jenfly00

Search warrants?!?!?!?! Dude, you're living in the past. This is the NEW America! ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Nope, they are J Q Citizens merely observing things and doing their duty to keep America safe. Even if they were, search and seizure limitations are limitations on law enforcement, not nurses or children. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

I don't believe he actually hit him and the whole thing is a hoax. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Absolutely! Why not tap into other professions as well? Home Health Nurses are in a fantastic position to gather information for the police. Ambulance attendants and Meals on Wheels providers have regular access into the homes of potential terrorists, as well. The just need a little training and encouragement to do their civic duty. The best source of information, however, would be the children. Mandatory classes could be instituted in our schools teaching children how to spot subversive behavior, literature and potential terrorist objects. Brief, painless debriefing sessions could be held on a regular basis and credit given as a Civics class. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

. There are many, many less of those BECAUSE of taser use, and that my friend is a FACT. Your respect for facts seems to be murcurial at best. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Again, note the distinct messianic quality. We are blind, but you, you see all. Personally, I have nothing against the blind or deaf. I think you shoul dvisit a braille institute sometime. You mean the ones receiving govt funds that you would close down due to govt infringement. I don't think you have anything against anyone ...you just don't care. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

I'm not realy warm and fuzzy about Hillary, but dude, anyone with intelligent thought gets a rude awakening in Iowa. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

I work in homeland security grants. I think that the security of the nation is one of the few areas that the federal government should be involved in. I'm not saying it's not completely screwed up. It is. I just don't think there's anyone else other than the federal government that would be appropriate to take on the role of managing national security. OK, makes sense to me. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Pretty tough talk for someone who just got a job as a grants specialist for the mayor. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Damn boy, did you grow up hating all them pinko, commie faggots or what? Sigh, I understand your simple mind has no alternative but to make that connection. I report a truth known to all cops and the reason must be ...I reakon that there bitch don't like cops. I understand you are serious, that's what's so sad. With objectivity like that, I have no doubt you will continue to bring untarnished, truthful law enforcement to Buttfuck, KY. I'm done with you. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

...and that cops never lie. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

and who are those people? (well, I'll grant a lot of people are weak on the 1st) There's no question that that ACLU protect 90% of the Bill of Rights, and is hostile to 10%. For those of us that believe that 10% is as important as the ACLU in protecting the 90%, that's enough reason not to support them. I was referring to some prolific posters here who wave the flag over the 2nd ammendment and wipe their collective asses on the rest of the Bill of Rights ...particularly the first, fourth, sixth and eighth. To respond to your statement "ACLU protect 90% of the Bill of Rights, and is hostile to 10%", you are incorrect. "The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns." http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Except for that pesky 2nd Amendment, of course... I believe nightingale adequately answered this the last time you popped it up. Nice try though. Oddly enough, she was agreeing with me in her post... Funny how all the REST of the rights in the BOR are individual, but that one somehow isn't, in their opinion. The writings of the founders, as well as study by Constitutional scholars and doctors of experts in English language usage show that the 2nd was/is meant as an individual, not a collective, right. "A well trained chef, being necessary to the preparation of a tasty meal, the right of the people to eat baked alaska shall not be infringed" By the collectivists' logic, the chef gets the dessert and not the folks sitting at the dinner table. I have no problem with the 2nd ammendment and I own several guns. I do have a problem with those too simple minded to understand there is other really important stuff in our constitution. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

That's the way it was done in the old west. Maybe Texas is still lagging behind the rest of the US in proper justice... But yeah, I think the neighbor pumping buckshot into lethal locations on the two poor bastards was over doing it. Why not just shoot them in the lower legs? They're not going anywhere after that. I know of no situation where training is done to use a gun to simply "immobilize" a target. Center mass every time. Guns are not intended to "shoot a man in the leg". There is no such thing as a "warning shot". I'm with Mr. Horn in this case. Then you align yourself with a murderer. Listen to the 911 call, the guy was sporting wood when he went out to kill them. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

