Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Grand Jury does not indict Texas man

2

Replies

  • TeachTeach Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Dumb equals dead, no matter which side happens to die. If the cops I pay with my tax dollars want to talk to me, all they need to do is pick up the phone and make an appointment. I'll show up with my attorney brother who will make sure they dot the I's and cross the T's, and we will get to the bottom of whatever concerns them. If they abuse the trust the public places in them, he will happily sue them and their bosses into oblivion. If they force their way into my home, somebody's likely to die.
    Jerry
  • TeachTeach Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Here's a recent no knock at the wrong house that ended in the murder of a 61 y.o. man. Happened this week.

    Police admitted their mistake, saying faulty information from a drug informant contributed to the death of John Adams Wednesday night. They intended to raid the home next door

    Actually, Mike, that man was murdered about 8 or 9 years ago. It happened about 20 miles from where I went to high school. A rookie cop who participated in the raid repeatedly pointed out the address mistake before they broke in, and was told to shut up by the supervisor on scene. The city of Lebanon made the lady a very rich widow, but they couldn't get her husband paroled from the graveyard. I don't think any of the JBT's lost their jobs, or faced any disciplinary action whatsoever, but one of them had to move out of town in the interest of staying alive. The rumor was that the local citizens put his name on a hit list.
    Jerry
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    Another example as discussed here a few months ago, ex-marine with a P/Oed girlfriend tells cops he is growing pot. They no knock, he opens fire and kills one, goes to jail and hangs himself. Knock Knock, open up it's the police may very well have saved two lives.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Dumb equals dead, no matter which side happens to die. If the cops I pay with my tax dollars want to talk to me, all they need to do is pick up the phone and make an appointment. I'll show up with my attorney brother who will make sure they dot the I's and cross the T's, and we will get to the bottom of whatever concerns them. If they abuse the trust the public places in them, he will happily sue them and their bosses into oblivion. If they force their way into my home, somebody's likely to die.
    Jerry

    So they should call these drug dealers and just set up an appointment to turn themselves in?

    You are law abiding. They are not. Of course you will cooperate with counsel present--as you should. But, ya know, some people just don't abide by the law...
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Actually, Mike, that man was murdered about 8 or 9 years ago. It happened about 20 miles from where I went to high school. A rookie cop who participated in the raid repeatedly pointed out the address mistake before they broke in, and was told to shut up by the supervisor on scene. The city of Lebanon made the lady a very rich widow, but they couldn't get her husband paroled from the graveyard. I don't think any of the JBT's lost their jobs, or faced any disciplinary action whatsoever, but one of them had to move out of town in the interest of staying alive. The rumor was that the local citizens put his name on a hit list.
    Jerry

    That sounds like s totally different animal than just a mistaken address.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Give me more than one example to validate "too many times".

    Google is your friend....there's hundreds of pages.

    https://www.google.com/#q=wrong+house+no+knock+

    And:

    http://www.cato.org/raidmap

    You haven't answered my question...
    So, what does a lying CI get charged with after a cop is killed based on his lies?

    What happens to the lying CI when an innocent citizen's home is breached when a CI lies?

    If you are an honest man, you will admit that people are raided because their electric bill is too high, or they bought grow lights, or they had acetone in the garage. Once again, it is only a google search away.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • TeachTeach Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    That sounds like s totally different animal than just a mistaken address.

    The crack house was either across the street, or on the same side with a vacant lot in between, don't recall which. The citizen who died had apparently been threatened by some of the scum who hung out there, so he had plenty of reason to be concerned for his safety. The botched raid and the subsequent coverup made the local news for several weeks. After the case was thoroughly whitewashed by the local government, one of the cops who did the shooting took some long-range rifle rounds through his cruiser on 2 or 3 occasions, but always at enough of a distance from the driver's seat to be interpreted as a warning, not a deadly attack. He decided to find another line of work in a different town.
    Jerry
  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Posts: 6,083 Senior Member
    What do you know, even a cop can be taught.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    That sounds like s totally different animal than just a mistaken address.

