arms would be covered. The argument could be made, though it may be a bit more tenuous, that the second should cover MP5s and SAWs as well. An RPG is on the border line, and I must conclude that it is not covered. A 28 inch double barrelled duck gun is not covered under the second amendment. A soldier's rifle is. Any politician who proposes a "sporting purpose" test for whether arms should be allowed for citizens is sponsoring positively unconstitutional legislation. The Second Amendment Recognizes and Individual Right All scholarly research (that hasn't resulted in firings and revoked prizes) clearly shows that the second amendment is an individual right. Studies of court decisions shows the same thing. Read Dred Scott about the rights he would've aquired if given citizenship. Read Miller about military arms and which guns the second amendment protects. Read United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990). Read the other thirty five or so cases where the supreme court recognized and upheld the second amendment. Check into the story of Michael A. Bellesiles and his Arming America. "The people" mentioned in the second amendment are the same ones mentioned in the rest of the amendments and the rest of the constitution. Concealed Carry This is the one area of major gun rights/gun control debate that is not guided by the second amendment. The right to keep arms is about as straight forward as can be, though some jurisdictions cannot even keep to that. The right to bear arms, though, is not as clear. Does it mean open carry? Bearing arms for a particular purpose? The answer to each question leads to a dozen more unanswered questions. Until the Supreme Court of the US hands down a clear and complete interpretation, and incorporates the states through the 14th amendment, I won't use the second to advance concealed carry. I'll use statistics, logic, and history instead. While I strongly believe in RTC legislation and will constinue to support it, I can't be certain enough to claim it is covered by the second amendment. Please elaborate on your poll answers. Let me start by saying that as much as we disagree on, we both agree that citizens should be able to own, bear, and otherwise have, "gun rights." The differences we might have is how we get to that consideration. You want to assume that the Constitution is adhered to as it should be, and disregard the 'living Constitution.' I realize that the written Constitution is just fodder to be thrown about when justifying past actions. I don't like it being used that way, but I'm not willing to live in fantasy. I beg you to show me any of the sustantive Bill of Rights Amendments (1,2, 4, 5, 6, 8) that is actually adgered to verbatim. What is free speech, non-establishment of a stste religion, unreasonable search/seizure, right to counsel, cruel and unusual punishment? Those are so broad that there are as many definitions as there are definers. The machine will do what it wants and throw you a Constitutional bone when pressed. Now we have the 2nd. The worst words that were written within the 2nd was, "well regulated." That gives all kinds of interpretational license to the powers that want to revoke guns, both lefties and righties. Also, the powers that be could easily say the 2nd was written at a time when we didn't have a standing army, hence it becomes moot. Guys like you, right as you may or maynot be can continue to intelligently disect the 2nd like a high school frog, but the maggots that run this country (into the ground) may tell you otherwise and dare you to defy them. In spirit and heart I back you, in reality I fear as you do that gun rights will go the way of the 4th, 8th and other goodies.

Not a bad idea when you realize that most of these animals engage in anal sex .. Based upon what knowledge? ...and are HIV positive ... HUH? I do not believe any prisoner who is HIV positive whould ever be released to the civilian world. So when their sentence is up, retaon them in prison on what doctrine/law, etc? Put them on an island like they used to do lepers. Lepracy is highly contageous just by being in the same room as another person, essentially. AIDS/HIV is not that contageous, just don't have sex with that person. This is obvious knowledge, so I'm not trying to reveal any unknown fact here. As for being moe cruel in punishment, the US just quit killing kids a couple months ago, maybe it pains you, but I think the hopes are we go the other direction in regard to the severity of our punishment. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, so I don't think we need to become more abusive.

Ya, I heard that too. He could still sue for palamoney I think even if they weren't married but together for a while. No way around it, you have money, you screw poor people, you pay when you break. They contractually agreed to participate in a "'faux' wedding." They each waived the right to claim that they were "putative spouses" which sets you up for palimony under Marvin v. Marvin (a case that involved actor Lee Marvin). THey NEVER got married. I'll see if I can find their "Agreement re: Wedding Ceremony." I think it said somewhere in the agreement about neither being able to get a Marriage license authenticated. Which means that both can get licenses but never legally married pursuant to Family Code section 425. No shit, that even raises the level of phoniness of B.Spears.

It matters not what his name is or who he worships. His actions cannot be overlooked because he is a muslim. He'll get what he deserves unless the bleeding hearts get involved. I only hope that his punishment fits his crime Well, the problem is that is you have a system in place that commits homicide to those deemed deserving, that definition becomes skewed as to the criteria and processes in place that make that decision and innocent people WILL eventually fall into this system. To me, hate and vindication don't run that deep to where I'm willing to kill a few innocent people to ensure guys like this get what they deserve. So it's easy to talk about bleeding heart liberals as if it makes you more tough, but it comes down to the willingness to continue to kill the occassional innocent person in order to keep the retribution machine going.

The guy that I replied to...Is not Muslim. But he has a victim complex. you'll also notice that he has not been back to defend his position meaning that he either realized he was wrong,he is off some where else or he is sitting and watching everyone froth at the mouth about this. Including my self you'll also notice that he has not been back to defend his position meaning that he either realized he was wrong,he is off some where else or he is sitting and watching everyone froth at the mouth about this. Maybe they canceled his talk show. I'm in no way defending this piece of feces, and it makes it hard to argue against cap pun for guys like this, but the media let's you hear what they want or what they are directed to tell you. Look at the Unibomber, he got the gov ever a barrel and demanded his manifesto be published in a major media source or he would continue to kill. They complied and his brother noticed Kozinski's writing style and blew the whistle. Point is, the media IS controlled in regard to the big issues and usually what happens is the government will allow the prosecution/cops to say their piece, the prosecution then complains that too much information will bias the case so the judge places a gag on the case. The defendant rarely gets a chance to state their piece to teh media and have it aired. The government fears that a martyr be created. Case in point, when McVey was about to be executed, he pleaded that he be killed in a way that wouldn't harm his organs and they be donated to people on waiting lists. The gov declined and several people died as a result. McVey didn't want to help people, but he did want to illustrate what the gov is about, but few listened. My entire argument here is that many times these defendants want to say their piece, but they aren't allowed the air/print time.

Ya, I heard that too. He could still sue for palamoney I think even if they weren't married but together for a while. No way around it, you have money, you screw poor people, you pay when you break.

I'll admit it....I'd do her. I think she is stupid, but I have fucked a lot less hot women before. Say it isn't true..... She is a dork and a crappy artist, but she make bling.

No, if we REALLY cared, we'd make the hybrid (or 40mpg by another method) engine mandatory for all, rather than just give them a carrot so the rest of us can drive Dodges getting 14mpg. Seems like a nasty form of socialism to put the people that spent an extra couple thousand into the slowest lane. Hybrids aren't free, nor are bikes or carpools. They carry a higher price than driving alone in a private steel cage. It's not about MPG, it's about staging traffic so that the slower traffic is where the merging occurs. It's about safely constructing traffic behavior.