FAN FREAKIN TASTIC!!! It's time to take America back from the narrow minded twits who only believe in the 2nd Ammendment!! ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Except for that pesky 2nd Amendment, of course... I believe nightingale adequately answered this the last time you popped it up. Nice try though. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Wow, you should use those powers to read other peoples minds for good, not eeeeevillllllll Oh no, not THE Alan Dershowitz, man ya got me there, a card carrying member of the ACLU believing bad things about law enforcement, say it ain't so!!! I'll use the ivory towers defense with him. And if he says and beleives it, it must be true How do you almost teach somebody something?. I think I passed my perjury block in the academy 20 yrs ago. 2 out of 3 moms think jiffy tastes best! The wording is a little broad at best, still does'nt prove anything. They are just that, statements and opinion. You and I have those too, they just happen to be different. Aw man, ya got me again, if I only would have known. The true colors start to show, when I say things you don't like you say STFU, did it take you a long time to come up with that? I love some "progressives", they feel the louder they scream the more sense they make And sweetie, I've spent 20 yrs building upon a strong foundation of integrity given to me by my parents, I sleep just great at night. The sole purpose of the ACLU is to defend the constitution. My question to you is, as a cop, why are you not a member? Alan Dershowitz is a constitutional scholar who strongly believes in the constitution ...and you belittle him for this???? Sociopaths sleep well at night. It is not a testiment to their character, however. So much for your integrity. Thank you for testilying. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

I wasn't the least bit sympathetic to the interviewer. He was a dick who ambushed the author with his own right wing agenda. My comment was that the author could have do a better job, even under adverse conditions. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Well, in the time she did have to speak, she didn't present a very good case for her point of view. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Yeah, right. I understand you have to make this type of statment publicly ...both you and I know it ain't true. Let's check out some other very closed minded, uninformed, factually baseless statements, shall we? Alan M. Dershowitz, a professor criminallaw at Harvard Law School for 35 years and one of the coutry's leading constitutional scholars testified before congress concerning police perjury. http://www.teamliberty.net/id224.html These were his key points: ·No felony is committed more frequently in the United States than the genre of perjury and false statements ·Criminal cases often are decided “according to the preponderance of perjury” ·Police perjury in criminal cases is so pervasive that “hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests” alone ·The most heinous brand of lying (perjury by police officers) is the giving of false testimony that results in the imprisonment or execution of an innocent person ·Less egregious, but still quite serious, is false testimony that results in the conviction of a person who committed the criminal conduct, but whose rights were violated in a manner that would preclude conviction if the police were to testify truthfully ·Police Officers are almost taught how to commit perjury when they are in the Police Academy ·Police perjury is not anecdotal. Many commission reports prove rampant abuses in police departments throughout the United States ·Judges and prosecutors tolerate if not encourage police lying in court all in the name of convicting the factually guilty ·According to the Mollen Commission[2] the practice of police falsification is so common that it has spawned its own word – testilying Common examples: · When officers unlawfully stop and search a vehicle because they believe there are drugs in it, officers will falsely claim in police reports and under oath that the car ran a red light or committed some other traffic violation oOnce pulled over, the police officer will search the occupants of the vehicle as well as the vehicle – with or without consent – although the police officer will always indicate that they had consent § If consent is adamantly opposed by the occupants, the police officer will report, under oath, that the contraband was in plain view · To conceal an unlawful search that does not involve a vehicle, police officers have been taught to report and testify that they saw a bulge in the person’s pocket or saw drugs and money changing hands ·To justify unlawfully entering a residence where officers believe drugs or cash can be found, cops commit felony perjury by claiming that they had information from an unidentified civilian informant If you prefer his exact statement to congress, check here: http://www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.txt Exerpts: ----------- The following year, I represented, on appeal, a lawyer accused of corruption. The major witness against him was a policeman who acknowledged at trial that he himself had committed three crimes while serving as a police officer. He denied that he had committed more than these three crimes. It was subsequently learned that he had, in fact, committed hundreds of additional crimes, including some he specifically denied under oath. He too was never prosecuted for perjury, because a young Assistant U.S. Attorney, named Rudolph Giuliani, led a campaign against prosecuting this admitted perjurer. Shortly afterward, the policeman explained: Cops are almost taught how to commit perjury when they are in the Police Academy. Perjury to a policeman - and to a lawyer, by the way - is not a big deal. Whether they are giving out speeding tickets or parking tickets, they're almost always lying. But very few cops lie about the actual facts of a case. They may stretch an incident or whatever to fit it into the framework of the law based on what they consider a silly law of the Supreme Court. --------------- Many judges who listen to or review police testimony on a regular basis privately agree with Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who publicly stated: "It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers," and that the reason for it is that "the exclusionary rule . . . sets up a great incentive for . . . police to lie to avoid letting someone they think is guilty, or they know is guilty, go free."[14] Or, as Judge Irving Younger explained, "Every lawyer who practices in the criminal courts knows that police perjury is commonplace."[15] ------------- So, either you are one of the most totally clueless police officers in the country about what is going on...or your shoveling bullshit cause you know it will sell to the faithful. As I said, I know you cannot publicaly admit this extremely widespread problem so why don't you just STFU and at cling to some level of integrity in your silence. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