    Was it a mistaken address when LEO's violated the Forth, on camera mind you, entered the home of an 80 year old woman without warrant tackling and breaking her arm during Katrina? How about Kelly Thomas? Granted he was homeless and mentally ill but he was of no threat and detained after he was wrongly accused of breaking into cars. Once detained he then had his head and face literally crushed in by two corrupt cops of the Fullerton PD. These two sadistic gestapo thugs were just aquitted last month by a corrupt jury even though the entire event was caught on camera. Did you ever see the postmortem pictures of Kelly Thomas? My god when is enough enough? Many police officers have become nothing more than part of a corrupt sadistic paramilitary organization and I no longer trust them. A guy I work with was a officer for 12 years and has many times stated that "we have no idea" when asked about how rampant the corruption is within many PD's. There are of course good cops and PD's around the country that respect law but the bad will always stain the good. Many PD's no longer act on constitutional law. That went out years ago. Today, many are mere pawns of a corrupt political system and will gladly act on any order without question no matter how un-constitutional. (recent NYC gun laws are a perfect example).

    Btw, question for you since you're a police officer.

    Let's say I live in your jurisdiction. I am a citizen with a clean record except for the fact I have repeatedly refused to surrender a firearm that your state has recently deemed illegal for the mere fact it uses a detachable magazine. I have repeatedly stated that this law is un-constitutional. A warrant has been issued for my arrest. You have been assigned to make the arrest. Would you obey? Yes or no?
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Let's say I live in your jurisdiction. I am a citizen with a clean record except for the fact I have repeatedly refused to surrender a firearm that your state has recently deemed illegal for the mere fact it uses a detachable magazine. I have repeatedly stated that this law is un-constitutional. A warrant has been issued for my arrest. You have been assigned to make the arrest. Would you obey? Yes or no?

    I have asked this question of other cops, both here and in person. They all said the same thing. They would arrest me and then I can have my day in court. The law is the law. Cops do not decide constitutionality. That is for the courts.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • EliEli Posts: 3,074 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    The law is the law. Cops do not decide constitutionality. That is for the courts.

    And that, is definitely the biggest (only, really) problem that I have with a lot of police officers. There's often a difference between doing something wrong and doing something illegal. If I'm not doing anything wrong, leave me the %#(& alone.
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    "And that, is definitely the biggest (only, really) problem that I have with a lot of police officers. There's often a difference between doing something wrong and doing something illegal. If I'm not doing anything wrong, leave me the %#(& alone."

    And I bet most of time, the cop will say you are doing wrong if he chose to engage you about it. That is WHY there are laws, so we don't make the cops judges and juries as well. If you are breaking the law, you are in the wrong and it's the cops job to enforce that law. A doctor would not leave a couple cancer cells after removing an organ just because he knew the chemo would kill them, right or wrong. A cop should enforce the law equally, as it is written, no more or no less There are very few victimless crimes, most at least have the potential for a vitcim to exist. You can disagree with a law but until it's changed, you break it you are wrong.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • EliEli Posts: 3,074 Senior Member
    Sorry, but "just following orders" doesn't work for me.

    I fully understand that I'm in the minority, I fully understand the potential consequences involved with my particular outlook, I fully understand that IF I ever did anything illegal and ended up dead as a result the headline would definitely read "criminal". My comprehension of the situation isn't impaired, my give-a-damn however, has been malfunctioning as of late.
  • BufordBuford Posts: 6,724 Senior Member
    Or TX could just legalize pot like CO and WA and we wouldn't be spending so many tax dollars getting people killed...

    They need the funding from the war on drugs to survive.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    BAMAAK wrote: »
    A cop should enforce the law equally, as it is written, no more or no less There are very few victimless crimes, most at least have the potential for a vitcim to exist. You can disagree with a law but until it's changed, you break it you are wrong.

