Well, they're "protected" from him now! :(
File a protective order, get your family member killed. Yeah, that'll show them!
Also, officers Jackboot and Thug should be commended for their brave service: for being willing to circumvent due process to protect their subjects from their dangerous constitutional rights, and the bravery to endure gun fire in the line of said duty.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-aa-shooting-20181105-story.html
Also, officers Jackboot and Thug should be commended for their brave service: for being willing to circumvent due process to protect their subjects from their dangerous constitutional rights, and the bravery to endure gun fire in the line of said duty.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-aa-shooting-20181105-story.html
0
-
I don;t like the law and have no idea if he was even really a threat to anyone. However the officers were sent to do a job. They had an order issued by a court. The man fought and it ended badly.
Both sides will use this to bolster their position.0 -
It?s truly a mess here. The damn law is an end around of the 4th Ammendment and nothing more. The officers are stuck in a bad place, the courts are afraid not to issue the orders for a myriad of reasons-political and otherwise. This is only one of several terrible incidents arising out of this go**amn travesty foisted upon the population by the liberal legislature. It gets worse daily. The LEO?s are stuck in the middle and I can assure you, most absolutely abhor anything to do with this damn thing. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
I don;t like the law and have no idea if he was even really a threat to anyone. However the officers were sent to do a job. They had an order issued by a court. The man fought and it ended badly.
Both sides will use this to bolster their position.
So, you encourage officers to follow unconstitutional orders, eh? Hmmm.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
I don;t like the law and have no idea if he was even really a threat to anyone. However the officers were sent to do a job. They had an order issued by a court. The man fought and it ended badly.
Both sides will use this to bolster their position.
So, you encourage officers to follow unconstitutional orders, eh? Hmmm.
You looking for a discussion or an argument?
The officers either execute the order or resign. I like to think I would resign. However if all the officers that do not agree with the law resigned what would take their place? It's one damn bad situation. It will take the voters to fix it unless it can be challenged and defeated in court.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
I don;t like the law and have no idea if he was even really a threat to anyone. However the officers were sent to do a job. They had an order issued by a court. The man fought and it ended badly.
Both sides will use this to bolster their position.
So, you encourage officers to follow unconstitutional orders, eh? Hmmm.
You looking for a discussion or an argument?
The officers either execute the order or resign. I like to think I would resign. However if all the officers that do not agree with the law resigned what would take their place? It's one damn bad situation. It will take the voters to fix it unless it can be challenged and defeated in court.
I was looking for clarity. Hopefully, what would take their place were folks that were like minded to the folks that, I guess, resign. I don't see why that is the only outcome for them. YMMV, I suppose.0 -
That "LAW" is full of flaws. Any family member can "RED FLAG" a another member? What could go wrong? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
I don;t like the law and have no idea if he was even really a threat to anyone. However the officers were sent to do a job. They had an order issued by a court. The man fought and it ended badly.
Both sides will use this to bolster their position.
Do the police take their oath seriously or blindly follow orders?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
I don;t like the law and have no idea if he was even really a threat to anyone. However the officers were sent to do a job. They had an order issued by a court. The man fought and it ended badly.
Both sides will use this to bolster their position.
So, you encourage officers to follow unconstitutional orders, eh? Hmmm.
Spot on MR P
...but then again, Baltimore is not a city known to care about constitutional rights or the constitution for that matter.0 -
quote:Originally posted by RugerNiner
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
I don;t like the law and have no idea if he was even really a threat to anyone. However the officers were sent to do a job. They had an order issued by a court. The man fought and it ended badly.
Both sides will use this to bolster their position.
Do the police take their oath seriously or blindly follow orders?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That amendment was covered as the officer had a court issued order for the search. The issue is the law that allowed the order is, IMO, in violation of the 2nd amendment.0 -
We do not want police officers carrying out unconstitutional orders.
But if police officers have to make that determination why do we have judges, state courts and federal courts? Why have a warrant system at all, the officers can just decide based on their investigation. Is it fair to place that responsibility on our officers?0 -
answers the question who will take your guns if banned
all those who said the LEO would not do so if ordered may want to rethink it
Its sad some one has to die fighting for a right with out even getting to present there side to a story .
I can see more shootouts killings coming up [:(!]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ditch-Runner
answers the question who will take your guns if banned
all those who said the LEO would not do so if ordered may want to rethink it
Its sad some one has to die fighting for a right with out even getting to present there side to a story .
I can see more shootouts killings coming up [:(!]
You are correct. As long as the right is taken one small step at a time, akin to putting a frog in a cool pan of water and boiling him slowly, officers will take your guns. It would take a sudden dictator type order for the officers to revolt. As long as it is introduced slowly over time new officers will take the place of those unwilling and it will be done.0 -
This would be another PLUS for not getting married,, as if there aren't enough now. 0 -
Lawful Orders
Military members failing to obey lawful orders issued by their superiors risk serious consequences.
