1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

Travesty of Justice

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by Neophyte, Jul 10, 2022.

  1. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    It was put in place to make sure the government did not turn into what the colonist just fought against.
    That if the elected decided to become another Monarchy or Dictatorship type government, the people would have
    the ability to "take them out, by force if necessary" .

    These aren't my words, but of many historians.
     
  2. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    While I understand, and agree their intent then was to let the "people" own whatever the government could to resist them if needed? I do think that, if they were here today they would codify that clearer. Like it or not. In those days that meant musket, cannon, flintlock, ship at the most. Now to match the government that means tank, bomb, nuke, fighter plane. All of which we have agreed already is illegal for the "people" to own. Remember. The founders also meant us to be defended by called up militias. Not a "standing army".
     
  3. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    No matter how well they tried to write it, there is no fucking way on earth they could imagine the "smart" armaments we have
    at our disposal, let alone nuclear energy/explosions.
    Heck, even the Japanese denied in 1945 we had that kind of power.
     
  4. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    I agree. I am saying if they were here now? They would say "Yeah........ maybe everyone does not need access to whatever they want, as many as they want". We do have writings that, and we circle back to the "written in stone, shining on Hill, Holy Document" vs. "needs to adapt to the times" argument (note, most of the writers were clear that we should not worship the document and it SHOULD change with the times).

    While we are on the founders though? Many Conservatives live in a dream land if they think that the Founders would support the current thought process of "Just do whatever the police say for now. Not your place to ask for warrants or stop them if they dont present them! COMPLY NOW WITH ALL ORDERS SILENTLY! Complain at some later date with a formal complaint! But if found, in a sealed, confidential finding that there was no wrong doing?! Drop it and move on! They have a DANGEROUS JOB and need to be given some liberties in what they do!". I can say with complete CERTAINTY that I have met judges who the founders would drag out and HANG for how they run their courts like dictators. Skirting or ignoring law to direct cases the way the judge wants them to go (both tables now). The "So WHAT?! So the warrant came 6 hours later?! Why was it not allowed?! The police had PROOF! Why should they have to wait and maybe loose the PROOF!". This all goes back to some of the people who are really defending Trump and saying a lot of the Constitution needs to go because it "hinders" now their "heroes" the Police.

    On warrants. People really have no idea. The ORIGINALIST interpretation? Is the following. Warrant for anything in or on private property. I shit you not. Originally? It was strike the evidence to look in a window w/o one. "In plain sight"? Later court ruling. "Extenuating Circumstances"? Like (real or fake) "we went in because we thought someone was in danger and then........". Here is the REALITY of a warrant. If, as an ADA/AUSA? I got a warrant for a SHOTGUN used in a crime? They can ONLY SEARCH WHERE A SHOTGUN CAN BE. They cant start searching jacket pockets. Nighstand and end table drawers. Etc. If it is too small for the object to be in? Defense will get WHATEVER ILLEGAL ITEMS FOUND thrown the F out. Because you did NOT have permission to search there. That warrant amendment was written because under England we HAD TO JUST DO WHATEVER the Troops (police) said. BTW. "Just do whatever they order or what happens is your fault"? Is kind of the definition of "POLICE STATE", not "proper respect". Now, if it was "Police have RULES. If they follow them, obey. If they dont they will be FIRED IMMEDIATELY?" sure. But it seems to be "Comply now. File a complaint. Officer will likely be given a first Verbal Warning that will go away in a year unless he does it over and over. It stays secret because they have a "dangerous job and need special treatment".". How about Police just follow the actual law or are fired. Not "reprimanded internally, dont worry how, we swear it totally happened". I will use this example. Nassau County currently is dismissing many DUI cases. Why you ask? Because 50a was repealed and the NCPD is throwing a tantrum over it. There is ONE judge who sits on these cases. He simply said "Any officer who comes into my court, any officer name on a document? I need to see the discipline records to prove they do not have a history of falsifying records or testimony (Brady Lists, REAL THING, DAs offices even actively hide cops who do it so they CAN testify). The NCPD says "Well our CONTRACT supercedes the repeal of 50a so those are confidential. Therefore the officers will have to testify and documents and tests submitted without that. Sorry. Contract and policy!". The judge? "Nope. Law says I am entitled to that information. If I dont get it? I dont allow the officer/report/test. Without that? You have no case. Literal no case.". All because the NCPD cant grasp that LAW supercedes "Department Policy". For those not aware. 50a was a NYS law that said that Police Discipline was confidential. It was repealed 2 years ago and made public. NYPD is playing games by putting it out with names like "Officer John Smith was accused of Q17F3 and finding of 1Z19M7" without a key of what anything means. NCPD is playing "our contract and policy say we are immune".

