SHERIFF: 'We want people to call us if guy down street hates government'

reply to post by Afterthought

I'm just asking you to clarifying your stance.

No, you arent. You are claiming I said things and expressed sentiments that I never did.

In one instance, you're stating that the police have the right to search homes without warrants and that those people who aren't in agreement with this are part of the problem.

So where are the quotes, then? I am seriously so sick of devious liars. I never said anything of the sort. I said that A)some understanding and cooperation is required from the civilians,B)that the vast majority of these searches where by permission, and C) i said if you AUTOMATICALLY disagree, just because it is what the government or police said, that you are part of the problem.

So, do you believe that the police should be able to search someone's home without a warrant if the police receive an anonymous tip about the person?

Only with permission, as I have said, over and over again.

After all, you stated that people who interfere with police searches are part of the problem, but where is the line in regards to your stance?

Again, Ill ask for a quote. Why do you dodge it? You continue to say that I have said these things, so where are the quotes?

The challenge has been laid...why do you ignore it? By ignoring it, are you admitting that you are lying?

If people are curious, they can certainly enter that thread and read for themselves how you staunchly defended police searching the homes without warrants. I don't need to quote every single post of yours.

So, in other words, you cannot provide a quote, but are going to deflect to make it seem like they are there.

I find it amazing that I can count on at least one out of a group of about 8 of you to show up in any thread I post in, and to post blatant lies about me in those threads. So, final time: Put up or shut up. Provide some quotes of me saying the things you are accusing me of, or quit the mud slinging.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by eXia7

 

Oh for sure. The article indicated it could be a model for the rest of the country. Your OP was great. Hope I didn't give you the wrong impression.

No problem, I just agreed with you, sometimes it may seem that I am disagreeing with people when I respond, because I tend to branch off on different subjects sometimes.

Originally posted by eXia7
"If you see something, say something" has become a popular term used by government officials to expand their power presence, and put it in the hands of everyday citizens.

Bradshaw plans to use the extra $1 million to launch “prevention intervention” units featuring specially trained deputies, mental health professionals and caseworkers. The teams will respond to citizen phone calls to a 24-hour hotline with a knock on the door and a referral to services, if needed.

This "plan" is one of the most reprehensible things I have heard of in the past decade during our slow slide into authoritarianism.

"Prevention Intervention" sure does sound a lot like Pre-Crime.

There's a reason documents of authority ranging from the Bible to the U.S. Constitution require or strongly suggest two or more witnesses for conviction of a crime.

The Testimony of Two Witnesses

Bible, King James Matthew 18:15: One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

U.S. Constitution -- Article III. Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

See also: U.S. Constitution - Confrontation Clause

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

reply to post by PointDume


Would it be cool if we didn't merge church and state.

There is enough here to work with without dragging in ancient texts that have nothing to do with the subject.

Thanks.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by PointDume

 

Would it be cool if we didn't merge church and state.

There is enough here to work with without dragging in ancient texts that have nothing to do with the subject.

Thanks.

The Bible and other religious texts have long been used as a basis for legal authority and systems, and/or partial templates in part for the construction of new legal regimes such as the Magna Carte and the U.S. Constitution.

The value of religious texts as historical documents governing behavior (social mores/norms/etc.) in previous periods of human existence is completely independent of their status as spiritual guides to adherents of a particular religion.

I'd suggest a more holistic viewpoint. We are better off if we don't ignore history and if there is something of value in any historical document, including the Bible or the Quran, we should pay attention to that information and consider it as objective and free-thinking individuals.

reply to post by PointDume


WRONG. Our legal system was derived from English Common Law. You are operating upon the myth that we are a christian nation. We are not.

History

However much Roy Moore might believe that the Ten Commandments are the beginning of all law, we know otherwise. Before the Ten Commandments, there was the Code of Hammurabi, the law that set out the concept of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Before the Code of Hammurabi, there was the Code of Ur-Nammu, and before that was Urukagina's Code. Truth is, written law predates Mosaic law by at least 1,000 years.
So it might be asked if our laws don't come from the Old Testament, where do they come from? Try English common law. Isn't English common law based on the Ten Commandments? Heck, no.