These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. Not only should an unlawful order not be obeyed, obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/military-orders-33328190 -
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
We do not want police officers carrying out unconstitutional orders.
But if police officers have to make that determination why do we have judges, state courts and federal courts? Why have a warrant system at all, the officers can just decide based on their investigation. Is it fair to place that responsibility on our officers?
Who will be the last stop gap and say enough is enough? If not the LEOs blindly following orders, then who? I guess no one.0 -
Probably better answers to the police but if asked to give up my firearm I'd say: forgot where I put it or someone might have stolen it which might be true.
People with safes would need another answer.0 -
I hate to say, but I could possibly end up like the poor fellow in the story [V]
quote:Originally posted by droptop
Probably better answers to the police but if asked to give up my firearm I'd say: forgot where I put it or someone might have stolen it which might be true.
People with safes would need another answer.0 -
Laws are not "unconstitutional" until the courts decide they are.
Remember our three branches of government?
Legislative - those who make the laws
Executive - those who enforce the laws
Judicial - those who decide whether the laws are "legal"0 -
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
Laws are not "unconstitutional" until the courts decide they are.
Remember our three branches of government?
Legislative - those who make the laws
Executive - those who enforce the laws
Judicial - those who decide whether the laws are "legal"
Let me introduce you to a little thing called: you're wrong.0 -
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
Laws are not "unconstitutional" until the courts decide they are.
Remember our three branches of government?
Legislative - those who make the laws
Executive - those who enforce the laws
Judicial - those who decide whether the laws are "legal"
State and local laws DO NOT override The United States Constitution.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by SCOUT5
We do not want police officers carrying out unconstitutional orders.
But if police officers have to make that determination why do we have judges, state courts and federal courts? Why have a warrant system at all, the officers can just decide based on their investigation. Is it fair to place that responsibility on our officers?
Who will be the last stop gap and say enough is enough? If not the LEOs blindly following orders, then who? I guess no one.
Jury nullification, but getting enough jurors that understood it is not likely. Of course that can't help the guy in the article, he already paid all he had.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
Laws are not "unconstitutional" until the courts decide they are.
Remember our three branches of government?
Legislative - those who make the laws
Executive - those who enforce the laws
Judicial - those who decide whether the laws are "legal"
Let me introduce you to a little thing called: you're wrong.
Please elaborate. Which part is "wrong"?
Seriously, I would like to know.
What I learned in school.
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/1.htm0 -
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
Laws are not "unconstitutional" until the courts decide they are.
Remember our three branches of government?
Legislative - those who make the laws
Executive - those who enforce the laws
Judicial - those who decide whether the laws are "legal"
Let me introduce you to a little thing called: you're wrong.
Please elaborate. Which part is "wrong"?
Seriously, I would like to know.
What I learned in school.
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/1.htm
Probably one of the better, more recent examples is the Washington State law (put into effect via initiative I594), which Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich refuses to enforce within his jurisdiction because it is unconstitutional. Odd how he is able to do that if what you say holds true.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by US Military Guy
Laws are not "unconstitutional" until the courts decide they are.
Remember our three branches of government?
Legislative - those who make the laws
Executive - those who enforce the laws
Judicial - those who decide whether the laws are "legal"
Let me introduce you to a little thing called: you're wrong.
Please elaborate. Which part is "wrong"?
Seriously, I would like to know.
What I learned in school.
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/1.htm
Probably one of the better, more recent examples is the Washington State law (put into effect via initiative I594), which Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich refuses to enforce within his jurisdiction because it is unconstitutional. Odd how he is able to do that if what you say holds true.
Let me see if I understand you - and understand I am not familiar with the "Washington State law" you refer to.
The Legislative branch of the state of Washington enacted a law. Correct so far?
A member of the Executive branch (the sheriff) does not enforce the law because he says it is not constitutional (which is actually determined by the Judicial branch). Still correct?
You do not say if the Judicial branch of the government has in fact declared the law unconstitutional . . . so I suppose the law has not been declared unconstitutional by the branch of the government responsible. That is an assumption on my part. Please feel free to correct me on this point.
We have three branches of government in our country. Just because one branch does not want to perform their duties does not automatically make one (or both) of the other branches irrelevant.
I understand the concept of "officer discretion".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discretion
However, a member of the Executive branch of our government using "discretion" DOES NOT mean the law is unconstitutional. It simply means they choose not to enforce the law. Many folks that get pulled over for a speeding violation appreciate the concept of officer discretion, but the truth of the matter is traveling 30 mph in a 5 mph zone is breaking the law. Whether there should be a 5 mph speed zone in that area is a whole different matter - and decided by the Legislative branch of the government.
What else have you got?0 -
quote:Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unfortunately that is not the only amendment that is being buzzardized by our legislators. It gets worse every decade I have been alive.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
25 comments