    In Virginia, consensual sex out of wedlock is a crime. I'm curious how often police officers enforce this little gem. I'm guessing never.

    My point: there are many things that are illegal but they are not wrong, nor do they have victims.


    18.2-344. Fornication.

    Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have
    sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty
    of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

    (Code 1950, �� 18.1-188, 18.1-190; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc.
    14, 15.)
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    In Virginia, consensual sex out of wedlock is a crime. I'm curious how often police officers enforce this little gem. I'm guessing never.

    My point: there are many things that are illegal but they are not wrong, nor do they have victims.

    They must have been wrong in enough someones eyes at one time to make it a law. Yea I get there are tons of laws not enforced, technically they could be, although public outrage may eventually prevail. But I disagree about victims, usually an argument can be made about a victim somewhere, or least a potential one for most actual crimes, ones that are enforced, not old ones they just more or less ignore. If you drive drunk, make it home without issues, sure there are no victims but you still broke the law and should be punished and the potential is pretty great there could be victims so we don't allow drunk drivers. I guess potential is they key word for victimless crimes. Maybe you didn't hurt anyone this time but you need punished so maybe there won't be a next time.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • BufordBuford Posts: 6,724 Senior Member
    Government, Federal, State, Local it's out of control and I see no way of reigning it back in. LAPD is and responds like a paramilitary unit.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    BAMAAK wrote: »
    They must have been wrong in enough someones eyes at one time to make it a law. Yea I get there are tons of laws not enforced, technically they could be, although public outrage may eventually prevail. But I disagree about victims, usually an argument can be made about a victim somewhere, or least a potential one for most actual crimes, ones that are enforced, not old ones they just more or less ignore. If you drive drunk, make it home without issues, sure there are no victims but you still broke the law and should be punished and the potential is pretty great there could be victims so we don't allow drunk drivers. I guess potential is they key word for victimless crimes. Maybe you didn't hurt anyone this time but you need punished so maybe there won't be a next time.

    Using the term "potential victim" to justify some law is a terrible policy. Think about how that could affect gun ownership, fast cars, or any other activity that some nanny dislikes. For the record, I do agree with the drunk driving example.

    That said, I still don't see how an adult getting high in his living room has any potential victims. No different than getting drunk at home. Except, one is illegal, the other is not.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • horselipshorselips Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    There is no such thing as a victimless crime. The victim might not always be another person, but the legal concept of "lese majeste" is always applicable. The breaking of any law is an insult to the dignity of the law itself, and to the state, and to the people as a whole.
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    The law is the law. Cops do not decide constitutionality. That is for the courts.

    Nonsense. Now you're simply being decisive and arguing for the sake of arguing. Police officers are first and foremost obligated to follow the constitution as dictated by our Tenets. Following an un-constitutional order, such as orders to confiscate all firearms or bust down your door without warrant at the whim of a corrupt or power hungry politician or the claims of an informant is inherently dangerous ground. Don't even begin to be coy with the utterly ridiculous statement stating "the law is the law". If that were the case, then this would give government free reign to suspend the constitution and declare martial law. Furthermore, are you really going to trust a leftist judge to interpret the 2nd? ...the 4th? and so on? "BREAKING NEWS: THE U.S SUPREME COURT MADE A HISTORIC RULING TODAY DECLARING THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS. ...CaliFFL's response- "well, the law is the law".
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Posts: 14,103 Senior Member
    Methinks you didn't understand what Cali said. Because if you got that from his post and past posts here, well....
    Meh.
  • EliEli Posts: 3,074 Senior Member
    Methinks you didn't understand what Cali said. Because if you got that from his post and past posts here, well....


    :that:
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Using the term "potential victim" to justify some law is a terrible policy. Think about how that could affect gun ownership, fast cars, or any other activity that some nanny dislikes. For the record, I do agree with the drunk driving example.