A touch of history. We go back to ancient Rome, long before there is a Roman Empire, to a time when the Greeks are spreading their culture throughout the eastern Mediterranean and the region is dotted with city-states. In the city-state of Rome, there were those who had power (the Patricians) and those who served them (the Plebeians).

more

reply to post by eXia7

What happens if somebody says something that could be completely harmless, but his co-worker, the guy scared of terrorists under his bed, felt threatened... so he decides to call police.

Just two questions:

1) What constitutes "harmless," speech?
2) How many people do you know feel "threatened,' by harmless speech?

reply to post by eXia7


By the way, your thread title is incomplete...you left out the part about, "hates the mayor, and is gonna shoot him."

Do you not think this is something that out to be reported? If I overheard someone was going to shoot you, I would call the police and report it...why is a mayor not entitled to the same consideration?

reply to post by totallackey



Dude you are really not reading the article right. For instance:

Bradshaw is readying a hotline and is planning public service announcements to encourage local citizens to report their neighbors, friends or family members if they fear they could harm themselves or others.

The goal won’t be to arrest troubled people but to get them help before there’s violence, Bradshaw said. As a side benefit, law enforcement will have needed information to keep a close eye on things.

You are really not taking a look at the big picture.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by eXia7

 

What happens if somebody says something that could be completely harmless, but his co-worker, the guy scared of terrorists under his bed, felt threatened... so he decides to call police.

Just two questions:

1) What constitutes "harmless," speech?
2) How many people do you know feel "threatened,' by harmless speech?

Anything could be determined to be anti-government, even if you say you don't like paying taxes, or you don't agree with Obama, congress etc.. this would be harmless banter, even people who are really angry say things like "oh, somebody/I should shoot him, etc" but, never actually do it.. because it's all talk. Most people pass judgment on others immediately, and don't look at the person's back story, or even get to know them.. Because, people are taught to not trust anybody.

Apparently the left and the federal nanny state feel threatened by anti-federal reserve movements, bringing government corruption to light, unjust wars, unjust abuse of taxpayer funds, the list goes on and on. Those are the people who are truly threatened by free speech.

And as for my thread title, I used the one supplied from my original source.. Sure, it may sound sensational, but the truth is.. it is sensational, because it is actually happening, it's not like I'm making the news up.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Yeah, dudette...I am reading the article right...thanks...

The OP, when choosing the title, conveniently left out the words, "hates the mayor, AND is gonna shoot him."

Now, what part of that do you not understand?

Just answer this question...If I found out someone wanted to blow you up, gun you down, run you over, poison you, or throw you off a cliff, would you want me to call the police?

reply to post by eXia7


Yeah, your convenient omission of the full context of the comments made by the sheriff did go to further sensationalize the OP...The sheriff clearly used the words, "hates the government, hates the mayor, AND is gonna shoot him." You left this part out.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by PointDume

 

WRONG. Our legal system was derived from English Common Law. You are operating upon the myth that we are a christian nation. We are not.

Don't get geared up about something that isn't relevant and derail the tread nor impute an agenda to my posts when I have explicitly stated that there is no agenda.

I didn't say our legal system was wholly derived from Christian laws. I pointed out that such things are, among many historical authorities, combined into our current system. This is definitively true. As I'll show below:

Legal scholars look to lots of sources to create new law and are invariably influenced by a wide variety of primary authorities, including English Common Law, Roman Civil Code, the Bible, Plato, Artistotle, Hobbes, all the live long day.

One great example of the multi-sourced nature of legal authority are the legal doublets. For example:

"Aid & Abet"
"Lewd & Lascivious"
"Indemnify and Hold Harmless"

Here's a big list of legal doublets: Wikipedia - Legal Doublets

The doublets come from the combination of Common and Civil law and the derivation of concepts from French and Latin sources primarily (generally Civil), coupled with English Common Law.

But the hyrda-like nature of the American system isn't just from civil and common law basis. There are historically religious or spiritual underpinnings to many of our cherished legal concepts.

For example, here's a law review article that discusses the long tradition of citing the Bible in court cases in the U.S.:

The Bible Annotated: The Use of the Bible in Reported American Decisions - Northern Illinois Law Review

From the article:

It is therefore not surprising to find the Bible being quoted or cited in American court opinions as the foundation for or an early example of the sequestration rule, punitive damages, forgiveness of debts, due process, forfeiture, alien rights, statutory construction, basic agency doctrine, tenancy by the entirety...