    There is so much that the people who "invoke the founders" and "Originalism" get wrong in the end. Because they want "originalism" and at the same time "proper respect for people in uniform". Unfortunately under Originalism? There would be no organized Police or Military, therefore............ no "They wear a uniform, show them the respect DUE THAT!". Hell, most of the founders identified as Farmers who fought for freedom. Not "hero veterans who served in a warzone in uniform" anyway.

    In short? If the police are doing "nothing wrong"? Why is it such an imposition to have "a narrow set of rules" and "transparent discipline" rather than "confidential proceedings". If all of these "no wrong doing" findings are on the up and up? What is the need to keep the details hidden? Is it because they were more like the Grand Jury proceeding in the Taylor Case that came to light? Where the Prosecutor swore up and down that he charged manslaughter and murder and the GRAND JURY declined it. Until 2 member sued and petitioned the judge to unseal they charges presented and finding votes (not juror names, witness names, etc) since the DA was PUBLICLY lying about it. And when the judge did? It came out all the DA actually charged was reckless endangerment for the shots that hit the shared wall with another apartment. But the DA figured "I can say whatever I want. They will never know! It is SEALED!". Cast a bad light on every police case where a GJ "supposedly declined charges". What was really charged and what was not.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2022
    Dane likes this.
  5. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    If you encounter a burglar in your home, you have as little as 15 seconds to get to a phone, call the police, and wait for them to show up (an average of 14 minutes). Of course your 15 seconds are up. It would take far longer than 15 seconds to make the call, so most likely the call will not be made. If the burglar decided to run, you are safe. If he decided to stay, even if nobody has a gun, you have a 6 out of 10 chance of being severely injured or dead, along with anyone else in your home. So are you stronger than the burglar, are you faster than the burglar, are you willing to use force to defend your home, do you live in a Democrat run city that will put you in jail for defending your life.
     
    Dane likes this.
  6. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Will potentially be prosecuted for.

    Also. We are going there? OK. In many R states? "I felt threatened at that specific moment" is a valid excuse, whatever happened leading up to that moment, for discharging a firearm.
     
  7. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

     
    Dane likes this.
  8. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    Why were there people in the neighborhood, looting and pillaging, destroying property, assaulting people, and carrying guns. Unlike what you want, we don't hide in the dark, scurrying like mice.
     
  9. Lian

    Lian Friendly One

    But it was not HIS neighborhood. He just wanted to go there and be like a Wild West Sheriff.
    Result; he killed people
     
  10. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    It was where he worked. Do you live at your job.
     
  11. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

  12. Lian

    Lian Friendly One

    But this also mean that anyone not agreeing with his government can attempt a military coup and not respect democracy. It encourages military coup, more than anything
     
  13. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    Yes it does! And our fucking Politicians have better never forget that!
     
  14. Lian

    Lian Friendly One

    But that is stupid. How can democracy work if the minority can do that against the people's will?
     
  15. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    What makes you think a small minority of militia personell could overthrow the government?

    That is the same silly mindset that the Democrats scream that the riot at the Capitol was an attempted "coup".

    Yeah, like those idiots that broke , or were allowed, to enter the Capitol building knew how to organize a coup.
    Fuck, they couldn't organize a spelling bee if they had to.
     
  16. Lian

    Lian Friendly One

    Look at all military coup in the world. It starts with a small group, that takes power, and that others end up saying "Oh, why not, they can't be that bad?"
     
  17. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    Thae "small" group, as you state, is usually a good portion of the military.

    Our militia groups in existence today do not have the backing of any but a few ex-military personnell.

    And those coups you talk about, are usually in countries not any bigger than one of our average states.
     
  18. Lian

    Lian Friendly One

    Russia. A civil war and military coup put the Communists, the Red, in power.
    And Russia is WAY bigger than USA.
    The Ottoman Empire had a lot of military coup, and it was WAY bigger than USA.
    So no, it is not just in small countries.
     
  19. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    The coup in Russia had a "trial" coup in 1905. It did not succeed.

    When Lenin staged the 1917 coup, he had the entire Bolshivek Army behind him. The aristrocrats and their
    White Army were loosely organized and far smaller in size.
    That is why the Lenin revolt was near bloodless.

    The 1991 coup attemp did not succed.

    Again, a small number of revolters staging a coup 99% of the time are wiped off the face of the Earth.
     
  20. Lian

    Lian Friendly One

    Yes, many coup fail. But those that succeed, we hear of them. We have many dictatorships in the world because of that.
     
    Dane likes this.