What can I say, I'm sure you consider yourself "open minded" or "progressive". For someone of that ilk, that is a very closed minded, uninformed, factually baseless statement. Just what I expected. One question, do you like Michael Moore movies? I got more cops in my family than most dogs have fleas. For years, I've sat around dinner tables filled with my father's, brother's, uncle's brothers in blue and listened as they swapped stories. I know you would be foolish to make the admission on a public forum, but it is a rare cop, indeed, who has not 'colored' his testimony in either criminal or traffic court with a defendant they fully know to be guilty (perhaps of just pissing them off). You know, just shade the facts a bit. Happens most frequently in issues of probable cause where they actually find stuff and evidence 'in plain view' (wink, wink) If you have testified in a least 100 cases, then you have done it also and you know it ...that's perjury and that's a felony my friend ...and cops commit perjury all the time. They not only see no problem with it, they frequently believe they have done a better job because of it. Now you can call it right or wrong (I take a somewhat middle position) but it happens and it happens all the time. If you haven't personally done it then you are aware of others doing it. Deny that and you will be a lia ...er, factually baseless. If cops witness another cop who makes a serious mistake in the heat of the moment resulting in charges, the odds are overwhelming that they will perjure themselves in their testimony. Call it what you like, in all 50 states it's a felony. I personally know a couple dozen cops who carry a 'clean' knife or gun 'just in case' they screw up and shoot an unarmed person. Why would 'honest' cops do that? ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

There is a great deal of training, our states academy for city and county officers is 18 weeks, it may be expanded to 22. Additionally most field training programs after the academy are 12-16 additional weeks. These situations are NOT happening all over the country, the advent of the 24 hour news cycle, You Tube, and other types of media make it appear that way. There are thousands of police and public contacts daily in this country many under very tense and dangerous circumstances, a very very small amount end up like this. Law enforcement works very hard to reduce that small amount. Could'nt disagree with you more the vast, vast majority of LEO's are honest, hardworking people doing a thankless sometimes very dangerous job. Not so, blue crusader. MOST cops commit felonies on a regular basis. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

Our compliments go out to the Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.. for taking us down the road to a country we will not recognize...Are you afraid yet.. do you feel the fear????? They thrive on it. I posted some time ago that Homeland Security would filter down to have some grim consequences in local law enforcement. The usual right wing 'patriots' generally laughed that such a thing could happen. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

As apposed to what? Kiss the ass of the criminal? Slapping him on the hand and say please do not do it again?? Look, take a peek at the countries with the lowest crime rates and see what punishment they have for steeling. Not saying that is right either but, well, just take a look and report back . “I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.” -Ghengis Kahn ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".

That's because it's all the President's fault. Where does your buck stop? ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it".