Generally speaking, courts rarely, almost never, use, as far as I am aware, religious texts as "controlling legal authority," but courts have often used religious texts as supporting material for equitable or policy grounds in decisions, or for historical context/

Historically-speaking, the idea that generally Christian white men in England and the United States did not consider what they read in the Bible while drafting laws is, quite frankly, absurd.

I'm a whole-hearted proponent of the separation of Church & State. I generally abhor any kind of organized and concentrated power and that includes the Church and State separately and, especially, in conjunction.

All that being said, we're supposed to Deny Ignorance here. Just because we don't like something (organized religion, socialism, capitalism, whatever), doesn't mean we should pretend it does not exist, or pretend that whatever "it" is didn't have a huge impact on the social, political and legal development of our society.

Back on thread topic:

I don't particularly care where the legal, moral, ethical or other authority comes from that helps bolster the overall intellectual case against turning our nation into a digital prison for recriminating rats; so long as thinking people consider history and oppose the kinds of actions and systems described in the OP.

reply to post by totallackey


Those were examples of what he wants his callers to be dishing on.

Come on, that was not the only subject....DUDE

reply to post by PointDume


OK. I could cut and past some stuff into extext too. But in the interest of not derailing the thread, as you wish, I will just stand pat.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by eXia7

 

Yeah, your convenient omission of the full context of the comments made by the sheriff did go to further sensationalize the OP...The sheriff clearly used the words, "hates the government, hates the mayor, AND is gonna shoot him." You left this part out.

Well, I'm sorry it bothered you, were you expecting me to draw a conclusion for you? I assume you read the article, and you disagree with the content I posted.

Headline aside, what was proposed in the article shows us that they will blatantly set up ways for people to spy on their neighbors, and report whatever that person feels is a threat, the entire thing would be subjective..

ex: did you piss your neighbor off a few weeks ago? Perhaps he knows you own guns, and you don't agree with government. Now, how could they determine on the fly that the threat is fake.. only after they raid your home, humiliate you in front of the public, and basically turn your life upside down, they finally clear you of wrong doings.. but you had to go through a lot of mental anguish and finances to prove your innocents, all because you made your neighbor mad.

See what I'm getting at? If you let the public police things that need evidence to prove, and they screw it up, the police have no liability in the matter, they will just blame John Q Public, and justify their system.

reply to post by eXia7

...even people who are really angry say things like "oh, somebody/I should shoot him, etc" but, never actually do it.. because it's all talk.

I think the events of the world over the history of humankind clearly demonstrate that it is NOT all talk...

Apparently the left and the federal nanny state feel threatened by anti-federal reserve movements, bringing government corruption to light, unjust wars, unjust abuse of taxpayer funds, the list goes on and on. Those are the people who are truly threatened by free speech.

And here we see the split explanation...on the one hand, these people are powerful enough to take over the world, and will come and drag you out of house and home, yet on the other they feel threatened by little ole you...please, my stomach is in pain from laughing so hard...

I cannot stand paying taxes, am sick of all the unjust wars, and think CZAR BUSH the FIRST had JFK killed and had ole Ronnie shot...IF I could prove it, I would do something about it...

Trust me, these guys running the show could give two shakes about any of us...

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by eXia7

 

I cannot stand paying taxes, am sick of all the unjust wars, and think CZAR BUSH the FIRST had JFK killed and had ole Ronnie shot...IF I could prove it, I would do something about it...

Trust me, these guys running the show could give two shakes about any of us...

Well, watch what you say, your neighbor might deem you a threat.. or your boss, or your wife, or you brother.. whoever.

And I agree they don't care about us, but when you run a for profit prison system, they care enough to get us in there.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Wrong, dudette...the word "and," is a CONJUNCTION!!! Meaning joining together and providing FULL CONTEXT!!!

Understand?

reply to post by eXia7


I read the article, and I notice you did not yet answer any of my questions posed to you about it...rather, you continue to post tripe and trite little things about people spying on people and the like..

Just answer this question...

If I found out you were going to be gunned down, would you want me to call the police?