    That said, I still don't see how an adult getting high in his living room has any potential victims. No different than getting drunk at home. Except, one is illegal, the other is not.

    Owning a gun or a fast car is not a crime. Using them in certain ways is, just like using alcohol in a certain way (to excess). I'm talking about potential in the commission of a crime. Some laws work to prevent people, or more people, from becoming victims. I'm really just playing devils advocate here. I have no love of Gov't or police abuse or laws in general but they are, to some extent, needed

    Also, not that I agree with the pot laws but currently it supports people like the Mexican drug cartels. Granted, if it were legal, that would go away but unless you buy US grown weed, you are supporting some bad people somewhere.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    ...CaliFFL's response- "well, the law is the law".

    As stated by others, that statement was a quote from LEOs I've asked over the years. If you want to attack someone for defending all laws, please see horselips' post above yours. He believes the State can be a victim, and even mentioned lese majeste. I'm more about jury nullification as a means to express my disdain for victimless crimes and immoral laws.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    BAMAAK wrote: »
    Also, not that I agree with the pot laws but currently it supports people like the Mexican drug cartels. Granted, if it were legal, that would go away but unless you buy US grown weed, you are supporting some bad people somewhere.

    If pot where completely legal, I wouldn't be buying it.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    If pot where completely legal, I wouldn't be buying it.
    Me either but I would be growing it
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Posts: 6,637 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    So they should call these drug dealers and just set up an appointment to turn themselves in?

    You are law abiding. They are not. Of course you will cooperate with counsel present--as you should. But, ya know, some people just don't abide by the law...



    See, that's the problem...since there really is no way to tell who the law abiders are and who the law breakers are (funny how we all tend to look like ...people) and since the police want to be fair and treat everybody the same, we end up with everybody being treated like a law breaker. Oh, and hearing things like: "You've got nothing to be afraid of if you're not breaking the law". You asked Cali for more than one example of a no-knock gone wrong. Over the years, we have had many postings of such occurrences. That said, let me ask you this: How many is too many? I'm sure the percentage of innocents targeted, whether mistakenly (wrong address), or wrongly (false info, lying informant) is very small, but how many mistaken no-knocks are okay? At what level of possibly fatal incompetence do we say 'good enough', presumably followed with "Gosh, we're sorry your loved one is dead...here, have some money"? When a 'civilian' does what our police forces do-no matter the reason-it's called home invasion and carries a felony charge. When the police do it-even when based on heresy from a shady source-it's called 'justice' and often gets the shooter paid time off.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    Barryd wrote: »
    So whats to prevent an actual armed intruder from breaking in and yelling "POLICE"?
    That would be impersonating a Law Enforcement Officer!!! That's illegal!!!
  • BuffcoBuffco Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    Nonsense. Now you're simply being decisive and arguing for the sake of arguing.

    So, cops DO decide constitutionality?
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I have asked this question of other cops, both here and in person. They all said the same thing. They would arrest me and then I can have my day in court. The law is the law. Cops do not decide constitutionality. That is for the courts.
    Isn't The Constitution of the United States of America the supreme law? Of course LEOs enforce Municipal, County, and State laws that are in violation of the Constitution. My state (Oregon) by it's Constitution allows open carry including a loaded and accessible firearm inside a motor vehicle if it is plainly visible. The State Constitution prohibits Municipalities and Counties from pre-empting the State Constitution. There are at least five Municipalities that prohibit open carry including my little city of 9,000 souls. They all allow a loaded firearm to be carried in a vehicle if it is locked in a compartment which violates State open carry laws. It can also be open carried in the vehicle if the driver or passenger(s) have a concealed carry permit which violates the State concealed carry laws (concealed carry requires the firearm be concealed). Why do these Municipalities feel the need to pre-empt the State Constitution? I don't know. Why does the State allow them to pre-empt the State Constitution? There is no provision in the State Constitution to punish Municipalities or Counties that are illegally pre-empting the State Constitution. My head is really hurting now.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement